The Majority Report with Sam Seder - 3537 - FEMA's Texas Flood Failure; SCOTUS OKs Trump's Mass Layoffs w/ Wesley Cheek, Chris Geidner

Episode Date: July 14, 2025

It's Monday, and we've got two great guests lined up. But first, we watch Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) recount his gut-wrenching visit to what he calls the "Alligator Auschwitz." Then we’re joined by Wesley Cheek, assistant professor at Massachusetts Maritime Academy, to discuss the deep-rooted corruption and dysfunction within FEMA. Later, Chris Geidner of Law Dork returns to break down the latest Supreme Court rulings—and the nine-mile stare worn by everyone seriously covering this administration. In the Fun Half We kick things off with possibly the least fun person alive, Tom Homan, as he backpedals on what qualifies as "reasonable suspicion. In Hakeem Jeffries' interview with Punchbowl News, he appears to spread the false claim that Zohran Mamdani called to "Globalize the Intifada." We revisit the Bulwark episode where the smear originated—and confirm Mamdani never said any such thing. Also, so what if he did? All that, plus your IMs and a whole lot more. 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 NUTRAFOL: Get $10 off your first month’s subscription + free shipping at Nutrafol.com when you use promo code TMR10 SUNSET LAKE: Use coupon code “Left Is Best” (all one word) for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com 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 with Sam Cedar. To support the show and get another 15 minutes of daily program, go to Majority.fm. Please. The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Monday. July 14th, 2025. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five-time award-winning majority report.

We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA. On the program today, Wesley Cheek, sociologist, assistant professor at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy on the disaster that is FEMA. Also on the program today, Chris Geithner, award-winning journalist, publisher of the Law Door Door, substack, on where we stand on some of the biggest rulings inhibiting the Trump administration. Also on the program today, Maga boils over the Epstein Files Betrayal. It's Bongino versus Bondi

in a despicable cage match. Meanwhile, two-thirds of the Department of Justice unit tasked with defending Trump's policies in court have quit. Trump signals major weapon surge to Ukraine. And Trump also announces a 30% import tax on the EU and Mexico. Again, farm worker died in the wake of that ice cannabis farm raid. Pam Bondi fired her personal ethics chief. Oh, symbolic.

And actually material. I might hire them. Former Israeli Prime Minister blast Israel's plans for the Ghazan ghetto as a rerun of concentration camps. This as Israel kills 40 Palestinians overnight. in Gaza, Andrew Cuomo, to confirm an independent run as billionaires burn their money. Senate vote on public media grants has to happen this week. If it does, it will be a foreshadowing of a much larger possible rescission bill. All this and more on today's majority report. Ladies and gentlemen, it is

Fun Day, Monday. Fun day, Monday. Thanks for being with us, the beginning of what promises to be a fun week. Okay. All right. Yeah, I'm not making such promises.

Jeffrey, that was seen. The That part's fun. That part is fun, actually. by the end of the week the rescission there is a time stamp on the end of the week of the Senate to vote there is a provision in the anti-recision law from 1974 where the president can rescind funds that have been earmarked by Congress with a 45-day notice in which Congress has to take up a bill. Once the president gives them that notice, that 45 days is running out at the end of this week, which is why you're hearing a lot more talk about this.

The first bill to be tested is one which would take a couple million dollars away, excuse me, billion dollars away from public broadcasting in the country. and then billions more across a couple of programs. But we will track that. I imagine we're going to hear more about it in the next day or two as the Senate returns home from the weekend, I guess. And of course, we will get to the latest in the Maga Saga of Jeffrey Epstein. who apparently was a financier and uh this guy's been talked about for years the people have been talking about him for years and uh damn bonjino supposedly rumored that he would fire a go quit

this weekend um it is uh regardless of what you think of the epstein controversy or conspiracy theories it's pretty funny to watch them all get upset about now i think if you You think that this is going to fundamentally sever the relationship between Donald Trump and his fan base, I don't know, 35% of the country, who really wouldn't care if he shot somebody on Fifth Avenue. I think you need your head examined. But it is a distraction. And again, this administration's engaged in so much destructive stuff. Anything that is a distraction, really anything has a material benefit to people. Yeah.

But it is just from our perspective fun to let the bozos that Trump put in charge kind of tear each other apart to because Trump is forcing, really it's like the trio of Cash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Pam Bondi to all take the heat for the cover up that he ordered. And now he's just pitting them against one another. it's just weird Trump not the most loyal guy there's been some track record of this and perhaps I don't know the people that just got hired could have checked in on that prior to this it's nice to see him

blow his propaganda assets credibility so mercilessly early in the administration I mean the best case scenario for this would be Pam Bondi losing her job and so if there's anything we can do to help that

that we will that's a good project to work on and at the end of the day I'm not terribly exercised about a guy who's now dead and his co-conspirator who is in jail although I believe she has an arraignment or something there's some case that involving here and I'll look into this more that is happening there's a filing due by Bondi I think today in that Jislane Maxwell case so I guess we will check on that but in the meantime increasingly we're hearing more reports out of Florida on this alligator alcatraz the Miami Herald has been doing some some great work on this and I recommend their reporting it is a just a This is just a, this is a concentration camp, and it is, I mean, in dismal, dismal shape. According to the Miami Herald, hundreds at Alligator Alcatraz have no criminal charges. This is supposedly a detention facility that both Florida,

Florida state and federal officials have characterized as the place where, quote, vicious and deranged psychopaths are sent before they get deported. There are 250 people there who have only immigration violations but no criminal convictions or pending charges in the U.S. The data is based on a list of more than 700 people who are being held under tents and in chain-linked cells at Florida's pop-up detention center in the Everglades or appear slated for transfer there. Hundreds of them have only pending charges.

The records don't disclose the nature of those alleged allegations. So this is just, I mean, it's a horror show. And fortunately, three Democratic congressional members visited, including Representative Maxwell Frost. Here is his description after coming out of that facility. They opened the door. There was about six security guards standing there, kind of pushing us back, but we could see in and we could hear everybody.

And when those doors opened, you know, what I saw made my heart. I saw 32 people per cage, about six cages in the one tent. I saw a lot of people, young men who looked like me and people who were my age, people were yelling, help me, help me. I heard in the back someone say, I'm a U.S. citizen. And as we were walking away, they started chanting, leave it that, leave it that freedom. And in looking into these cages, you could see,

of course it was warm and hot within the tent people were sweating people some people had taken off their their they're the top of their clothing because it was just so hot some of them were drenched and sweat the food we saw is not enough food they're being fed essentially a small sandwich and a bag of chips and not just that but the conditions outside of course it's blazing hot and the fact that in the cage comes from the toilet number one not everyone's going to be able to drink as much water as they'd like to because of that inconvenience but also it's gross and it's disgusting and this is where people are being held you couldn't hear that last part this was open the door there was about six and this was a zoom call he did with the press after he debby wasterman

shultz and i think another democrat whose name escapes me right now was there You couldn't hear that part, but he was describing how the drinking water comes from the toilet, and he'd said that on other shows before. So they didn't really want to show him, according to his other accounts, the full facilities, including the medical facility, where he suspects some of the patients who are in worse shape are kind of sectioned off, and that's how sometimes some of these detention facilities function. but the they gave ice and the and or maybe it's not even ice i think this is run by a third party it's run by the state supposedly right so they they gave them advance notice for days

and frost and debby washerman shultz were saying well this was the best case scenario because they had all this opportunity to prepare for us to come and we're seeing now uh nadia velasquez I think in New York City is showing up unannounced to an ice facility but right now as at least as of an hour ago because

if that's the best it looks I mean we're talking a torture chamber and a concentration camp and we're hearing accounts that they're borrowing tactics from the concentration camp Seacot in El Salvador

including keeping the blaring fluorescent lights on 24 hours a day and housing dozens of people in small cages altogether. But you also see that they're placing it in the Everglades purposefully because the heat is so torturous that, I mean, it's a matter of time, it seems like, before someone dies in these conditions. People have died in ICE detention, I think, half of whom, and maybe like a dozen or so, reportedly, and half of whom in Florida. And Thomas Kennedy, who a great reporter based in Florida tweeted out this just to kind of show how this is working. Texas-based company gave $10,000 to Florida's Republican Party days before getting

state contracts to help with transportation at a state-run detention facility for migrants and Everettgrades. And Kennedy has also pointed out a lot of these trucking companies will duct tape over their company's logo as they're helping to set this stuff up. You're not proud about this? Yeah. should also just a reminder um in that raid on that uh farm up in california one person died um he was trying to escape i think it was a 57 year old uh man who's been in the country for about

i think it was 20 years had been working at that farm for 10 years had been working at the farm for 10 and um was no danger to anybody i mean fell broke his neck in the panic he was sending money working and sending money to his daughter and wife who were still in Mexico and according to

another relative he was the sole income for that for his daughter and wife so these are the dangerous criminals that the Trump administration wants you to demonize here um later we're going to be

talking to Chris Geithner about among other things, the ruling in California, that for the time being, made Tom Homan redefine the definition of reasonable suspicion that he'd been operating under, which is a good thing. But first, we're going to hear from Wesley Cheek, a sociologist and assistant professor at Massachusetts Maritime Academy, on FEMA and the disaster response,

and preparation in Texas. But before we do, a couple of words from our sponsors, I have been on a like a hair health regiment now for, I don't know, a year and a half. And it's working. It is, we have the neutral fall around the office. I've told the story a million times why. And for a long time, I didn't think I needed it.

And then I started to take it. I started to see some results. I got a new subscription. And then they came back and wanted to, I don't think they knew that I had done that, but wanted to sponsor the program. I was like, absolutely. Nutrafol, number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand. It is trusted by over one and a half million people, see thicker, stronger, faster growing hair with less shedding. in just three to six months with neutrophal.

You know, you see the growth a little bit, but it's the shedding that I really notice, much less shedding. Thinning hair, of course, is different for men and women. One size fits all approach to hair growth doesn't cut it. Nutrafall has multiple formulas for men and women that are tailored to different lifestyle stages, such as postpartum or menopause,

and lifestyle factors such as plant-based lifestyle, so you can get just what you need. Plus, users of NutraFal men reported no impact to sexual performance. I also reported none. While supplements rely on ingredient studies, Neutrophal clinically test its final formulations. So how the ingredients interact with each other, they use advanced hair measurement tools like hair counts and pull tests

to track real improvements in growth, quality, shedding, and texture. And it's not just backed by studies. The research is published in peer-reviewed journals and vetted by doctors, ensuring scientific rigor and reliable results. Building a hair growth routine is easy. Order online. You don't need a prescription. Enjoy free shipping, automated deliveries, and up to 20% savings with a Nutrafall subscription.

Plus, get free naturopathic doctor consults and a Headspace meditation membership. Start your hair growth journey with Nutrafall for a lot. limited time NutraFAL offering, our listen is 10 bucks off, your first month subscription and free shipping. When you go to NutraFall.com, enter the promo code TMR 10. That's the letters TMR, the number 10, all no spaces, I guess, one word. Find out why Neutafal is the best selling hair growth supplement brand at NutraFOL.com, spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com promo code TMR-10. That's NutraFol.com, promo code. TMR 10 also sponsoring the program today are buddies over at sunsetlake sabaday.com

That's right and they got a special announcement they have brought back two of their most popular topical products talking about the solves and they are now in the form of like a stick, sort of like a, you know, like an antipersman stick. So there's no more dip in your fingers in there and getting your fingers messy.

You can rub it right on. These farmers know a thing or two about sore muscles, and these sticks are packed with powerful relief. Sunset Lake took their classic CBD solved with Arnica and extra strength muscle rub with lydicane. And they put them in twist-up mess-free sticks. so there's like I say no more dipping your fingers in there I use the Arnica

for an off label usage I use it for my eczema because it soothes it and then it seems to help it I'm not saying it's going to work for you for that but and the X strength

muscle rub has been a big hit around my house because my son complains about neck pain he puts it on there and he likes it I don't know plus they doubled their sabid a per ounce in both formulas

that means more relief and longer lasting effects all for the same price you are used to again that Arnica stuff has been a go-to for me particularly in the summer

because I always get my eczema in the summer for whatever reason these sticks are awesome check them out and here's the upshot you can try these new sticks with 25% off with the code new sticks new sticks that's new sticks all one word sale ends july 20th at midnight so you got this week head over to sunset lake sabadet dot com use the code new sticks to treat your aches and pains to some much deserved relief check out their site for terms

and conditions. Quick break, and we'll head into, oh, we'll be talking to Wesley Cheek, sociologist and assistant professor at Massachusetts Maritime Academy. We'll be right back. Thank you. You know, and Yeah, and Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

You know, I'm going to be able to be. And so. Yeah. We are back, Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland, on the majority report. It is a pleasure to welcome, really back to the program. West Cheek, he is a sociologist, assistant professor at Massachusetts Maritime Academy, and longtime listeners might know that this show, this iteration of the majority report, early on featured reports out of Japan

in the wake of the Fukushima disaster from Wes. Welcome back to the program. Thanks so much. Yeah, just briefly on that. Like, my career started on this show like 14 years ago when I texted Sam and was like, Sam, I listened to your show in Japan. I'm about to drive into a tsunami. Is that cool with you? He was kind of like, well, maybe a little bit. And then I ended up, yeah, the last 14 years working on disasters. So I guess, yeah, I was a majority reporter back then.

No, I have referenced you multiple times in my understanding of disasters. Oh, great. You just give me your, you know, like what is involved in the study of disasters and what that sort of precept is about so-called natural disasters? That's a good question. I like that question. So, yeah, so the study of disasters, it seems like we forget about this every time a new disaster happens. But people have been studying disasters for almost like 70 years now, especially in the realm of sociology and geography, right? So we know and understand that disasters aren't like weather events or even climate events.

They're complex sociological phenomenon, right? And they are socially constructed in the same way a lot of our society is. So we construct what we call social vulnerabilities, which are then impacted by hazards, hazards being things like, you know, hurricanes, floods, volcanoes, whatever. But it doesn't happen in a way that's just completely natural, right? It's not like everyone's affected the same by a disaster, right? It affects people who are socially vulnerable more. And that doesn't mean it only affects socially vulnerable people. But like, you know, poverty is like the number one predictor of being affected adversely by a disaster.

You know, there's a whole gender component. There's racial components. There are sexuality components, right? If you are more likely to get kicked out of your house, you're less likely to have a place to shelter. So also this idea of natural disasters is something that is used a lot by politicians and by insurance companies and a lot of other bad actors to kind of write off everything that we construct as a society and say, well, you know, what could you do? Like, you know, Trump's been doing this week in Texas. Well, who could have done anything about a flood? who how do we know that a flood would happen these are just things that happen so that's been kind of uh there's been a very good especially if you're on the left a lot of great leftist academic writing including you know mike davis david harvey even going back like kupakken writing on like mutual aid right lining up for us like why this stuff is not just naturally it's a sociological phenomenon does that get you to where we're going yeah exactly and i and i think and there certainly um there are elements of

you know, the expansion of that camp in Curry County or the potential for funding that was given from the Biden administration of Kerr County and the way they deployed it. And then just even the, you know, you had some official there saying, well, the taxpayers didn't want to pay for a warning system. This is all socially constructed. That leads to a disaster. But I want to talk to you first about FEMA like there's been a lot said let's let's just first actually let's play this

this clip this is number four Christy Nome on Meet the Press reporting to news about thousands of unanswered calls right

I do want to talk big picture in just a moment but the New York Times is reporting that thousands of calls from flood victims to FEMA call centers went unanswered in the middle of this ongoing disaster because you didn't renew contracts to keep call center staff in place until nearly one week after the floods. Why did it take so long to extend those contracts? It's just false. Those contracts were in place. Nobody, no employees were off of work. Every one of them was answering calls. So false reporting, fake news, and it's discouraging. It's discouraging that during this time when we have such a loss of life and so many

people's lives have turned upside down, that people are playing politics with this because the response time was immediate. And if you talk to anyone in Texas that was there, that was a part of this operation, they would say the federal government and President Trump immediately responded. Just to be very clear, on July 7th, 15.9% of calls were answered. I mean, does that concern you that only 15% of calls were answered? These are people in a desperate state. FEMA often the first call that they make. Only 15% were answered on July. seven several days after the floods these contracts were in place and those people were in those call centers and they were picking up the phone and answering uh these calls from these individuals so

that report needs to be validity i'm not certain it's accurate and i'm not sure where it came from and the individuals who are giving you information out of fema i'd love to have them put their names behind it because the anonymous attacks i guess she would okay i bet she'd want to know who's leaking that information uh exactly 15 percent percent of all calls coming into FEMA. That is, I mean, it's ridiculous. I don't know how you get worse than that. So give me your sense. I mean, you obviously have a lot of relationships in and around FEMA. What, what, give me your sense of like what's going on there. Yeah. And I should say like, you know, I worked internationally most of my career. So like I'm, I'm relearning the FEMA system as I've

moved back to the U.S. as well. But like what's going on at FEMA right now should be a gigantic scandal. And it's one of these things under Trump that's so frustrating, I think, for many people, where it's all this stuff that would normally be a huge scandal. It's just kind of like, well, I don't know. I guess they just don't do this anymore, right? So let me run it down really quickly. We have someone who is the administrator of FEMA right now, who has not gone through congressional approval. He's just kind of been put up there. And I think he's temporary. And my assumption is he's temporary until they decide to phase out FEMA or whatever, right? who's David Richardson, zero experience in emergency management. None. He was in the Marine Corps. He, like, led their artillery school for a while. And then he was in DHS in their, in their, like, weapons of mass destruction division, right? Zero experience at emergency management. And I'm just going to say it's at the outset, one of the, we're at the 20th anniversary of Katrina, right? I was just in New Orleans for four weeks before coming up to Asheville as I'm making my disaster rounds. You know, and one of the main things we took away from Katrina,

was we need people who know how to do this stuff. You can't put Mike Brown in charge of FEMA, right? This is what you get. But we're back to where we started, if not worse. We have David Richardson knows nothing about emergency management, right? Okay, because all of this is going on at FEMA, people have been leaving FEMA, career professionals who do know what they're doing. So currently, and I can't speak personally to why these people left FEMA or not, but make

of it what you will. Region 6 and 4, which is the U.S. Gulf Coast, Texas, Florida, Alabama, Alabama, Mississippi, region six and four currently did not have regional administrators, right? You can go on the FEMA website. Nobody's home. Nobody's run in the office, right? I think last time I looked, they don't have the assistant administrators either, at least one of them. Don't. So there is a FEMA sort of director, no clue what he's doing, shows up in Texas a week late wearing like a boater hat, tight blue jeans, and like a medallion and a button down shirt. Very strange.

you also have you know no one's at these regions right there's some career professionals there but no one's leading them so you don't have the leadership there and you have regions like region one which is new england which you have Doucette who's a conspiracy theory so there's tweets conspiracy junk all day instead of leading this so what you're seeing i think at FEMA is what you're seeing across the federal government which is just a complete like ridiculing of the idea of public service ridiculing the idea of expertise forcing people kind of out of it by making it uh miserable job, putting in incompetent people, and then somehow just saying, oh, well, you know, I guess it'll work out. One other thing about David Richardson quickly. I don't know if you guys covered it or not, but did anyone cover like his bonkers addresses he gave to FEMA that were leaked? Is this the one about hurricane season? Well, there's that one where he said he didn't know there was hurricane season and the answer was, well, he's joking, which either way, to don't be the head of FEMA, right? Oh, you're joking about hurricane season. Well, on the, Gulf Coast, we take that. That's great. Nice joke. Or you don't know about it, which I think

is probably true. No, no, he gave these speeches where it was rambling absurdity. I read it out loud to one of my classes and they were kind of thought I was joking. Like, no, this is an actual talk where he's like, you know, don't stand in my way. Some people want to get in my way, but don't stand in my way. And then this diatribe about Texas saying, I've got a red-headed girlfriend in Texas, and she had to explain to me that Texas was as big as Spain. And that's why it's hard to do work there. And I didn't realize Texas was as big as Spain. So you have this guy who's kind of a bonkers character with no emergency management experience who's just there at FEMA. And I would assume what's happening now is they're putting Christy Gnome, who's DHS at the head and just a brief

primer for everybody who wasn't around. Before 9-11, right, FEMA was a thing. It had kind of an honorary cabinet position where it could speak directly with the president, right? And this was kind of, you know, I'm very critical of Bill Clinton, but one thing he was very good at was we need to have FEMA here. James Lee Witt was his head of FEMA. We need to do this because the lesson back then was you can't fail at disaster management. It will ruin your political career and your political career. So FEMA was that way for a while. 9-11 happens.

They put FEMA in this new thing, DHS, whereas in there with like, you know, ice. It's in there with, you know, border patrol. It's in there with all at the Coastart, which is okay. But it's in there with all these things that just don't make any sense. for FEMA to be with. And now you have Christy Gnome at DHS, who seems like she's just running FEMA now, who as a governor in South Dakota was not particularly

good at emergency management. And pretty controversial that I think she wasn't even allowed on tribal land for a while, which is a problem if you're working in emergency management. And so now she seems to be the head, but she's just using it to do this, you know, immigration

fascism stuff, right? Well, she's redirecting FEMA funds to things like like the alligator alcatraz and the detention concentration camps, those facilities in Florida, there's hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts that seem to be getting okayed, including like a grant for the Florida Division of Emergency Management. Dropsite reported this for over $600 million, which isn't just going to be for that one detention facility. It'll be spread more broadly.

But contrast that with what the New York Times reported last week, which is that she implemented a policy where contracts of over $100,000 would require her personal sign-off and she didn't renew contracts that would have helped mitigate some of the worst of the flooding damage until five days after they'd already expired because this policy basically is a catch

for any contract, any grant. Because if you could just give people a sense of how infinitesimally small, a contract of $100,000 would be within the grand scope of FEMA's responsibilities. Yeah, there's like three or four things that come up with what you just said. One thing is just a pedantic thing. I don't think it's that big a deal anymore. A lot of people said the money was from FEMA that goes to the concentration camp in the Everglades.

It was DHS money that was designated for immigrants that got run through a FEMA grant program. So that one didn't really subtract to FEMA, but it seems like now FEMA money is going to start maybe going there. It's a pedantic point. But yeah, $100,000, right? And so any grant or contract she has to sign off on, but like for the urban search and rescue teams, right? Like USAR teams, we use these emergency management abbreviations to sound cool now. They can't even, I mean, they can't even have like lunch for $100,000, right? Once you like crank up one of these teams, you're, I can't remember the exact number now,

but you're in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to get them like on the airplane out there, right? So if you're saying we're going to put in this, well, Christy Noam's got to say okay to it. It's one of those ridiculous things that's across the government. We're like, we're being more efficient, but they're absolutely not. They're not sign off on every $100,000 purchase. It just won't work. Like, because once you get into anything, it's over $100,000. Debris removal, forget about it, right?

Search and rescue? No, all of that stuff is over $100,000. Maybe you can do pack lunches for some people for a day. Maybe you can try and open a small rural shelter for $100,000. I don't know what you can do for $100,000. The other point, yes, I think they're positioning FEMA now to just be part of this whole system. FDM, the Florida Department of Emergency Management, they're very present in the concentration camp in the Everglades, right? You see their symbol, you see their spokespeople, which is tremendous, I'm a Floridian, it's tremendously disappointing for me to see anyone in emergency management say we're going to go along with this.

Because as I tell our students, our job is to help people. Our job is to help vulnerable people, right? And if you're saying, no, I'm going to participate in fascism, like pick, pick another, pick another job. You're not doing our job. I don't know what that is. One note about that quickly, I'm going to do some self-promotion slash complaining here. I've been trying to trademark my disaster fascism concept. I keep putting out there.

I had an op-ed with the New York Times that they kind of shelved after a little bit. It's kind of on the shelf. And I keep kind of checking back in, being like, does that seem to you like disaster fascism, right? Meaning that they're taking, because FEMA got put within DHS, the framework is there to just turn emergency management in general into this structure where you can just keep furthering the goals of, you know, oppression and fascism, right? Yeah, I want to just ask you just in terms of like on that cost thing. Yeah. The idea that, you know, Trump had reiterated early in his administration that I am, I believe is in Project 2025, basically sending all this stuff down to the states. Yeah.

The Texas has a big disaster response, but the whole point of having a federal government do it and the whole point of it being not efficient. but effective, which are, which are, you know, it's not efficient to, it's not efficient to do a lot of this stuff, frankly, because it's, you're, you're saving lives and. Lives aren't efficient, you know. Right. But the, uh, the idea that states can take on these type of burdens, they just don't have the resources. And there's, you know, you may get a, uh, a disaster of this ilk in a state once every five years.

maybe it's once every year, maybe it's once every 10 years, but you can't maintain a vigorous agency if you're only getting these one every 10 years. That's the whole point of the United States having a FEMA. Yeah, it's crazy. So one of the frustrating things, I think for everyone about the Trump administration, is it seems like it's just detached from history completely, right? So there's a history here. We used to not have FEMA, right? There was a reason that they started FEMA in the late 70s. It was they were trying to work on disasters with all of these different states, all of these different federal agencies trying to piece this together. And it was horribly inefficient, right, as well as not being effective. And so they thought, well, maybe we can figure out a better way to do this

where things are organized at the federal level and coordinated at the federal level. Because, you know, one of the leading definitions of a disaster is that it's something that's not manageable at like whatever level it is that it's happening. Right. So if it's bigger than the city can handle bigger than the state can handle and disasters happen across state lines constantly right so yeah and you're right pointing out the the inequality here so texas has essentially unlimited moneymaker it's got oil right so it can just do you know but but you know they fail a lot too they failed when the the they had a hard freeze and the power grid went down and people froze in their houses that's texas but yeah then you get in the states that are poor what are they supposed to do even in states i will say like i work in

Massachusetts now, right? Part of my job is to go around to these local emergency management districts and work on these tabletop exercise with them for these real world scenarios. Our students do that and stuff. And these people, I should say, they're great. I love working with these people. They want to work hard. They want to do all this stuff. There's no emergency management agency in Massachusetts that funded enough, right? Like one of the places we're doing a hurricane evacuation exercise and the emergency manager is the fire chief who gets like a $6,000 stipend per year. And then like, volunteer who comes in, who retired, and kind of thinks the weather is cool comes in. And they have to, like, run evacuation for like a town of, you know, 30,000 or something, right?

So there is nowhere in America that has enough money to do emergency management. Texas can kind of make it look like they can sometimes because they have oil money. Florida used to be able to. I used to always say, well, Florida's good at this because they have to be. I don't know if that's true anymore. And one of the tipping points here, really, was I think the Trump response to Maria, where they failed completely. It was horrible.

It's still a horrible response. And then no one really talks about it that much outside of Puerto Rico where people are very aware that it failed. Because it used to be the lesson we were all taught. If you fail at disaster response, your political career is done so. Jeb Bush understood this, you know, look at what happened to the first George Bush. Look at what happened to the second George Bush. But Trump kind of broken, right? He fails completely.

He's horrible. They're a horrible disaster response. and his fan base just kind of like, well, what are you going to do? You know, and the media, I don't get it, seem to just kind of go along with this. We're like, well, like it seems like we're already past Kerrville now, and they fail completely there. Yep. Well, West Cheek, sociologist, assistant professor at Massachusetts Maritime Academy, thanks for your time today walking us through this.

I suspect we'll be hearing from you more because I don't think there's any sense that the administration is going. going to get better at this and climate change is not going to make it any less frequent and that is a recipe for disaster. Sam, way to bring it back.

Thanks. All right. Appreciate your time, Wes. Great good. Thanks for having me on, guys. Great to see you. Thank you. All right, folks. We're going to take quick break. When we come back, we're going to be talking to Chris Geithner. He is an award-winning journalist and publisher of the law dork substack on a couple of

cases that are in the news. and to take an assessment where we are in one of the few effective arenas of slowing the Trump administration's role. We'll be right back after this. Thank you. I'm Yeah, and Yeah, and Yeah,

and Yeah, and Yeah, and I'm Thank you. I'm

Yeah. And Yeah. And I'm Yeah. We are back, Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland, on the majority report, it's a pleasure to welcome back to the program, Chris Geidner. He's an award-winning journalist and The Law Dork publishing at The Law Dork on Substack.

Chris, thanks so much for joining. joining us. I think it's been several months, I think, since we spoke last. And the state of the union is not doing much better, in fact, probably significantly worse. But I want to go through some of these cases and then talk about the sort of like, last time you're on, the general thrust of all these advocacy groups going in and suing the Trump administration and to some extent

in some ways overwhelming them in a rather helpful way but first let's talk about this ruling that happened Friday night in L.A a judge Frimpong a federal judge

in L.A. found that the what ICE was using as reasonable suspicion to essentially pull over any brown people who might be, you know, working as a gardener or some profession they think would be an undocumented immigrant profession, I guess. She put a basic, a freeze on it for the time being. Yeah, I mean, this is basically a stop and frisk case except for with the results being an effort to assess the legal status of the people

that they are stopping and risking and arresting and deporting them. So it's sort of like stop and frisk on steroids. And yeah, and the ruling was temporary restraining order to stop that. And the Justice Department on Sunday already has filed a notice of appeal, which is going to go to the Ninth Circuit at first. And then depending on what happens there, I'm sure they will quickly run to their friends up at the Supreme Court with this. Yeah, that's what I'm sort of curious about, is the sort of like, particularly in the wake of the naturalization case, I guess, ruling about the, and I still not sure I have a full grasp on what they held there that was applicable outside of this.

But the limitations of something like this. So her order is just for California, or is it just for the L.A. area? I mean, it's not binding on ice outside of just applying to what they are doing in that the lawsuit is about the Los Angeles efforts. So the only specific ruling that she is limiting it to is this Los Angeles effort. It is an enforcement effort that, I mean, I'm using effort because I don't know what other word I want to use right now, but, and so it is, it would, in some ways, it would, it is a more limited ruling, even though there has been such attention on Los Angeles. but the effect would be that if you saw similar enforcement efforts elsewhere, they would certainly bring similar litigation and now sort of have a model of how to pursue this litigation. And what, I mean, what are the safeguards against ICE just saying, yeah, no.

Like, I mean, what happens under what, you know, it seems to me that it's one thing to sort of say, like, okay, we want to enjoy them for using these practices. And in this instance, you know, as opposed to like stop and frisk, the political calculation of that entity still using that stuff is not the same as like the New York Police Department, let's say, continuing to do that under a. city, you know, where the mayor has a direct responsibility here. This is an outside force coming into L.A. What, what are the remedies now? Are the remedies changed in the event that they are found to be continuing to use that stuff? Like, this is where we run into that problem. Like, you and what army is going to make us stop doing this? Yeah. I mean, at the sort of end of the discussion, that would be the bottom line. But the reality is that the, I mean, DOJ, as I said, DOJ and DHS as their client, appealed that order. So, I mean, there is, in some ways,

I always look at appealing as a, even though that might annoy us, and even though that might mean we're headed back to into the warm embrace of the Supreme Court yet again, it is, is in its way a sign from the administration that they are still accepting that ruling as legitimate and binding on them. And so it goes to the, presumably to the Ninth Circuit on appeal. Is there a chance that the administration fast-tracks it to the Supreme Court? Because this whole, this is where we get into the shadow docket where you would think, then there's no reason for the Supreme Court to do this. It's not like, you know, ICE is going to be prejudiced or harmed if they are not able to do this, you know, for another three, four months or whatever it would be,

but that's not the way the Supreme Court's been, they've been doing the opposite. They've been saying that it's materially harmful to the government to not be able to do this stuff so quickly and so violently and, you know, for lack of the letter to. To enforce their article to powers, that any, any infringement on, on the president's powers is, is, uh, irreparable harm. And we, we've sort of seen, uh, with, and I do think this is potentially the distinction when it comes to the, the sort of external factors, when it comes to, um, things like, um, the, the secretary ending status for people, when it comes to things like these third country removals, when you're taking somebody to a country that they never lived in, have no connection with, which is horrific on its face.

But there is sort of, when you're looking for potential distinctions, an argument that where the Supreme Court has been overly deferential has been to the external look. the extraterritorial related decisions, and that potentially there could be a different ruling on something like this, where you are, as you said, talking about what effectively amounts to an invasion of a U.S. city. So I guess we'll see what happens in that case. In the meantime, theoretically at least, I should be. somewhat

constrained I guess is the best yes constrained in the way that they operate there let's turn to just one last thing I would note that I do think we're seeing some interesting things happening with the

Trump administration and the way they're creating the Ninth Circuit because it now has it's a huge circuit it's like 27 judges and the fact is that Trump did get a lot of appointees in his first term. And so when these things come up on appeal like this, they first go to a three-judge panel. And I think there is some hope from the Trump administration

when they do appeal things out of the West Coast that maybe we'll get a good panel draw at first so that we won't even need to go to the Supreme Court. So I do think they will, to your question of whether they try to leapfrog the Ninth Circuit. I think they'll at least, see who they get at the Ninth Circuit and see if they can get a ruling there. And if they get a good ruling from a three-judge panel, then the plaintiffs again, I think it's the ACLU, would then go to an en banc with the entire 27 justices, more or less, and look for a ruling from them. And then, okay, so just so people have a sense of like what could happen there.

But that's interesting about, I didn't realize Ninth Circuit for them now is like a worth taking a gamble on, I guess. Let's talk about Seacot. Yeah. Obrigo Garcia is back, but sort of being in a sort of like a limbo state trying to avoid getting deported again to now another country. But there was also a big revelation about Seacot in a five. the other day. Tell us about that. Yeah. I mean, we, we've been going through all of this litigation and once this was established that, I mean, because if you remember, back in the beginning, we didn't even know where they were going. We didn't know what was going on. Then when we found out there

at Seacot, the argument that the administration has been making, and specifically before Chief Judge Bozberg in a class action lawsuit, a habeas action that is specifically about the people who were sent to Seacot under the Alien Enemies Act, but it's also come up in a bunch of other cases whenever judges issue orders, like in Abrago-Garcia's case, to facilitate the return of these people. The Justice Department has argued with a declaration from a State Department official, that essentially once people are sent to Seacott, it's El Salvador's responsibility

that they've taken the authority for these people, they're doing what they want. Anything that we do as the American government to get these people back is a foreign policy, negotiation, it's diplomacy. And that's why they're arguing that essentially the courts have to step back because diplomacy is like the height of the president's powers.

But then there was this UN report filing in which the commission that got a complaint about the people who were sent there issued a report that said that El Salvador told them that they did not have the control over these people. And that in this context, the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities, i.e. the United States. So that's what El Salvador told the UN, that this is essentially we are letting them use our facility, but the U.S. still has the final say over these people, which is, shocking and it seems to be shocking and like it would um and so where what what how is that filing being addressed at this point i mean it feels like there's been concerted lying to the court obviously to the american people uh but directly to the court on multiple occasions i mean there's been

going on for months where they're like multiple cases there's always so much we can do um so the the first uh sort of fall out from this that The document was filed before Judge Bosberg in this class habeas effort to get due process for the people sent to Seacot on March 15th. But in another case where Judge Stephanie Gallagher in Maryland is hearing a case over a settlement that essentially said the U.S. government can't remove. members of this class until they get a ruling on their asylum claims. But one of those members of that class was sent to Seacot on March 15th. He's been identified in the documents as Christian. And she, similar to Obrego-Garcia's case, ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return. Like with Abrago-Garcia's case, they've been dragging their feet on this.

and she issued an order the day after the U.N. report was filed in the D.C. case, essentially saying, government, tell me what's going on here. Explain this, explain how this doesn't contradict what you have been saying about this. And she gave them until July 15th, so tomorrow, to file their response as to that. And I think that she will hopefully not be the last judge to sort of call for this. But as we learned with Judge Zinas, who's still last week held a series of hearings over the way the Trump administration has treated Abrago Garcia, all it takes is one federal judge to really stand on their ground and say, no, you. have made claims to this court under oath,

I'm going to call you to account for them. Do you have a sense of the status of the other prisoners sent to Seacott and El Salvador? Like the hairdresser comes to mind, the man with the autism awareness tattoo, among others? Yeah, I mean, as far as we know, they're in Seacot. We don't know if other people have been moved similar to the, how Abrago-Garcia was moved. We don't know.

We did get another sort of bombshell that we got last week was, if you remember, this I I forget his last name. The State Department official who was the one who admitted in court what had already been in filings that Abrago Garcia had been removed in an administrative era. Irez Riovini. He was the one who filed the whistleblower report, and that went to the Senate Judiciary Committee, among others, because of the fact that we have the email Beauvais being nominated

for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, despite being behind a bunch of this. They turned over a bunch of their emails and texts last week. that was a really a smart move by Durban when that whistleblower disclosure came out. He followed up and asked the lawyers for the actual evidence behind it, and they turned it over, and he publicized that last week. And so we got a bunch of information that's truly damning on the front of sort of how the government sort of essentially implemented this

without, with being aware that it might be lawless, with being aware that they might quickly be facing court actions, trying to get them to fall back, and still went forward with this, went forward with, I don't know, like you've even heard about this, but there was like an effort for a week or so for the administration to get around Boseberg's,

initial Alien Enemies Act order by sending people to Guantanamo Bay and then having the Department of Defense take them to El Salvador. Like, this is just, there has just been lawlessness after lawlessness, and we're almost in a situation now where courts are, like Judge Gallagher did, they're acting, but it's, it's almost having to slow down the wheels because the Trump administration acted so lawlessly, so quickly over the course of March and April. It does seem like there is an attempt by the administration in this sort of like area to play with jurisdiction because I've also heard, you know, one of the ways that they

kept some of those lawmakers out of that detention facility down in Florida. is by saying it's actually it's a state detention facility so we can't you know it's not an ice facility it's a state facility it's essentially they're arguing it's essentially just a state a state prison and this seems like a concerted effort across i mean the the idea of like well if we get them to guantanamo it's almost like we go through some type of like it's laundering they're basically laundering their prisoners We're no longer associated with it, and the Defense Department does as the Defense Department does. It's no longer an ICE issue. I imagine this is going to keep happening.

But I want to move over to the SCOTUS decision about the mass firings in the federal government. Again, it's one of those things, it's hard to call it a decision. It's just, I guess, an edict because there is no sort of argumentation behind. it's just yeah you're good yeah i mean it's i mean the the way that the shadow docket has been used has been troubling and that's why it's gotten this attention in recent years but what we're seeing now is essentially uh shadow docket rulings which i mean to be clear we use this phrase, the shadow docket, what they are is, like, legally, they're emergency applications. They are, before, like, 15 years ago, 90% of the time that you saw an emergency application,

it was in a death penalty case. And that's why I've covered the death penalty now for 15 years. And I was like, I literally remember the time when. And like 90% of the cases we got on the shadow docket were just death penalty cases. But how they're being used by the Trump administration, especially in this second era, is to enable the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that it says isn't a merits ruling, that they say this is just on this initial first look at the case in order to figure out how it should proceed while litigation's going on below. But the bottom line is that that first look is essentially resolving the case.

When you look at the, I already mentioned, the shadow docket rulings where they allowed Secretary Nome to implement two different actions that removed legal status from half a million people. Those people, especially now in this administration, with their efforts to mass deport people, those people are deportable and could be, could go into the system. And so you- And then once they're out of the country, I mean, they're out of the country. I mean, that was Justice Sotomayor in her dissent in one of those two essentially said, like this could moot those cases. And now you see that again with this ruling on the mass rifts that Judge Susan Nilston in California had a really, I mean, like, I remember it because it came out on a Friday night when I was supposed to be on vacation. And I sat in my hotel room reading this ruling because it was like so well done.

And it was really complex, and she went through all of the issues about, like, whenever a president has wanted to reorganize the government, they've gone to Congress because that's what's needed. And this was, and Trump even did so in his first term. And this is essentially an effort with an executive order and then a joint memo from OMB and Office of Personnel Management to say, agencies, you can do mass riffs everywhere. RIF, just so people know, reduction in force. Yeah, and like this is leading to, and we saw it be implemented at the State Department on Friday was sort of the biggest immediate effect where you had upwards of the numbers we don't even know because it was so disorganized and so informalized in a

way that I saw numbers that ranged from 1,000 to 1,300 to 3,000 people. I've definitely personally been informed of like basically entire departments that all of their senior leadership is now gone. I heard of one department where there's one person left. And this is going to upend, it's going to, like with most Doge things, it's going to end up. it's going to end up costing the government much more than it saves because we're talking about long-term efforts that were in place by the government that they just like got rid of all of the people who were implementing them overnight. So and the issue ultimately comes down

to is a reduction in force valid? And the premise of this is, We can do the agency's mission with less people. And so we do this. But the tricky part is, wait, what's the agency's mission? Like, are you fundamentally altering the agency's mission? You know, it's one thing to say the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, it's there. And really, the only thing it's supposed to do is just check on bank late fees. Everything else it does is really not part of its mission.

you're rewriting what Congress has established as to why that agency exists. What we're seeing in more of the language, and now the CFPB case, you mentioned the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, like the CFPB case specifically, the CFPB riff is still on appeal before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That was one that they did try to do individually, although it was by Russ vote in a as the acting director of CFPB, and he's like literally the guy behind Project 2025, so we know where he wants to go with this. He, like, this is the thing that you start with the Trump's executive order

that says, I want mass riffs, go for it. You then have this joint office of personnel management, office of management and budget memo that tells agencies to do mass rift. The federal code has a provision for RIPs, like, because they understand that sometimes that's going to happen when a new administration comes in and agency might change, but there are things within that statutory RIF process that are dealing with what you've talked about that say if there is statutory requirements, if there is, if there is, if there are current appropriations, which is Congress has said this money is going to this purpose, that those can't be ignored through a RIF because Congress has already decided that. And what we're seeing, what we saw with the CFPB RIF, because that was the case where we actually did look at what they did on a department level as opposed to a government level,

was that there was no real individual. Like what they showed us, what they submitted to the court was literally like an Excel spreadsheet with like how many people were in the agency and then it moved down from like 42 to 2. And they said that that would be okay. And you saw that through the entire agency

and I believe that was Judge Amy Vermin-Jackson at the district court sort of looked at the lawyers and were like, are you serious telling me that like this is the individualized review that the D.C. Circuit said was necessary. And so now you're going to see that when the Supreme Court issued their order, they thought they were being cute. And what they said is we're just ruling on the executive order. and the OMB OPM memo, and whether the plaintiffs are likely going to succeed that those

were illegal. We're not ruling on the actual riffs or the actual reorganizing plans of the agencies, which essentially said you can bring individual lawsuits or when those get proposed, you can add them to the lawsuit and have individual things. But as we saw with the State Department, if you move quickly and implement them quickly because they've already been planned, you're going to have people out the front door before you even get to court. All right. Lastly, let's talk about the birthright citizenship deadline. Like, just briefly characterize what the Supreme Court decided in the case that they heard.

It had more to do with the power of a. federal court, a subsidiary court in constraining the U.S. government, there were, I mean, it's sort of a shocking answer because, particularly in the context of birthright citizenship, because the government could just keep trying to essentially denaturalize or decitizen defy people and get away with as many as they can. And then just like, you know, on an individual basis, people might be able to save themselves if they have enough resources, but one would think this is an action by a court. I mean, I should say by the government, everybody is, and I think there is a judge that has ruled this, everybody is within a similarly situated class enough so that this could be a class action suit. as opposed to like a multi-district tort suit where they all suffer different injuries from a singular event. This is where everyone's going to suffer the same injury.

And so he's certified this as a class. What are the implications of that? Yeah. So that, I mean, you're exactly right. The Supreme Court's order was just on this question of, I mean, Justice Barrett, in her opinion, tried to fastidious. avoid the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship executive order. And what they just said is you can't have these universal injunctions that where an individual person who sues says that this should be unconstitutional for everybody.

And we can have the fight over whether that ruling was good. I think it was a bad ruling on its face. But even that ruling said there are still options in the law to get broader relief. And one of those, as you said, is class actions. And so what we have going out of that, the Supreme Court said the policy is on hold for 30 days. So apparently they're still able to have universal injunctions. Like, I mean, Barrett's ruling is, to be clear, like, you're going to see in the coming year, like law professors coming out with, like, law review articles about how nonsensical that decision was.

But where we're at now, worried about people and what's going into effect, is that on July 27th, the government has said that they would be able to enforce this policy. And so Judge LaPlante issued, as you said, he did grant class-wide relief. He found that there was a class and said that that class should be protected with a preliminary injunction. And the class is essentially anybody who would be covered by the order. There's another case like that in Maryland that was the actual CASA case that had gone up to the Supreme Court. they amended their complaint to bring a class action. And then there are the two multi-state actions that were originally brought.

And that was another issue that Justice Barrett said, we're not resolving, is that sometimes a universal injunction isn't a universal injunction. If you actually need that broad of relief in order to get your harms solved. And so the example that was before the court, New Jersey had sued. And because

Pennsylvania's attorney general is now a Republican, they didn't join the litigation. And the New Jersey Solicitor General at the Supreme Court essentially said, if you don't allow New Jersey to get nationwide relief, what you're essentially saying is that

when New Jersey residents, to a Philadelphia hospital, as they often do, if a child is born there, is there going to be a debate over whether they are a U.S. citizen? If they otherwise would be covered by this executive order and are in a state that isn't covered by the injunction. And those judges are considering how to handle that and whether or not those nationwide injunctions fit. And the fact of the matter is that despite Barrett's efforts to avoid the executive order, the administration is going to appeal these things. And we are most likely going to be back at the Supreme Court sometime over the summer with another case challenging these rulings, issuing broad injunctions under the two scenarios where the Supreme Court said they could happen. all right so i guess we'll we'll find out uh within days on on that one uh lastly two

thirds this is a broader question two thirds it was reported of the doj i guess litigation unit that um uh defends all of these policies uh 69 of the roughly 110 lawyers in the federal programs branch have voluntarily left the unit since Trump's election or have announced plans to leave. Now, they're being replaced by real political cronies, but this is not stuff that you can just sort of like, you need institutional memory in there to know how to do this. and the onslaught of lawsuits against the government combined with the lack of institutional understanding

on how to handle these, I mean, even if they were all there, I think it would be difficult, and even if they all subscribed to these whack-a-doodle things that the administration is doing, would be overwhelming. I mean, this is, I mean, this is like one of the, I don't want to say victory areas,

one of the areas where like the sort of the ramp parts are holding a little bit. Yeah, it's, I mean, the federal programs branch is like the pros of this, of dealing with these issues. Like I've, I've watched them in court,

the longstanding ones, um, over the past six months and before, long before then. Um, but I mean, these are the people who know the ins and outs. Um, they,

they, they understand the consequences of arguments. They understand the fact that you have to be very careful with arguments because every argument on like one little thing is going to have sort of that butterfly effect because all of a sudden it's going to become the principle if accepted in cases across the country and totally different types of cases. And if all of a sudden you go from having a hundred of these people who, many of whom I point out regularly on Blue Sky when like whenever I catch wind of somebody with more than 10 years of experience leaving, because that means that there's somebody who literally worked in DOJ throughout the entire First Trump administration and didn't leave. These are people who are really more dedicated to the Department of Justice than anybody else, and they're leaving.

It really leads to moments where I've watched, I mean, you get these people, I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but you get somebody who has like five years of experience at Jones Day or at some other big law firm coming in because one of the Their buddies is in the senior position at DOJ, and they literally never thought they would work in government, never planned on it, have no understanding of how the Justice Department works. They're essentially Doge employees with law degrees. Right. Well, with all of the disaster that entails. Yes, but hopefully also it makes it that much harder for the administration to get to carry out and execute their plan. I guess we'll see. Yeah, I mean, you do see fewer and fewer names on the briefs in the key cases. I mean, Drew Ensign, who was the one who had argued on March 15th before Judge Bosberg in the Alien Enemies Act case. I mean, he's essentially on every immigration case now because so many of the people within that office are gone, it is, it is, it's not just the federal programs brands. I mean, that's the Office of Immigration litigation. We're, we're seeing it in, in agency in, I mean,

like, we didn't, we're not even getting into like what's happened to the civil rights division and stuff. Right. Which is, is, um, both abhorrent and like, will, will be like, if and when there is a president, whoever wants to enforce civil rights law again, we're basically going to have to start from scratch. Chris Geithner, a publisher of Lawdor. I mean, it's inevitable these days. But we will link to your substack at Law Dork. Thanks so much for your time today.

Really appreciate it. Thanks. Thanks so much. All right, folks. Well, we're going to take quick break. and we'll head into the fun half because boy and how we need it oh but we should say

we have a new addition to our merch store whoa yeah we're calling this can you guys pop this up yes uh you all saw the max laughed trucker cap that uh we hired a model to come down uh into the studio and some hunk yeah we found some uh some hunk.com or whatever it is.

And we had a... You go to hunk.com a lot, Sam? I mean, look, I noodle around on the internet. Why not? After neuterful, he stars on it. And we had a max left trucker's cap, but now we have the max left the max left majority report baseball hat vanguard edition which of course is a uh because they

were saying that they wanted like real traditional hats right not just the trucker hats and so in their on in the honor of the vanguard the boys you know holding the line for us all we got the uh i mean the bottom line is look we chase sales we chase sales on our merch store and uh so you know anybody comes up with a good recommendation we just follow through that's how we work around here um so uh check that out responsiveness to our base unlike the democrats exactly it's called audience capture and uh that's what we we suffer from and that's why you're getting the non truckers version of the max left hat we're afraid that our audience would turn on us if we didn't keep feeding them with this merchandise exactly showing that we are the purest of the mall

Exactly, exactly. Also, just a reminder, you want to support this program. Go to join the majority report.com. When you do, you not only get the free show free of commercials, but you also get the fun half and you can IM us. And really, ultimately, more importantly, you help this show survive and thrive. Join the majority report.com. Every one of your memberships helps us tremendous. also don't forget just coffee dot co-op fair trade coffee hot chocolate you use the coupon code get 10% off you can buy the majority report blend I got one right here yeah well yeah how's that for yeah at uh just coffee majority report blend you can also get the wTF blend but they have a bunch of other uh single origin and blends there and to co-op they're a great outfit just coffee co-op coupon code majority Matt

Left reckoning Yeah left reckoning we had a Sunday show for Patreon.com so as left reckoning members We talked about Brett Stevens going on Ross Dought that to defend BB Netanyahu's decision making post October 7 turns out there that the genocide was really the only course of action

that could have been taken and he compares the IDF to An animal? The allies during World War II and the Union Army in the Civil War So we can find out if we object to it or not By becoming an AM member at patreon.com slash left reckoning Was Brett Stevens the one who was comparing the Middle East

To Insects in America to a Mighty Lion recently? Oh, I don't know Yeah I'm not sure about that, but I would not be surprised Yeah, yeah Oh no, it was Thomas Friedman, I'm sorry, I confused the Islamophobes in the New York Times opinion section Yeah, Brett Stevens, fanatic

so check that up Nicola on the IM says my boyfriend or possibly myself would like a flaming Virgonia jockstrap if you're chasing sales these might be a hit with the gays God did that

I believe that I mean it does sound like a product that would move well if you're into the shame and then what comes after the shame Vergonia is perfect for that Jeff Bezos came

Bill Gates came Mark Zuckerberg came Many of them came numerous times The bankers have all come Everybody's coming Let's see Epstein files Oh God All right

We'll 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. Who fun hack. What is up, everyone? Fun hack. No, me, keen.

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.

Hi, me. Is this name? Yes. In this meet. It is you It's me How long is it's me? I think it is you

Who is you? No sound Every single Fricking day What's on your mind? We can discuss free markets And we can discuss capitalism I'm gonna go to life

Who 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 positive

Clevery. I believe 96, I want to say. 857. 210. 35. 501. One half. Three-eighth. 9-11 for a seat. $3,400. $1,900. $6.5,4, $3 trillion sold.

It's a zero-sum game. Actually, you're making 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. 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 I got to jump I gotta 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 goul Outrageous Like what is wrong with you

Love you Love you Love you Bye