The Young Turks - Dissenting Democrats

Episode Date: March 6, 2025

Dem Removed For Disrupting Trump’s Address To Congress. Repubs Accuse Dem Mayors Of Having Blood On Their Hands. Alina Habba Says Fired Veterans Are “Not Fit To Have A Job.” Supreme Court Deals Trump A Blow On Foreign Aid Freeze. Hosts: Ana Kasparian SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER ☞ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH ☞ https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Bega! Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. And for today, we have a mix of some good stories, some bad news. But in regard to good news, it appears that the courts are citing against Donald Trump in some of these rulings, including a pretty explosive Supreme Court ruling.

today that I want to get into. And it has to do with the freeze on foreign aid and funding for various projects outside of the country. So we'll talk a little bit about that in the first hour. We're also going to discuss the response or democratic dissent to Donald Trump's address to a joint session of Congress. We're not calling it a state of the union because he just got elected and inaugurated. But you guys get the point. He gave that speech last night. That incredibly lengthy speech. And of course, there were all sorts of protests, one of which I'm going to defend. The others, I think, were weaks-offs to say the least. So we'll get into that as well. In the second hour, John Iderola will be joining us to talk about lots of other stories,

including an update to that whole United States Crypto Reserve Plan that Donald Trump has. It appears that there are some crypto bros who are not in favor of it, but for a very specific reason. So we're going to get to that as well. As always, just want to encourage you all to like and share the stream. If you are watching us live, it's a free and easy way to help support the work we're doing here at TYT. You can also support us by becoming a member by going to tYT.com slash join. All right, without further ado, let's talk about the shenanigans that took place last night. Mr. Green, take your seat.

Take your seat, sir. Take your seat. Finding that members continue to engage in willful and concern to disruption of proper decorum, the chair now directs the sergeant in arms to restore order. Remove this gentleman from the chamber. state of Texas was removed from the House chamber last night as Donald Trump was presenting his joint address to Congress. Now, in the very beginning of President Trump's speech, there was a lot of commotion in the crowd, in the audience. And I suspected that it would be

Democratic lawmakers who were taking issue with some of what Donald Trump was saying. And that certainly was the case, especially when it came to Representative Al Green. Now, what seemed to set him off was President Trump's declaration that he and the Republican Party essentially have a mandate after sweeping the swing states. And, you know, mandate is a strong word. I think it's true to some extent that voters supported Trump over Kamala Harris on certain issues. For instance, Donald Trump's immigration policies, as much as, you know, members of our audience might absolutely despise it, the American people seem to be messaging that they find Donald Trump's immigration policies to be more favorable. But no voters, or very few voters,

supported Trump to essentially dismantle our social safety net. But that is what appears to be the case with what the Trump administration is doing in dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which of course protects Americans from Big Bank. ripping them off. The Doge team is also working to dismantle the Social Security Administration. They have already put out notices to fire 7,000 workers. We covered that earlier this week. I would venture to say that voters did not cast their ballots, hoping that the Trump administration would do these things.

And so Congressman Al Green wanted to make that point. Here's more of what he had to say in the crowd. I know it's hard to hear or see, but just follow the red arrow and you'll know what we're talking. talking about. USA! USA! USA! And one counties in our country, 2,700 to 525, on a map that reads almost completely red for Republican.

Small business optimism saw its single largest one-month gain ever recorded. Mr. President. A 41-point jump. Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House and to cease any further disruptions. That's your warning. Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of decorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the sergeant-at-arms

to restore order to the joint session. So again, I know it's difficult to hear what Congressman Green was saying there, but you can kind of hear him say there is no mandate. And again, what he's specifically referring to are programs like Medicaid, Social Security. In fact, after this whole debacle occurred, he spoke to reporters right outside the House chamber. Let's hear more of what he had to say. I've said I'll accept the punishment, but it's worth it to let people know that there are some of us who are going to stand up against this president's desire to cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

What are you saying you have no mandate? Is that what you just? That's what I, he has no mandate to cut Medicaid. None. Is that the only punishment that you were kicked out, sir? Is there something? I don't know. Whatever the punishment is, I'm not fighting the punishment. This is about the people who are being punished by virtue of, losing their health care. This is the richest country in the world, and we have people who don't have good health care. We've got to do better. And now we're about to cut Medicaid, which is for poor people. Health care has become wealth care for many people, and we can't afford to let that happen. I like that line. Health care has become welfare, wealth fair, not welfare. And look, his anger is

righteous. When he's referring to cuts to Medicaid, he's specifically talking about the fact that the House of Representatives just passed the framework for the federal budget. And in that framework, the House committee responsible for services like Medicaid are essentially being told you need to find $880 billion in cuts. The framework doesn't specifically use the word Medicaid because House Republicans think we're stupid and we're unable to put two and two together. But when you go to the specific committee and you demand that they cut $880 billion, where do you think that money is going to come from? So what Congressman Green is drawing attention to is an important issue. There was substance to what he had to say. Now look, do I

think that his protest during this speech is going to make all the difference. I don't. We don't live in a world like that. Okay, you actually need to have a strategy and plan to fight back and you need to be persistent. But this is a symbolic show of what Democrats like Congressman Green stand for. And that's what I've been begging the Democratic Party to engage in. What do you stand for? What do you represent? What do you want to do for the American people? Because all we've seen from Democrats in recent election cycles is this obsession with their own power, their own political careers. I mean, Congresswoman Slotkin's speech in response to Trump was pathetic. Was that Reagan or was that a Democrat? Like, what was that? And I'm supposed to cheerlead for that

party? No, I'm sorry. Republican light in terms of economic policies, in terms of austerity, that is not appealing to me at all, at all. Now again, the anger you see from Congressman Green is righteous, it's justified, and he's on message, the right message. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio, your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Republicans, including Republican voters, who are kind of trashing him for being disruptive. And look, it's fair to argue that you should be respectful to the president, that you shouldn't interrupt the president as he's in the middle of giving his speech. The thing is, what's good

for the goose is good for the gander. And what I'm specifically referring to is this. Let's take a look. So if you have Republican congresswomen interrupting a Democratic president's speech, well, you've now opened the Pandora's box and you have created an atmosphere that justifies all sorts of interruptions from anyone in Congress. Why not? If you are unwilling to show respect to a president from the opposing party, you should expect the same treatment for a president in your party as he's giving a speech. That's just the way the world works, guys. I wish that wasn't the case. I wish that Instead of engaging in theater, right, instead of focusing all of our energy on protests that don't really lead to anything, there was strategic, you know, strategic thinking happening in Congress among the Democrats. We don't really see much of that. We've heard stories about Hakeem Jeffries, you know, the House Minority Leader, fundraising from the same lobbying firms that represent the tech billionaires and tech companies that are now 100% on Donald Trump's side.

You know, the same lobbying firms that do lobbying on behalf of Palantir. That's what Akeem Jeffries has been up to. So in that context, am I going to trash Congressman Green for having a righteous statement and engaging in a righteous action in my view? No, I'm not going to trash him for that. I am going to trash the other Democrats, though, because they could have walked out in solidarity with Congressman Green. They didn't do that.

They did other things. So let's talk a little bit about that. So look, other Democratic members, according to NBC News, wore stickers accusing Elon Musk of stealing Social Security. Musk, a billionaire whose government efficiency initiative is scrutinizing Social Security finances, has called the program a Ponzi scheme. Yeah, that's a huge threat to an incredibly popular social safety net

program. Elon Musk referring to it as a Ponzi scheme was the foreshadowing moment to what came next, which was essentially the slow and steady dismantling of the social security administration by laying off 7,000 social security administration workers. So they're not going to dismantle it through legislation. They're just hoping that Americans are going to be asleep at the wheel and celebrate Doge for cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. But in reality, a lot of this attention has been focused on certain programs that actually help the most vulnerable Americans among us, taxpaying Americans, who unfortunately are not paid a living wage and are unable to pay for their own health insurance.

They're living below the poverty line. Americans who did their duty, played by the rules, paid into the social security system, and are now likely going to be fleeced by what's going on with the Trump administration. So your little stickers don't do jack, okay? They don't do anything. It's just so utterly pathetic. Look, I would be fine with the stickers. I would.

if there was something more robust happening with the Democratic caucus behind the scenes. But there is nothing happening. That's the problem here. There's more. Let's go to the next graphic. So in this photo, you'll notice Democratic lawmakers holding paddles, ping pong paddles with various statements on it, false, probably responding to some of Donald Trump's statements saying that they're not correct, not rooted in reality. Others have paddles that say, steals. Now the paddle protest led to a lot of mockery, including from Stephen Colbert of the late show. Of course, Stephen Colbert is no fan of Donald Trump, so you can't accuse him of being a Republican supporter who just wants to trash Democrats. He says, Trump barked out one appalling claim after another, but don't you worry, Democrats are getting ready to fight back with their little paddles. That is how you save democracy by quietly dissenting.

or bidding on an antique tea set, it was hard to tell what was going on. And Colbert also decided to unveil his own message on a paddle, try doing something. And he wasn't the only one. Simone Sanders Townsend, you can't accuse her being a Republican who's just trashing Democrats, but she was critical of what the Democrats were up to. By the way, I should note, Stephen Colbert also said that he had no problem with what Congressman Green did, probably because there was actually substance to his message. He did something that led to him, like literally getting ushered out of the House chamber. And the message was a powerful one, an important one. You know, Musk steals, okay, I mean, that's really, what is that going to do?

Okay, so Simone Sanders Townsend, top campaign advisor for Biden, top campaign advisor for Harris. She was the head honcho for the Bernie campaign in 2016. She wasn't impressed by the paddles either. She says, why are Democrats just sitting there? The signs are not landing. It is giving bingo, sigh. And she followed that up with B-42, B-42, b-42, bingo. they are not taking back the house with these visuals.

And look, I think she's right. Members of the Democratic Women's Caucus, they decided to wear matching outfits. They wore pink to protest Trump's anti-abortion policies. Again, I just want to reiterate and emphasize. I typically wouldn't really have much of an issue without any of this. But I think the reason why people like me, people like Simone Sanders Townsend, people like Stephen Colbert do have a problem with it is because it's just, it's all like this weak pathetic facade giving you the, they think they're giving us like this feeling that they're really fighting for us. When in reality, we know what's going on behind the scenes. We know that they're not, they're not really planning anything. They're not strategizing. They don't even have a coherent message. What do they stand for?

What do Democrats represent? Why aren't they constantly going after the Trump administration for dismantling the Social Security Administration? That is such an incredibly popular program. We should be in the type of environment right now where we get sick of hearing Democrats talk about it. I mean, if I were a Democratic congresswoman right now or a senator, I would be going to red states, red cities, red towns. I would be reaching out to Republican voters, not from a place of anger, not from a place of judgment, but from a place of, first of all, trying to understand them and where they're coming from, but also letting them know what the reality is with Doge and what Musk is doing to the very programs

that they themselves favor. Republican voters do not want to get rid of Social Security. But by the way, you want to know who is doing that? Senator Bernie Sanders is. So I think that that's a lot more strategic, a lot more substantive than holding up a paddle. You also have some Democrats who wore blue and yellow ties to support Ukraine. That kind of reminded me of Senator Lindsey Graham, who earlier was also wearing a red and yellow tie. He was wearing one, I'm sorry, a red and blue tie to show his. support for Ukraine. He was wearing that tie, by the way, last Friday when that whole brawl

happened between Vladimir Zelensky, Donald Trump, and J.D. Vance. And then after that debacle took place, Senator Graham, like, she's so pathetic, demanded that Zelensky stepped down. That piece can't be made with him as the president. You know, you got to do your typical bootlicking of Donald Trump, right? Graham, it's just so pathetic. But anyway, a group of House Democrats also took off jackets and revealed black shirts with writing on the back. Representatives Jasmine Crockett of Texas and Andrea Salinas of Oregon had shirts reading Resist and Representative Maxwell Frost of Florida had one saying no more Kings. Now during, this is the most important part for you guys to know. So during a closed meeting with Democratic members, basically leadership in the

the party, advise them to avoid doing anything. Essentially, they've taken the message and advice from James Carville, who wrote an op-ed recently telling Democrats to play dead. You know, just give Trump enough rope to hang himself. But he's going to be so awful that voters are going to have no option but to come flocking back to the Democratic Party. You don't even have to offer them anything. It's pathetic. But anyway, Minority Whip, Catherine Clark from Massachusetts, specifically asked members not to use props to protest the speech while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries encouraged members to stay on message and keep the spotlight focused on the people affected by Trump's policies, not make the story about themselves. And I, again, I think

that's what Congressman Green was trying to do. He focused on Medicaid and Social Security. I think that should be the focus. I think that is the most important issue that Democrats need to rally around right now. But again, we're not really seeing that happening. We're not really seeing a plan. And I don't begrudge Democratic voters for being furious about it. They are furious about it. They should be furious about it because voters deserve better.

And we're just not getting that right now. All right, we're going to take a break. When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about the hearing that House Republicans called with Democratic mayors in regard to sanctuary city laws. We'll talk about that and more coming up. Don't miss it. Well, let's talk a little bit about what happened with the House testimony today. There were four Democratic mayors who testified before the House Oversight Committee

in regard to sanctuary city laws. Let's get into it. The mayor's here today, each lead, so-called sanctuary cities. And let's be clear, these policies only create sanctuary for criminals. All of the mayors here today are actively working to harm the American people you represent. You all have blood on your hands. Every one of you is exposed to criminal. culpability here. That's the reality of it. Well, I'm sure you guys can all tell that things

were super friendly and calm. No, I'm kidding. I mean, things got pretty heated today as, well, four mayors from four Democratic cities testified before Republicans, it was a Republican-led House Oversight Committee hearing where they were pressed on their city's sanctuary immigration policies. Now, this was something that was planned weeks in advance. I was very curious to see how this was going to play out, or more importantly, how these Democratic mayors were going to answer these questions, because I'm going to be frank with you all. There are some concerns with how some of these sanctuary city laws are written. There are grounds for sanctuary city laws, in my opinion, that makes sense, especially if we're dealing with a situation in which an undocumented

individual is a victim of crime, they should feel comfortable reporting that crime without fear that they will be deported. That is an example of a sanctuary city law that lowers crime. That is incredibly important. But even though not every sanctuary state or city has the exact same law, some of them are written differently, there are some downfalls based on how some of these laws are written. And it really has to do with the fact that they just don't want to cooperate with ICE or the federal government when it comes to undocumented immigrants who have committed other serious crimes. Ice wants to deport them based on how some of these sanctuary city laws are written. The city, the local police, do not cooperate with ICE or the federal

government. And I think that's where the real issue is. And that's what this hearing's about. So I watched, you know, the majority of the hearing today. I was very curious to see if they were going to, like, there's all these little rhetorical tricks and it's so frustrating because it should be hyper focused on that, that one provision that has led to some issues in some cities and states. So with that in mind, the witnesses that were included in this hearing were Eric Adams of New York. Now, he has been far more critical in regard to the sanctuary laws that,

fall under his jurisdiction in New York City. You also had Mike Johnston of Denver, Brandon Johnson of Chicago, and Michelle Wu, who's the mayor of Boston. Now, the definition of sanctuary city isn't exact, but typically it refers to the policies that limit local cooperation with federal immigration agents and authorities. Okay, so the mayors argue that their policies are crucial for ensuring that undocumented immigrants are free to report crimes and access city services without fear that they're going to be deported. Another example, for instance,

is if a woman is undocumented and she's been the victim of domestic abuse, she should feel free going to the authorities for safety. If you don't have any sanctuary laws protecting her, well, then she's not going to go to the authorities and she's going to continue getting abused. So again, I just want to reiterate, in those cases, it makes sense. But when you have provisions that protect undocumented individuals who are literally committing crimes have been convicted of violent crimes and have spent time in prison for said violent crimes. It is a problem when ICE reaches out,

asks for a detainer so then they can deport these individuals and the city doesn't cooperate. And there is evidence to show that that is going on. So I'll give you some more insight into that in just a minute. Now, Republicans are accusing these mayors of defying federal law and releasing dangerous criminals into the streets. In fact, I was actually kind of shocked that Michelle Wu, the mayor of Boston, at one point made it seem as though she didn't know that federal law supersedes state and local laws.

That's just the way it works. She seemed to think that local laws supersede federal laws, and that's just not the case. Now, much of the questioning had to do with the city's compliance or lack thereof with what is known as detainers. That was what Republicans wanted to talk about here, or immigration holds. So ICE detainers are requests for local law enforcement to hold a defendant with an immigration case or notify the agency if they plan to release them from detention, from prison, so that the Department of Homeland Security has time to assume custody. Now, an immigration hold may be placed after either a random check by ICE officers who sometimes visit jails and interview inmates or after being notified by the law enforcement agency detaining the person. Whether the law or local law enforcement agency must comply with the detainer request is a murky issue with most courts deeming the detainer request to be non-mandatory. So there needs to be clarity on what is constitutional in this case. And if it's murky, well, that's a problem.

Because the murkiness is what allows for state and local politicians and officials to just decide, well, we're not going to cooperate. with the federal government. And an immigration hold, by the way, I should note is not a criminal warrant. So that is the argument that you'll notice a lot of the Democratic mayors make. You know, if there's a warrant, then yeah, we will cooperate. But if there isn't a warrant. But we're literally talking about people who are already detained, who are already in prison because they have been convicted of carrying out a crime.

and carrying out a crime in a blue city, if someone has been imprisoned in a blue city, they committed a violent crime, a very violent crime. Let's keep it real. Anyway, so let's keep going. So many of the sanctuary cities do have policies preventing local law enforcement from complying with the detainers. For example, I'm going to give you a statistic that's important here. So in 2023, ICE issued 109 immigration detainers to the New York Police Department. Remember, this is under the Biden administration. So under Biden, New York City received 109 immigration detainers.

They were not honored at all because the NYPD is told that, you know, you got to follow through with the city laws and the city laws have sanctuary status. So Chairman James Comer pressed all of the mayors on whether they would turn over criminals to ICE based on a detainer. And none explicitly answered the question. They answered the question, but they didn't explicitly answer yes, and I think that's an issue. So let's take a look. Last year in a Boston suburb, an illegal alien raped and impregnated is 15-year-old daughter while living in a shelter for illegal aliens.

Mayor Wu, under Boston law, would you turn this criminal over to ICE on a detainer? Whenever there's a criminal warrant, Boston police enforce that and hold people accountable. So would you turn that criminal over to ICE? This happened outside the city of Boston, but I can tell you in the city, whenever someone commits a crime, whenever there's a criminal warrant, we hold them accountable. If ICE deems that they are dangerous enough to hold, obtain a criminal warrant, and the Boston police will enforce it. Will you turn that criminal over to ICE? We follow the laws. I take that as enough.

Mayor Johnson, under Chicago law, would you turn this criminal over to ICE on a detainer? Our local law enforcement works hard every day to get criminals off the streets of Chicago. Would you turn that criminal over to ICE? With a criminal warrant from the federal government, our local law enforcement repeatedly collaborates with federal agents. Not a good look. Not a good look. I need to understand, and I know, I know, I know, people are going to get real mad at me because for some reason, it's somehow difficult to differentiate between the vast majority, vast majority of immigrants and the small percentage of those who are here illegally and are committing crimes. I know it's so hard to make that distinction.

But guess what? For me, it's not that hard to make that distinction. So if someone's in the country illegally and they are currently in prison because they committed other violent crimes, please explain to me how it's a good look for these Democratic mayors to refuse to answer with the affirmative. Yes, yes, someone who has raped their 14 year old daughter is someone who should be deported after they serve their time in our prison system. So yes, in those cases, we do comply, we do work with the feds. Why is it so hard to say that? I need someone to give me a real freaking answer right now.

But no one gives me an answer because everyone wants to conflate these violent criminals who again represent a tiny, tiny percentage of immigrants with all immigrants. And that's ridiculous. They're not the same. They're not the same. Just like the general population in the United States, there is a small percentage. of people who end up committing violent crimes. Those people should be dealt with. If they're here illegally, I'm sorry, but like, you don't have the right to not only just be here illegally,

but to harm other people while you're here illegally. But that's what's been going on in some of these cases. And if you're unwilling to tweak your sanctuary city laws to ensure that these bad guys don't get away, well, then you're a problem. Your problem not just to the people of your city. You serve as a big problem to the immigrant community. Because these are the stories that Republicans are going to point to justify things like mass deportation. Take a look at the public opinion polls. The majority of Americans favor what Trump is doing with immigration. Why do you think that is? I just don't understand. why Democrats can't get this through their thick skulls.

They weren't always this unhinged, but here we are. All right, Republican Jim Jordan got into a contentious back and forth with Mayor Johnston. He's the mayor of Denver involving a Venezuelan gang member who injured officers during an arrest. Now, because of the state's sanctuary city policy, police were forced to arrest the man in public rather than travel into the jail to detain him. Take a look. Mr. Abraham Gonzales, who's a gang member from Venezuela, stole a car, assaulted someone. You had him in your custody for how long?

I know that we released him. 345 days you had him in custody. And I said, hey, can you give us 48 hours heads up? I don't know. You gave him one hour notice. You said you released him to the streets. Did you release him to the streets? release them to ICE. What we do, sir, is we release him from our county jail and we coordinate

with ICE on that release time and release date so that ICE can come and pick them up from that location. Pick them up where in the parking lot? Yes, sir. They're on the facility. Guess what happened in the parking lot? I know, sir. I've reviewed the video. So I looked at it. I've talked to the sheriff last night. Oh, the ICE officers got assaulted, didn't he? I've reviewed the video, sir. They had to taste the guy, didn't they? Democrats have, they do have a brain virus, 100%. Okay. And it's not wokeism, it's maximalism. It's the inability to draw obvious distinctions to separate the, you know, harmful individuals from the vast majority of migrants and immigrants who are not causing any problems,

who are not carrying out violent crimes. It's just pathetic, man. It really is. All right. The mayor's pushed back on the idea that their policies were making their cities unsafe. So Boston mayor, Michelle Wu, got especially spicy when asked about Tom Homan, who said last month that he would be bringing hell to the city. over its sanctuary policies. Holman, you know, likes to use that kind of rhetoric regularly.

He does it in every single interview, so I'm not surprised that he said something like that. Let's hear what Michelle Wu had to say in response. Let's talk about Tom Homan. Shame on him for lying about my city, for having the nerve to insult our police commissioner who has overseen the safest Boston's been in anyone's lifetime. Bring him here under oath, and let's ask him some questions. I am here to make sure that the city of Boston is safe. Others may want to bring hell.

We are here to bring peace to cities everywhere. Now, I have to give her some credit because, to be honest with you, she was the most upfront in her belief that criminals should be apprehended. Pay special attention to the end of this clip when James Comer makes fascinating statement. Let's watch. Do believe if people come here and break the law. that they should be escorted out, or do you believe they just get to stay here forever? Yes, I do believe we need, cities everywhere clearly need an immigration law that has

secure borders, comprehensive and consistent, compassionate pathways to residency and citizenship, resources to adjudicate the complexities of the law. And at the same time, I do not support mass deportation, that would be devastating for our economy, and there are millions of people who are running our small businesses, going to our schools. Okay. Thank you. Chair recognizes, and I must add, I don't think anyone's calling for mass deportation,

but chair recognizes Mr. Garcia. No one's, first of all, before I get to Comer. Okay. There you have it. Michelle, Michelle Wu, perfect, perfect answer, perfect answer. Because in that answer, inherent in that answer, is the acknowledgement that there is a difference between most people who are here, immigrated here. Yes, even undocumented people. Most undocumented people are not committing crimes. But among those who do, obviously, obviously something needs to be

done about that. So I just wish that that was the consistent message coming from Michelle Wu. I'm happy that at least in this case, she gave an answer like that. That's all I'm asking for from Democrats. Okay, I'm not asking Democrats to go along with Republican narratives about how dangerous all these immigrants are. But there are some who are committing violent crimes. And however small that number might be in your mind, it doesn't matter, okay? Something needs to be done about these folks.

And if you are seen as the party that's providing cover for criminality like this, First of all, it harms you electorally, and we know how much Democrats care about that. That's like the most important thing for them. But for me, the most important thing is to ensure that you rob the right wing of a powerful talking point that makes it appear as though all immigrants are dangerous. But that's the thing. Like most Democrats are just unable to do that because they're afraid. They're afraid the activists will come for them.

Who cares? Let the activists come for you. Do what's right. Do what's right for your city. Do what's right for the vast majority of migrants and immigrants. Just do the smart thing. Don't do the scared nonsense maximalist. Oh, no, we're going to protect everybody regardless of what they do. It's ridiculous. All right. So, Comer. Let's talk about Comer. Did you just say that no one's calling for mass deportations? I heard that correctly, right? Kate, I heard that correctly? Yeah, she's saying yes. Yeah, okay. Didn't Trump literally run his entire campaign on that issue on mass deportations? I mean, here, take a look at this.

I have said Congress a detailed funding request laying out exactly how we will eliminate these threats to protect our homeland and complete the largest deportation operation in American history, larger even than current record holder, President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Let's get it to me. I'll sign it so fast. You won't even believe it. I don't know. Was that AI, Comer? Like, do you think we're stupid? Like, what the? Okay. So anyway, getting back to the hearing, since Mayor Adams, Eric Adams, of course, was among the witnesses. Lawmakers did take the opportunity to press him about his alleged wheeling and dealing with the Trump administration, which of course led to the DOJ. I wouldn't say. dropping the criminal charges, he could still be prosecuted. They put a pause on his criminal charges, right? And in return, many believe that Eric Adams is willing to play ball with the Trump administration when it comes to deportations. So look, he was evasive in his answers. And I want to give you a little example of that. Mr. Mayor, we have a right to know if the Trump administration has actually coerced you into agreeing to anything. And Mayor Adams, I also want to be very

clear. Are you selling out New Yorkers to save yourself from prosecution? There's no deal, no quid pro quo, and I did nothing wrong. Have you ever talked about your case with the DOJ with the president? No more than what you heard, him on the trail said that he thought it was in. I haven't heard much. Tell me, have you ever talked about the president and talked about your case in the DOJ with the president? Yeah, as I indicated previously, I'm going to say it again. This case is in front of Judge Hull and had a deference to him. Have you ever talked about your case with anyone in the Trump administration?

I'm going to say this again. This case is in front of Judge Hoh. Let's keep it real. Look, obviously we don't know what kind of private discussions are happening. We can only speculate. But the Justice Department pausing the prosecution of Eric Adams, of which, by the way, we have so much evidence that he engaged in illegal bribery schemes with foreign governments or foreign actors. Come on. And I'll be fair to Mayor Adams, because to his credit, he was critical of the Biden administration's immigration policies well before he had been indicted on those charges. So I think the Trump administration, I think Tom Homan saw an opening an opportunity to do a little favor for a favor. That's my speculation.

But look, to me, the Eric Adams debacle is really a smaller part of the bigger issue here. And I just need Democrats to get a little smarter when it comes to the policies that they champion, the policies that they support, the people that they, for whatever reason, think they need to. protect when they don't need to protect them at all. One of the things that's been driving me nuts is how every single one of those mayors talked about how, yeah, I mean, we saw spike in undocumented immigrants coming into our cities during the Biden administration, but that didn't lead to an increase in crime. In fact, crime is down. But then during the course of the hearing, they were asked whether or not they asked for the immigration status, of the individuals who end up getting arrested for crimes.

And each one of them said no. So how are you going to argue that there's no crime happening among the migrant or immigrant community in our cities when you have no idea because you're not keeping track of it? It's just, it's ridiculous. So look, again, for me, the red line is violent crime. if ICE is reaching out asking for a detainer on an individual who is here illegally and is currently in custody because they were convicted of a violent crime, I think the city should absolutely

cooperate with ICE and with the Department of Homeland Security, specifically. That's it. But I do think there's a place for sanctuary city laws. We need to protect people who are victimized by crime themselves and wish to come forward and report it to the authorities without fear of getting deported. So it's just the devil's in the details, guys. That's all it is. So, but you know, if one side has a position, the other side by default has to take the opposite position, I guess, even if it makes no sense. So we'll see how it plays out. But right now, I don't think it's playing out well for Democrats at all. And it's

certainly not playing out well for undocumented immigrants in the country who are now getting caught up in Trump's immigration policies. If you don't want the voting public to, you know, garner support for Trump's immigration policies, then you have to make sure that you're doing what's right to protect them from, again, the few individuals who do carry out violent crimes. But that's just not happening in some cases. All right. We've got to take a break. We'll be right back. All right, let's talk about Doge. I'm starting to think about maybe some of those veterans who worked for the federal government and maybe what the administration can do to at least help salvage their lives.

Well, as you know, we care about veterans tremendously. I mean, that's something the president has always cared about anybody in blue, anybody that serves this country. But at the same time, we have taxpayer dollars. We have a fiscal responsibility to use taxpayer dollars to pay people that actually work. That doesn't mean that we forget our veterans by any means. We are going to care for them in the right way. But perhaps they're not fit to have a job at this moment or not willing to come to work. Where did you get your information that federal workers who also happen to be veterans aren't working and don't deserve a paycheck? There you have Trump lawyer Lena Haba.

basically showing absolutely no compassion for the veterans who have lost their livelihoods as a result of Elon Musk and Doge's firings of federal workers. Now, clearly, she just thinks they're all lazy. They're all bums. You know, they don't deserve a paycheck. But I guess the losers in Congress who don't even work half the days in the year, who fail to pass legislation and spend all of their time doing performative hearings, they deserve. of their paychecks? Okay. But look, there is some good and surprising news today because Trump has apparently abruptly walked back his order for federal agencies to fire thousands of probationary employees. Now, I want to be clear, he didn't make this decision out of the kindness of his own

heart. His decision has to do a little something with the courts, which found these mass firings to be potentially unlawful. So, U.S. District Judge William, Alsup ruled last Thursday that the Office of Personnel Management had no authority to order agencies to fire thousands of probationary workers and that its actions were probably illegal. So Everett Kelly of the American Federation of Government Employees actually brought this suit to Alsup's court and luckily the judge ruled in his favor. Now, the Office of Personnel Management's new guidance also comes after a government employee oversight board last week ruled in favor of six probationary employees who were fired and who alleged that their terminations were illegal. So in that case, a non-profit known as Democracy Forward had filed the suit. In fact, they have filed multiple lawsuits against the Trump administration, and currently they're working to expand that decision to essentially cover all.

all probationary employees who were fired by the Trump administration. So how did Trump respond to this? And by the way, guys, this is good news because he did revise his order. And a big fear was that he wasn't going to respect the courts. And that was going to lead to a constitutional crisis. I, if Trump continues listening to the courts, I commend him for doing so. That is the right course of action that shows respect for our system of government and our constitution, let's just hope he keeps going in that direction. Now, in revised guidance issued

to the heads of federal agencies, the Office of Personnel Management claims, it never actually ordered agencies to fire probationary employees. Instead, OPM claims it's been up to each agency all along to decide who to fire. Now here's what the revised guidance says. Please note that By this memorandum, OPM is not directing agencies to take any specific performance-based actions regarding probationary employees. Agencies have ultimate decision-making authority over and responsibility for such personnel actions. Now, for those who are wondering what does probationary mean, just to let everyone know, it's newer federal workers or veterans, Like people who have been working for the federal government but got promoted.

Once they get promoted, what ends up happening is, unfortunately, they go through another probationary period. So it is a mistake to assume that all of these federal workers who just got fired had only been on the job for like a few months. No, that's not the case. For some of them, yes, it is the case. But there are a lot of federal workers who were fired even though they had just been promoted, meaning that they had been doing a good job in their role and were rewarded with a promotion.

So it's also worth noting, though, that the revised guidance did not say anything about rehiring the federal workers who have been let go. But the judge's ruling last week has resulted in some of these federal agencies, essentially scrambling to rehire the individuals who were just let go. So the National Science Foundation is one example. They're trying to reinstate 84 employees that they fired as part of OPM's directive. One of those 84 people told HuffPost on Monday that he and several of his colleagues learned they were getting their jobs back, not from NSF, but from other coworkers and the press. So that's not a good sign at all. And look, I'm happy that there are some victories here when it comes to the federal courts.

And I'm also incredibly happy that it appears the Trump administration is listening to these rulings and actually carrying out what they are mandated to carry out based on how the federal courts weigh in on these issues. So that's a good sign. And to be sure, the Trump administration is losing some court battles. And I want to talk about one big battle involving the Supreme Court now. So let's get into it. So in a split decision this morning, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration's freeze on foreign aid through the State Department and the U.S. AID or U.S. aid program. This is a huge, huge story.

It's a big deal because I think there's this assumption that the Supreme Court is always going aside with Donald Trump. Remember, he's the one who managed to nominate and confirm three conservative justices. And the thinking was that these justices are always going to go along with Trump. But I will say, Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been a surprising figure within the Supreme Court because she has actually been more consistent in ruling against Trump than voting with Trump. So let me tell you what I'm talking about. So Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's three liberal justices in a five to four order, which was the high court's first significant move on lawsuits related to President Donald Trump's initiatives in his second term.

Namely, in this case, it has to do with the freeze on federal funding for foreign aid. So the lawsuit in this case was brought by the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council. So look, I'm sure a lot of you have seen news stories about some of the more ridiculous programs carried out by USAID. And honestly, I agree with the critics. I don't want tax dollars to go to some of the more ridiculous programs. I certainly don't want tax dollars to go toward efforts in causing unrest in various countries so they can engage in regime change actions. I'm not in favor of that. But I am in favor of some of these health initiatives because it's not only good for the people in these, you know, foreign countries that were helping. It's also good in preventing the spread of dangerous diseases. And so the group said that the Trump administration's 90-day freeze on foreign

aid had pushed organizations to the brink of insolvency, forced layoffs, and delayed the delivery of life-saving HIV drugs and food assistance to unstable regions worldwide. Now, the Supreme Court has essentially, through their ruling here, sent this case back to the district. court arguing that the judge who also ruled against Donald Trump absolutely had the authority to order that the money gets paid to the programs that it was allocated for. Soon after the ruling, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the government to develop a schedule for reinstating the payments. Aid groups had argued that the Trump administration was flouting his order to pay its bills and hailed the high court's decision as a sign that the president cannot ignore the law.

Now, since this was an emergency order, the justices who ruled against the Trump administration did not have to explain their decision. So here's CNN's senior legal analyst, Ellie Honig, explaining what the Supreme Court's decision means. Let's watch. I think this is a substantial setback for the Trump administration. Now, the winning side here, the challengers, they had argued in the lower courts that essentially the president, has no power to block this federal funding because Congress had already allocated it. And under Article I of the Constitution, Congress has the power to tax and spend. That was ultimately the argument that prevailed here.

Now, the other side of it, the Trump administration and the dissenters in this case argue, first of all, the district court judge had no power to do what he did, that he overstepped. Second of all, that the way this case was brought by private businesses was procedurally improper. And third, the dissenting conservative justices argue, What we the Supreme Court should have done is put this whole thing on hold so that we can have the full rounds of briefing and argument that we ordinarily have. And as the dissent correctly notes, the practical impact of this is that $2 billion is almost certainly going to get out the door and nobody can stop it at this point. And look, the majority decision here really riled up the conservative justices who absolutely disagreed with them, of course. And these are the Supreme Court justices who have a more expansive view on executive power, which is concerning because I think it's important to have a system of checks and balances. Congress is supposed to make decisions about funding. The president of the United States might have the ability to implement a 90-day freeze on funding. But he ultimately does not have the decision-making capability of essentially preventing the money that's been allocated from

Congress from going to where it was intended. And by the way, this is important to keep in mind when it comes to, you know, the Inflation Reduction Act, you guys know that I've been very critical of the policies that were passed by the Biden administration. I think the infrastructure bill, you know, privatizes too much of our public infrastructure. I hate that. The Inflation Reduction Act, of course, had nothing to do with inflation. It was basically a climate bill. But regardless of how I feel about it, Congress, allocated funding for those policies, it is not a good precedent to have a new president get elected into office and essentially dismantle everything that Congress did in the previous term or administration. That would make our government totally useless. And so anyway, Justice Alito wrote the dissenting opinion joined by Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. He says, does a single district court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out and probably lose forever, $2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic no, but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned. The power of the purse lies with Congress.

We have a clear system of checks and balances. If Congress legislates, and by the way, and then the president signs that legislation into law, how does it make sense for a new president to come in and essentially make that law null and void? That would mean that, I mean, just put the shoe on the other foot. Seriously. So if Biden gets elected into office and he decides, eh, I don't like the 2017 tax bill, I'm just going to ignore it. We're going to revert back to what the previous tax laws are.

Justifiably, Republicans would be upset, no. They would be upset. And they should be upset. The reason why I say that is because, again, Congress has the power of the purse. And if we know, if we have a system in which a new president could just dismantle everything that was done in the previous administration, then, I mean, government is totally useless. And I mean, it's already like pretty useless as it is, Congress specifically, because of how much power they've ceded to the executive branch.

But I totally disagree with the dissenting opinion here. I'm glad the Supreme Court ruled the way they did, even though I agree there is some waste in regard to USAID programs. I don't think the health-related programs are waste. Other programs are waste. But nonetheless, this was, in my opinion, the right ruling. You can't have an expansive executive branch that just ignores what Congress is up to. You're really asking for a lot of harm in the future if you do that. So Amy Coney Barrett, again, continues to surprise me with her rulings. I hope she continues to have principles and a moral core and rule in the right way. So we'll see what happens. We've got to take a break.

John Idaural will join us when we come back.