July 3, 2025 • 50 mins
On this episode of The Middle we're bringing you three conversations from our podcast One Thing Trump Did. First, we’ll talk about President Trump’s attacks on law firms with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Then, how cuts to foreign aid are impacting care for HIV and AIDS in Africa with Jen Kates, director of the Global Health & HIV Policy Program at KFF. And finally, how the administration’s aggressive deportation policy has been playing out at the local level in Denver, Colorado with a panel of reporters and advocates. #Trump #WhiteHouse #LawFirms #AIDS #Deportations #ICE #ExecutiveOrders #USAID #PEPFAR
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson, and happy fourth
of July to you.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
So in addition to.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Our weekly live call and show The Middle, we also
do a weekly podcast called One Thing Trump Did. It
started earlier this year, and each week we take on
a single topic and try to break it down with
the same non partisan approach we do on The Middle,
but no callers and a guest who knows what they're
talking about this hour, because of the holiday, we are
(00:31):
bringing you three pieces of three episodes of One Thing
Trump Did. First, we're going to talk about attacks from
the Trump White House on law firms that the president.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Sees as his enemies.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Next, we'll look at cuts to US foreign aid and
particularly to HIV and AIDS funding in Africa. And finally
we'll bring you part of our live event in Denver
looking at how deportations are playing out in and around
the Mile High City. That's all coming up this hour.
So let's start with the law firms. Former Attorney General
Alberto Gonzalez, who served on George W. Bush, joined me
(01:01):
on the podcast. In April, President Trump had issued an
executive order against the storied law firm Covington and Berling,
stripping its lawyers of security clearances, among other things, in
retribution for providing pro bono legal services to Jack Smith,
who was prosecuting cases against Trump for the Justice Department.
Trump also went after Perkins Coy, Paul Weiss, jennerin Block,
(01:23):
Wilmer Hale, and other law firms. I asked Alberto Gonzalez
if this was what it looked like retribution.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
It's certainly a peer city retribution. I guess I've had
a conversation with him. I would ask him, is this
solely based on retribution? But it may also be a
calculated way to minimize the effectiveness of challenges to what
he's doing as president today. Because many of these are
being rbing challenged, they're going to be challenging court, which
(01:52):
means law firms have to be involved, and so this
may be his way of handicamping herding those firms and
thus making the challenges against his policies less effective. So
it could be that I don't know the man, I've
only met him once. I'm inclined to give people the
benefit of the doubt, but I would have to admit
(02:14):
it certainly appears to be retribution. And I think first
one was petty. Secondly, I think it's dangerous given the
enormous power of the president United States, every president wields,
and I think to do something like this for petty purposes.
As I said, I think it's dangerous.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
For people who are not law school graduates. Why is
this such a big deal too, even if it's not retribution,
even if it's just to try to handicap some of
these law firms from being able to represent anybody who's
suing him and trying to stop his agenda. Why is
it a big deal for the President of the United
States to be specifically signing executive orders against some of
(02:54):
the biggest law firms in the country.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Well, I mean because it is the law firms that
vindicate the rights of every American citizen. A very American
company going to court requires, particularly on difficult legal issues,
the assistance, the guidance, the expertise of law firms. And
if they're unwilling to do that because they're going to
(03:17):
be scared of making the administration angry, I think that's
a dangerous place to be. That's not the America, certainly
not the America that I know. I think that lawyers
and law firms have a special obligation to protect the
rule of law. The rule of law is what gives
us predictability in our lives. It makes sure that our
(03:38):
property rights are respected, that our personal privileges are protected,
and all of us play a role in advancing the
rule of law. For example, simply serving on a jury
that advance is the rule of law, or when you vote,
that advance is the rule of law. It just happens
to be that lawyers, and I happen to be a lawyer,
plays a critical role with respect to protecting the rule
(04:01):
of law. And if lawyers aren't stepping up and speaking
out against these kinds of attacks, I think that's that's
disappointing and dangerous. I must confess some level of disappointment
in the silence that I'm hearing amongst a lot of firms.
Obviously we're seeing some pushback, and I think I think
(04:23):
that is a good thing, but it's it's something that
I think all Americans should be watching very very carefully,
because you and I may be in need of the
services of a lawyer someday, and the government shouldn't be
in the it shouldn't be in the business of telling
us who we should or should not hire to represent
us in court.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
What do you think of the firms like Paul Weiss
and Scatten that have settled the matter to try to
just stop the stop the bleeding, I guess, but but
also upset a lot of their employees and others.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
I don't know the financial situation of these firms. I'm
assuming they're quite quite profitable. I don't know what kind
of pressure they got from key clients, so let me
put that aside. But as a general matter, I too
am disappointed because I don't think it is going to
(05:20):
any kind of pressure from the administration is going to
go away. I think it will encourage the administration to
do this to other firms. I think it'll raise the
price of appeasing the administration, And so I tend to
lean towards being in support of those firms who filed
(05:41):
suit to oppose the president. The rhetor from the judges
tell me that they're equally appalled at these kinds of
tactics by the administration. Now it remains to be seen,
of course, when the litigation is ultimately concluded, what the
final outcome is going to be. But certainly I think
the judges who've had an opportunity to look at the
(06:04):
situation based on the pleadings, have some very serious questions
about the actions of this administration. And again, for me,
one of the most disappointing aspects of this is that,
in fact, this is simply about retribution. I mean, get
over it. It's over. He's been elected president. We got
a lot of important things that we need the president's
(06:25):
attention on, and to me, this simply confirms that perhaps
President Trump lacks the integrity, certainly lacks the maturity to
serve as president of United States.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
For those firms that are suing and have taken this
to court, what kind of case do you think they have?
Speaker 3 (06:45):
I think they have a very good case. And I
equate it to all the lawyers who worked on the
January sixth cases and were fired, Okay because they did that.
They did their jobs, that's what they're supposed to do
at the de Partment of Justice. They were successful at it,
and what's the reward they get. They are betrayed by
(07:05):
their government, and so I think that that is the
ultimate betrayal as far as far as as I'm concerned,
and I think for the firms, I think that the
pressure that's being put on them because of a relationship
they had with someone the president did not like, or
because they were involved in litigation in which the outcome
(07:27):
was adverse to the president. Again, I think that's just wrong.
If in fact he lost, it's because it's because he
didn't have you know, the law was not on his side,
and the farms should not be penalized for simply doing
their job.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
And doing it well. Alberta Ganzalaz.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
One of the things I remember about one of our
founding fathers, John Adams, is that before he was president,
as a lawyer, he represented British soldiers involved in the
Boston massacre. Because that's what we do in this country.
Everyone has a right to representation. What does it mean
for the president to go after lawyers who represented people
(08:02):
on the other side of a case that he was in.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Well, as I said at the outset, I mean, what
he's trying to do is limit the number of great
lawyers or good lawyers that can take positions represent clients
in opposition to what he wants to accomplish or wants
to do. And in a republic like ours, I think
that's very, very dangerous. The President United States obviously wields
a great deal of power in our country under our constitution,
(08:28):
and he obviously has the discretion to exercise that power
as he sees fit. But one of the great things
about the rule of law, the rule of law also
exists in addition to protecting your rights and your property,
it exists to check abuses of power. We want to
make sure that the most powerful office in the world,
(08:51):
that the decisions made there are always going to be
based on what is best for this country, not what
is based on political or personal gains of the individual
who sits in that office. And so that is extremely
important as far as I'm concerned, is providing a check
on abuse of power.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
You have said here that you believe that one of
the main aims of what the president is doing here
is to try to keep some of the best lawyers
from attacking pieces of his agenda. But even if the
firms do settle with the president or fight him in
court and win, do you think that he's already done
(09:31):
what he needs to do, which is essentially to bully
them into not representing clients who might be opposed to
him politically.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Maybe well, up to wait and see. You're right, I mean,
it's certainly since a message, a chilling message, somewhat might say,
but I don't think we're really going to have the
outcome of this battle, and I do consider it sort
of a battle or a struggle. So you know, I
think as more and more firms step up, I think
you're going to see the tie turn. And I think
(09:58):
at least I'm at least hopeful that you'll see the
efforts by the administration to cause fear in the halls
of law firms around the country. I'm hopeful that those
efforts will diminish.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
There's a lot that's going on that many people feel
is outside the law, including sending migrants to a third
country without any due process, or deciding not to spend
money that Congress has already appropriated. How does what's happening
with the law firms play into that, and how do
you feel about it as a former Attorney General of
(10:31):
the United States.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Well, I think securing our borders, particularly in the post
none leven world, we have to know who is in
this country and why. So I'm certainly sympathetic. I'm with
virtually every American that if you're a dangerous immigrant in
this country, unlawfully, you need to be deported. However, there
are a number of immigrants that are here who may
(10:53):
be undocumented, but their contributors to society social security. Without them,
various economies like in agriculture, in hospitality would be severely damaged.
And so we've got to figure out a way to
put them in some kind of legal status relatively quickly.
(11:13):
There shouldn't be anybody in this country here in an
unlawful status. We need to know who they are, what
they're doing. And I think most Americans would agree with that,
and all Americans I know would agree that if you're
a dangerous undocumented immigrant in this country, you should not
be in this country. You should be deported. The danger, however,
(11:33):
is making that determination. How do we know who you
are and what risk you pose and what benefits you
provide as an employee or as a worker rather, And
that's where you need to have I think, an ordered process,
not one that's rushed in the dead of night. People
are rounded up and simply flown away. And I suspect
(11:54):
most of the individuals, if not virtually all, deserve to
be routed up deported and they are dangerous. But there
may be some that are not in that category. But
we just don't know, and I think that's what the
judge is trying to find out. He's not saying that
the president doesn't have authority because in the area of
naw security and an immigration and foreign policy, the president's
(12:17):
given a great deal of discretion by the Congress and
by the courts. But what we don't know here yet
are the facts. And the facts may bear out the
righteousness of this action by this administration, but it may
not with respect to one individual or two individuals or whatever.
And that's what the judge is trying to ascertain. Okay,
(12:38):
who have you got? What was the process? And I
think we all would rest easy or knowing that there
was an ordered process and the government is rounding up
people that we don't want in this country and have
no business being in this country.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez on one thing, Trump did
You can hear that entire episode on our podcast in
Ship with iHeart podcasts on the iHeart app or wherever
you listen to podcasts. Up next cuts to AIDS funding
in Africa. You're listening to the middle. This is the middle.
I'm Jeremy Hobson, in this hour for the holiday, we
are taking a listen to parts of three episodes of
(13:14):
our weekly podcast extra called One Thing Trump Did. Each week,
we pick a single thing the Trump White House is
doing and break it down in a non partisan way.
For this segment, we're looking at something that happened early
on in Trump's term, when the White House stopped all
foreign eight, including for HIV and AIDS relief in Africa.
The program PEPFAR, or the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief,
(13:37):
was launched in two thousand and three and is credited
with saving more than twenty million lives by providing HIV medication,
but it was also lumped in with all other foreign
asistants which the Trump administration paused. On Day one, I
spoke with Jen Kates, director of the Global Health and
HIV Policy Program at KFF, and I started by asking
her to give us the basics on pepfar right.
Speaker 4 (13:59):
So going to the basics and going back to a
time before PEP far existed, where I've been working on
HIV issues for long enough that I do remember that time,
and at that time, virtually nobody in Sub Soaran Africa
had access to HIV treatments like we did in the
United States at the time, and it meant that if
you got infected with HIV and you lived there in
(14:21):
that part of the world, you almost assuredly died. As
you had mentioned, President George W. Bush created pep FAR,
which has it's not overstating it to say that it
has completely changed the trajectory of the HIV epidemic in
subsar in Africa and turned around what was going to
be a devastating impact on the continent. The way that
(14:43):
it has worked over the past twenty plus years, since
it had to actually build a lot of the health
system that was needed to deliver HIV drugs, HIV prevention,
HIV services, it had created a funding system where it
provided grants and contracts to many thousands of implementing organizations NGOs,
(15:08):
private entities, universities, and countries themselves, and through this large
network all over the world began implementing programs from antrotravirals
to like I said, prevention and a whole range of services.
So it really worked through organizations to deliver services and
help to create health infrastructure in countries. In about fifty
(15:29):
five countries.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
And when you say antiretrovirals. These are basically medications that
people with HIV would take every day that keeps the
virus undetectable, makes it impossible for them to transmit to
other people. And then when you say prevention, this is
what's called PREP, which can be taken by people who
are HIV negative to keep them.
Speaker 4 (15:49):
That way exactly. And Pepford did both of those things
and Pepford did other things too, which is fund the
various aspects of the healthcare system that are needed to
provide anti retroviral therapy or PREP or other services such
as laboratories, supply chains, to make sure that the drugs
can get to a country, that they can get to
(16:10):
a clinic, healthcare workers who can meet with people at
risk for HIV or with HIV and provide them with
care as well. As you know, it's not just about drugs.
So it provided a range of services, with i'd say
anti retrovirals being the lynchpin of the constellation of things
that it provided.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
And does all the funding for this come from the
United States.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
So when you look at the global HIV epidemic in
low and middle income countries, so in the countries where
historically the governments themselves have not had the budgets to
provide treatment and prevention to people with HIV in their countries.
The far majority of the money that's provided has come
from the US government, and that's either been directly as
(16:57):
I described, you know, providing money to organizations or countries,
as well as providing contributions to international organizations like the
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria that also
work with countries. But if you put it all together,
the far majority of it is the United States.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
Government, And in the last two decades, the let's say
African countries that get the most out of this program
haven't been able to step in and start paying for
more of it themselves.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
You know, there's evidence and data that show they have,
but just not at the level that could replace what
the US has done. And there's many reasons for that.
You know, there's every reasons, including like economic crisis that
happened in two thousand and eight COVID, which drove down
the global economy, including the economies of those countries. Those
countries owe a lot of debt, and because they owe
(17:46):
a lot of debt, it's been very hard for them
to devote more resources to health. But frankly, the other
reason is that the US government and other donors haven't
really pressured them as much to do that work they historically.
You put that all together, and there was a situation
where the US was footing most of the bill and
those countries were either not able to fill in those
(18:10):
you know, fill in much more or just didn't. So
that was a bit of a challenge and it had
been raised increasingly by Congress and others.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Okay, so here's the part of the conversation that as
many articles as I read, I probably won't be able
to figure out the actual answer.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
And maybe you can help.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
So the State Department says that pepfar is exempt from
the funding pause at USAID, but some people on the
ground are saying that's not the case.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
The money is not flowing. What is going on with
it right now?
Speaker 4 (18:41):
So what happened was day one of the second Trump administration,
an executive order came out that said, we are undertaking
a ninety day review of all of our foreign assistants
and as part of that, we're going to stop any
new funds that we have, you know, in our in
our agencies from going out. We want to first decide
do the programs we have align with our interests.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Now.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
That sounds fine, and in fact was not a huge surprise,
since it was recommended by Project twenty twenty five to
do that, but what happened next was not expected. The
administration went on to say, Oh, in addition, we are
freezing all current work. So for anyone that we have
already paid or who we owe money to, for all
(19:27):
the clinics that are you know that's that are staffed
by people that we fund, for all the HIV drugs
that are sitting in you know, facilities waiting to go
to clinics, stop all of that work. We're doing a
stop work order. And this wasn't specific to PEPFAR. They
did this virtually for all foreign aid, and they froze
(19:48):
all of the payments and all of the work, and
as you can imagine, that created a very challenging situation.
A few days after that, the Secretary of State Secretary
of rubio Ha had already announced that they were going
to not freeze anything that was considered humanitarian life saving treatment,
and that became He then applied that to pep FAR
(20:11):
and said for very specific parts of pet FAR, namely
care and treatment mostly there would not be a freeze.
So it wasn't that all of pet FAR was exempt
from this freeze. Part of pet FAR was exempt, so
that was important. But what also was the case is
by the time that happened, many of the implementers I
(20:34):
talked about, all the implementers had either not gotten information
that they could start work again or had to lay
off thousands of healthcare workers or close clinics because they
weren't getting paid. So even for let's say a project
that was given a reprieve, many of those projects just
couldn't even do anything anymore, and some still said they
haven't been paid. So it is not the case that
(20:56):
every pet FAR supported care and treatment program around the
world is functioning it at this time. Many more are
than they were, but it's not one hundred percent. And
in addition, what they also said is that prevention is
not permitted and prep you were talked about PREP before.
(21:16):
Part of what they said was prep other than for
pregnant and breastfeeding women is no longer permitted. So they
really limited what parts of PEPFAR we're going to be permitted.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
And has anybody made the case to you of why
they would not want to permit funding for PREP, which
clearly has been very effective.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
Well, I think that their definition of life saving treatment
are mostly services that go to people who already have
HIV and not services that go to people to prevent
them from getting HIV. Why that is, you know, I
think there from things I've read and some of the
testimonies and hearings that some members of Congress of Hell called,
(22:00):
they think that some of the behaviors that put people
at risk or not behaviors that should be supported some
of the views that were from twenty twenty five years
ago or thirty years ago around why people are at
risk for HIV. But in general, I think it's a
much narrower view of what life saving means. Clearly, preventing
somebody from getting HIV in the first place is a
(22:22):
way to save somebody's life, and as you mentioned, PREP
is highly effective. There's also just to stick with PREP
for a second. Just in the last year, there were
two clinical trials that finish that showed that a new
form of PREP, a very effective injectable PREP were for
twice a year, could you can get an injection and
(22:44):
it prevented almost all HIV infections. And the US before
the second Trump administration was poised to make a large
purchase of this new prep medication as soon as it
was approved by the FDA, which is going to be
very soon. It was going to partner with the Global
Fund and purchase it to provide to two million people
at risk, and now that's in jeopardy.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
So just based on what you're hearing, with some of
the funding not getting through, maybe some of it is
continuing to get through in Africa right now, are there
people who are you know, just up in arms outraged
because they can't get their medication that they've been getting.
Speaker 4 (23:23):
From what I heard, yes, there are people that are
not getting the medication, and from what I've heard, they're
mostly afraid and unsure about what will happen next. You know,
they have relied on these systems that have been largely
supported by the US, and it was a very abrupt stoppage. So,
you know, there's some places where treatment is flowing and
other places where it's not. And it's very hard to
(23:44):
get information about, you know, the day to day impacts.
Other than there's been some media reports. There are some
NGOs that are sharing the information because a lot of
the information systems that pep FAR had were taken down immediately.
So PEFER had a pretty sophisticated information database which you
tracked outcomes in almost real time, and that was taken
(24:05):
down within a couple of days because I think because
the stop work order that I mentioned and the entities
that were funded to run that data system were dismissed,
and there's not personnel really to do it. There's nobody
on the staff on the ground who would have been
collecting the data and providing it or not able to
(24:25):
do that work.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
Jen, let's talk about the congressional authorization for pep FAR
since the President's executive order that has expired.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Why did that happen.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
Yeah, So that's a whole other thing that's been going on.
And if we have been talking maybe two or three
months ago, I would have said that's the most important
thing to focus on, but it's not. Meaning that the
Foreign aid review and freeze is probably the more urgent,
but this is an important thing as well, and it's
very hard to understand, frankly, unless you are somebody who
(24:56):
is in DC and talks about these things all the time.
So I'll try to break it down. Any programs and
departments and agencies in the US government are created through
what's called an authorizing bill. Congress has committees that are
authorizing committees, and those committees pass bills to create things,
to say, we want to create the National Institutes of Health,
we want to create the State Department, we want to
(25:18):
create USAID. These are bills that authorize the government to
stand up something. For example, when pef FAR was first created,
Congress passed an authorizing bill. Now, the important thing about
authorizing bills is they don't provide the money. That's what
the appropriators do. So even when you create a program,
you still have to have the other part of Congress
fund it, so they kind of work in tandem. The
(25:40):
other thing about these bills, and I'm going into, like
you know, beyond Schoolhouse Rock, is we have lots of detail,
but it's important. The other thing about authorizing bills is
it's really important what detail they have. Often they'll say, Okay,
we're creating such and such and it's going to end
on in five years, or it's going to end in
two years, or it's going to sunset times. They don't
say that at all. They create something and it's there forever.
(26:03):
PEP FAR was created in a sense as permanent part
of US law that never had an end date. What
is the case, though, is that unless Congress provides money
for it, it can't do anything. Remember I mentioned that
PEPFAR has had all this bipartisan support. Well, that allowed
it to be reauthorized every five years, and Congress would say, yes,
(26:23):
let's you know, we're showing our support again, we're reauthorizing it.
And that was good because it showed that there was support.
It allowed Congress to there were a few provisions in
the law that did sunset, so it allowed Congress to
kind of extend them. Congress made some changes as more
was learned. That was all fine and good, But in
the last few years everything has become so politicized and
(26:47):
there have been a lot more political issues raised about
pep FAR, including around abortion, and we can talk about that.
That really stymied the reauthorization process. So a year ago
Congress Republicans in Congress especially could not agree with Democrats
to reauthorize pep FAR, And at the end of the day,
what they decided to do was to reauthorize it for
(27:08):
one year, which they did, which is unusual. Usually it
was five years. Well, that just expired, as you mentioned
in March twenty fifth, what does that mean. That means
that pef FAR continues. It was I think symbolically a
bit of a challenge because Congress was not able to
sort of make the statement that it wanted to reauthorize
(27:28):
this program. But the program doesn't end. The only practical
things that happen where there as I mentioned a few
things in the bill that sunset, meaning they ended, they're
no longer requirements. Congress would have to do something to
make those continue, but it doesn't really have a day
to day impact on the program. What has a much
(27:50):
bigger impact on the program is if the administration decides
not to spend the money that Congress is giving to it,
which is really doesn't usually happen, but happening right now.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
And when you mentioned abortion, this is because I think
there was a clinic or maybe there were more than
one clinic that that that had provided abortions and also
was getting money for pep FAR.
Speaker 4 (28:12):
So yeah, so US law prohibits the use of federal
funds international funds for abortion, and that's been long, long standing,
and that's a that's a very hard line and not
one that that uh PEPFAR had you know, PEPFER has
always been very clear about that, as have foreign aid programs.
What happened was that it was discovered, and PEFER has
(28:34):
had guidance and all these things, and there's trainings. What
happened is it was discovered that I think a couple
of nurses that were supported by PEPFER, their salaries were
supported by PEPFAR, had never had the training and were
providing abortion services. That got discovered, it stopped, and it finally,
you know, I think the government paid back PEPFER is
about four thousand dollars, but it was a violation. And
(28:57):
when that information was brought to the attention of Congress,
this was after the abortion discussion had happened on the
Hill and they were already concerned, they got even more concerned.
And Republican members of Congress in particular have basically said
that they don't truyt. They weren't trusting that PEPFAR was
not able to manage the situation, and so that created
(29:19):
a real challenge for the program. Even before the feign
aid freeze was announced. I mean, this came out just
I think a couple weeks before, so that is still there.
I think with the having the Trump administration in place
and having reduced the program significantly at this point, that
concern hasn't really surfaced right now because the program is
(29:41):
really just providing mostly care and treatment right now.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
So we're talking about how this funding helps people, let's say,
in Africa, but in fact, what this funding does is
also prevent drug resistant strains of HIV from coming back
to the United States. If people get taken off their
medication in Africa and then maybe they get on new
medication later, it could be that the HIV in their
(30:07):
bodies develops into a drug resistance strate. Are there worries
about what.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
This could mean for the United States from a health perspective?
Speaker 4 (30:14):
Definitely. I mean you actually said it exactly the way
people are talk about it in the field, which is
when the US government has spent money on infectious diseases,
whether it's HIV, a bola TV. Part of the reason
it's done, and of course is to help people in
poorer countries that aren't able to get the services we get,
(30:34):
but part of the reason it's done is to keep
those diseases at bay and prevent more harmful versions or
prevent spread from coming to the United States and what
you do. The scenario you present, it is not a
far fetched scenario. Treatment is being interrupted in Africa because
of this, and it could lead to drug resistance, which
is a real problem for people with HIV who will
(30:58):
not be able to get medications eventually that could help them.
It could also create the spread of a drug resistant virus.
So all it's hard, I think for an average American
to understand that trying to control infectious diseases in other
countries that they may never go to has an impact
on our lives. But it does. We just you know,
(31:19):
it's like the same thing with public health. You don't
know it's not working until something happens. Mostly you go
about your day and you don't think about it because
the system is working to make to mitigate that risk.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
That was Jen Kates, director of the Global Health and
HIV Policy Program at kff UP. Next, we'll talk about
how the Trump administration's aggressive deportation policy is playing out
at the local level with a panel of reporters and
advocates in Denver. Stay with us, you're listening to the middle.
This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson on this special
(31:52):
holiday edition of the show, we're listening to three episodes
of our weekly podcast Extra One Thing Trump Did, in
which we pick one topic everyonek week and break things
down in a nonpartisan way with a guest who knows what.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
They're talking about.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
In this final segment, we're going to take a trip
to Denver, Colorado, where I spoke with a number of
immigration reporters and advocates in front of a live audience
in March about how Trump's deportation program was playing out there.
My guests were Kyle Harris, a reporter with Denver Wright,
Alison Sherry, Colorado Public Radio's immigration and justice reporter, Andrea Looyer,
(32:25):
executive director at Casa de Pause, which offers outreach and
support to people who are released from the Immigration Detention
Center in Aurora, Colorado, And Jordan T. Garcia, the program
director for Colorado's for Immigrant Rights. I started off by
asking reporter Kyle Harris what he's noticing.
Speaker 5 (32:42):
I would say it's been one at least in terms
of my coverage of fear, there has been. I spend
a lot of time with families. I spend a lot
of time with folks who are going through the process
of seeking asylum, trying to figure out how to build
a life here, and those communities are really radically terrified.
The other beat that I have is covering the mayor's office,
(33:05):
and so you know, the mayor has been dragged to
Washington as part of a congressional investigation into so called
sanctuary cities, and that has also created quite a lot
of heightened political tension here as well.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
And Denver is a sanctuary city.
Speaker 5 (33:20):
Denver does not describe itself as a sanctuary city, and
the mayor calls this a welcoming city, and that's been
the case for since the late nineties. It's not a
sanctuary city in the sense that local law enforcement does
in some ways work with Ice immigration customs enforcement.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
But so a lot of fear is what you're seeing.
Speaker 5 (33:43):
I'm seeing a ton of fear. Fear from families, fear
from business owners, fear from landlords, even in this climate.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
We'll get into sure, Allison, what about you?
Speaker 6 (33:54):
Well, you know I cover mostly law enforcement and immigration
as a beat. So I will say since the inauguration,
there have been raids here, you know, sort of the
national screaming headlines are playing out here at a very
local level. There was a raid on February fifth, where
ICE and a bunch of federal law enforcement went to
(34:17):
five apartment buildings saying that they were police. Didn't say
that they were ICE, just kind of yell police, police, police, police,
and then knock on doors. There were a couple of
criminal warrants signed by judges where people go in, where
they go in and they knock down a door. But
also they were trying to catch people coming out of
their apartments going to work, getting in cars. So I
(34:39):
will say locally, it's happening here. It's quiet a little.
They've quieted down. But because of the work that Jordan's
group has done with the rapid response, Colorado has uniquely
been called out by the Department of Homeland Security Secretary
Christy Nome and Tom Homan, who's head of ICE, for
being a problem state to grab people. You know, a
(35:01):
lot of the ICE agents right now have quotas numbers
of people they're supposed to be getting every day, and
it's been more difficult I think. I mean, they've said this,
so I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. It's been
more difficult here than in other states because of I mean,
they say it's because of our local laws. But I
think it's also because there just aren't that many criminal
(35:23):
people running around without papers. I mean, I just don't
think it's like, you know, the entire city of Aurora
is not just one well.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
And so what you're saying, though, is that they actually
are focused more on people who are criminals as opposed
to just people who are here illegally or are people
getting swept up in these rates.
Speaker 6 (35:41):
No, I would say it's ramped up. And even in
the last two weeks, they are not focusing just on
people who are criminals or have criminal charges pending. They
are focusing on everybody. And I was at the detention
center last week interviewing a Mauritanian who has no criminal record.
I interviewed a guy yesterday who has no criminal record
who was swept up in a raid at apartment building
an Aurora. So no, I don't I think it's I
(36:04):
think it's ramping up.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
Now, when a raid happens, how do you get alerted
to it, I mean, do you is it sort of
like Jordan tells you that there's a raid happening. How
do you find out that there's a raid happening.
Speaker 7 (36:14):
The way that we do that is people will call
our dispatchers, and our dispatchers will send out confirmers, and
confirmers go to the site and they verify ICE activity
if there is any, and then we're able to give
that information back to the community.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
And what is it that you do when you arrive
and you find out that ICE is there? And ICE
would say, we're doing our job.
Speaker 7 (36:33):
We do say that it's important to kind of be
polite and be you know, respectful, but also to get facts.
A lot of times what I say when I show
up to a site like that, as I say, Hey,
I got a call from someone who's really scared. Can
you tell me what's happening?
Speaker 1 (36:48):
And do they communicate back to you?
Speaker 7 (36:49):
Oftentimes yes, in certain ways. I'll tell you one thing
is that most police officers do not like to be
mistaken for ICE. So if they are police officers, they
will give you their card in Denver, or they'll give
you their some information about themselves. They do not like
to be confused with ICE. ICE is like very unliked.
(37:11):
So a lot of times we are able to get
accurate information to people if it is ICE. Oftentimes what
they'll do is they'll tell us, you know, we're here
with drug enforcement or we'll here with alcohol, tobacco and
firearms or something like that.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
And do you agree with Allison's description of the fact
that the raids were happening early on in the Trump
administration and maybe they've quieted down a little bit since then.
Speaker 7 (37:35):
I think the force that we saw on February fifth
was pretty intense. I would say they were at least
one hundred or more officers, which just the tax dollars
alone is alarming. But since then we've seen smaller type operations.
Speaker 6 (37:53):
And you should say what you guys were doing on
February fifth, because I don't think the audience probably knows
or can picture what the rapid was spons was doing,
which and I think, forgive me if I'm wrong, but
you guys were out there with megaphones, yelling rights and Spanish.
Don't leave your door, don't leave, don't leave your apartment
right now. You don't have to answer, you know, you
don't have to unroll your car window, you don't have
(38:14):
to stop, you don't have to You were guys, and
you're yelling at in Spanish and English.
Speaker 8 (38:18):
So that's exactly what's what happens. And so I I'm
the executive director Gessa. But like Jordan said, we are
everybody goes on the ground. We work closely together, and
so whence your when's you're a confirmer. Once you're a
part of an organization, you drop whatever you're doing and
you go confirm on a site. And so we have
megaphones that we like. I have a megaphone in my car.
I have flyers that I'm ready to give out. So
(38:41):
that's another thing. It's even when you arrive on sites
and ICE has already gone or it wasn't ice, it's
being able to provide people this information. And so really
that's what it was. It was on February fifth. It's
providing no your rights information, don't open the door if
people don't have a warrant. You have the right to
remain inside your apartment. You have the right to remain silent.
You have the right to ask for them to give
(39:02):
you that warrant or give show you the piece of
paper under your door. You don't have to make that
physical contact with them. And so it's really just spreading
this information that keeps people out of detension. Like Alison
mentioned earlier, they were showing up on February fifth, yelling police, police, police,
that's scary.
Speaker 1 (39:19):
The guy that she's touching, say, Ice was yelling police, police, police,
which is which is not correct.
Speaker 8 (39:23):
Because so a lot of people what you I'm an immigrant,
I was born I was born in Mexico City, but
I grew up in Aurora, And so when people talk
about Aurora, it's very interesting because I've actually grew up there.
And you are if you hear police police, police come
to your door and you're an immigrant, you're going to
open the door because that's scary, and you're told that
(39:45):
you're supposed to follow the law. And so by them
doing that and opening the door to what actually was Ice,
they were, they found themselves in handcuffs, and now we've
seen that that is exactly what happened. So we are
we're talking about simply knowing that when it's police, you
have to give them your name and your day of birth,
but when it's ice, you don't have to talk to them.
Speaker 6 (40:06):
And police don't like to be tagged together with them
because they need to solve crimes. Their number one job
is to solve crimes, whether they're a federal la enforcement agency,
the drug enforcement Agency, the ATF, Denver police Aurora police.
They're not worried about immigration status. So if they're all
lumped together, who's going to report a crime? If they're
(40:27):
worried the ICE is going to be rounding them.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
They lose the trust of them, they lose.
Speaker 6 (40:30):
The trust of the community.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
President Trump has put a lot of attention on Aurora, Colorado.
As we said, he said it was taken over by
Venezuelan gang members. The mayor of the city said that
was exaggerated. The President said he wouldlaunch something called Operation Aurora. Kyle,
I know you have done some reporting on what happened
in Aurora. Why did that become such a focus for
(40:51):
President Trump?
Speaker 5 (40:52):
Well, it started really over the summer. So in the summer,
CBZ Management, which was a property manager company, contracted with
a Florida pr firm who basically started pushing this idea
that trained Aragua, a Venezuelan prison gang had taken over
a series of apartments in Aurora. Daniel Drinsky, who's a
(41:14):
councilwoman in Aurora, took the mantle on this and it
was allowed public conversation. There was video that showed armed
men going through one of Cbz's apartment complexes. That video
went viral, and the idea of trained Aragua being like
the scariest gang in the world really in some ways
(41:36):
seem to have taken off around Aurora, Colorado. We did
not see firsthand some massive gang presence. We saw a
lot of families, We saw a lot of community people
who are trying to get by day to day. But
the national narrative spun this idea of a gang takeover
so thoroughly. And really, those apartment buildings, I mean they
were what Aurora Mike Kaufman described as as slums and
(41:59):
described them as out of state slum lords. They were
in rough condition, and the management company was really looking
to get out of a legal struggle with the city
of Aurora and more recently now with Denver. In fact,
one of the one of the folks with CBZ is
on a warrant right now, has a warrant right now
because he didn't show up to court at any rate.
(42:21):
All this pops nationally. Trump takes it up. He pledges
he's going to come to Aurora. He talks about it
in the presidential debate. He shows up at the gay
Lord Hotel. You know, he's talking very muscularly about taking
on train de Ragua shows up on the outskirts of Aurora.
He has an invitation from Mayor Mike Kaufman, a fellow Republican,
(42:41):
to come check out what's actually happening in the city
because Aurora was taking hits. Also in terms of business,
Trump does not go to any of the apartment complexes,
but he does launch this Operation Aurora, which he described
at the time as you know, the first step of
his mass deportation plan. So that is is what it
took off. And you know, if you were if you
(43:02):
were living here right after Inauguration Day, you were waiting
for those raids that we saw on February fifth to explode.
On day one, we were all on edge assuming there
would be mass ice raids that took a couple of
weeks to happen.
Speaker 1 (43:15):
It's funny, I didn't see any of that in the
one hundred and forty four character tweets about this that
went viral across the internet.
Speaker 5 (43:21):
No, the ins and outs of CBC management or not
the first thing the administration was conclited about.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
So Allison, as you're trying to figure out as you're
reporting on this, who is actually being taken in and
caught in these raids deported obviously, who who's being sent
on planes to El Salvador in recent days? How much
do you know about who it is that is actually
(43:47):
being captured and deported.
Speaker 6 (43:50):
That has been a harder question than you'd think to
figure out, because, as Andrea has said, they have been
completely not transparent about who all these people are. You know,
I think us along with every other media organization, or like, well,
who is on the Alsalva or plane? Like can we
look at can we just give us a list of
names and so we can look up their criminal records?
Were they facing criminal charges in the United States. What
(44:12):
we have determined is that there are all kinds of
people being deported. There are people without criminal records at
all who have been put into removal proceedings, including the
very prominent t Neetvisguerra, who is an outspoken immigrant advocate
in Denver and Aurora since twenty ten about keeping families together.
And she's still in detention and it seems I mean,
(44:34):
her lawyers would say it seems a little bit like
a persecution of a because she's been very outspoken against
the Trump administration and family separation. But we know people
like her have been swept up in these raids. But
we also know that some people who have serious criminal
charges or serious criminal allegations are also getting deported without
going through the US criminal justice system. And I think,
(44:56):
you know, I asked the head of the DEA local here,
I said, does that make us safer? I mean, you've
got a guy, you know has been trafficking fentanyl into
the United States, and you're just deporting him. You're not
going to send him to the US Attorney's office for
a federal prosecution or federal prison. And he's like, it's easier, frankly,
to just deport people than it is to actually go
through the criminal justice system. These cases are difficult, and
(45:18):
maybe they wouldn't get he wouldn't get convicted, and then
he'd be out on the street again. So that's their line.
They do believe that deportations, above everything else is sort
of the goal.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
Kyle. Let me go back to you and ask how
these measures, the deportations, every the fear that you talked about,
how they impacted daily life in Denver, the economy. How
are people coping with this, even if they're not worried
for themselves or somebody that they know is affecting the
community and the economy.
Speaker 5 (45:49):
People are not showing up to shop. I've heard that
from business owners who say, our client tells just not
coming in and we're having a hard time making and.
Speaker 1 (45:57):
Because they are here, because they're undocumented, and they're worried
they're going to be captured.
Speaker 5 (46:02):
Because folks are here undocumented, or they're simply afraid of ICE.
I mean, there are people who are here with citizenship
who have told me they are afraid of being deported
by ICE. People are just afraid for their friends, and
that's a huge thing economically. The other thing is, you know,
you have a lot of people who have been renting
who are undocumented, who are here and documented but in
(46:24):
ways that maybe the Trump administration does not perceive as legal.
Those folks are also really scared to go to work.
And if people are scared to go to work, it's
hard to pay rent. Where a city that a few
years ago had encampments throughout our city sentiment and the
mayor was elected on the promise of ending unsheltered homelessness
(46:44):
in four years, ending homelessness in four years, and I
think what we're seeing is the possibility that a crisis
that in some ways had been addressed could be re
emerging if people are afraid to access services, work.
Speaker 1 (46:57):
Et cetera. Alison, what are you saying of the impact
on the broader community.
Speaker 6 (47:02):
There has been a real concentrated effort to push legally
the federal government in Colorado. I mean, I just I
think the number of lawsuits I'm sure there are lawyers
listening and in the audience has really jumped up. You know,
there are so many petitions for relief to get like,
for example, Jeanete Viscuta out of detention. There have been
a lot of people who are actually not filing claims
(47:26):
for asylum. That has slowed down because I think anyone
is saying, I'm not going to raise my hand and
put my name down on a piece of paper for
this federal government. I don't trust them, so I'm just
going to live in the shadows. I'm not going to
have any numbers. And I'm sure Andrea and Jordan can
speak to that way better than me. But I think
that's a very fascinating trend because it's almost deterring people
(47:47):
from following the rules.
Speaker 1 (47:49):
Andrea, for audience outside of the Denver area who may
have heard all about Aurora from President Trump and on
others during the campaign, what is happening now? Have a
lot of the migrants who were busted into the Denver
area stayed here? Have they left? Like, what's what's the latest?
Speaker 8 (48:09):
We saw a lot of people settle, but we also
saw a lot of people leave. On our end. In
the way that we see people, it's hard to get
a good picture of how many people stay and how
many people leave. So I would say that in the
last year, we saw a lot of people settle, and
that's not a thing that we have seen before. Now
we're seeing a lot of people who are in community
(48:30):
and are still kind of in that resource space or
honestly kind of in that re emerging that Kyle is
talking about, like that crisis that we maybe see again
where people are gonna end up unhoused. The other thing
is it just it was very chaotic in the way
that I think Denver did a lot of things. No again,
like they did a lot of really good things too,
(48:52):
but they didn't have program management right, So a lot
of these people were housed halfway, so they weren't provided
rap services. They were kind of just provided housing, which
doesn't allow somebody who doesn't have an understanding of living
in another country how to settle. So I think we're
going to start seeing a lot of people who didn't
essentially get the right assistance the first time around, but
(49:13):
on not like my currently like on our release, and
we are just truly seeing a lot of what Allison
is talking about, people with no criminal records, living in
community for years and years and years and then just
going to work and getting caught up. These are the
people that are getting picked up, not just here but
around the country.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
That was Andrea Looyer, executive director at Kasada Pause. Also
joining me Denver Wright, reporter Kyle Harris, Colorado Public Radio
Immigration and Justice reporter Allison Sherry, and Jordan T. Garcia,
who's program director for Coloraden's for Immigrant Rights. That conversation
was recorded in March, and again these three snippets that
we've heard this hour or part of our weekly podcast
Extra One Thing Trump Did, which you can find by
(49:55):
subscribing to the Middle wherever you get your podcasts. The
Middle is brought to you by long Bok Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media in Urbana, Illinois, and produced by
Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander Samburmus DAWs, John barth An Akadestlar,
and Brandon Condrits. Our technical director is Steve Mork. Thanks
to our satellite radio listeners, our podcast audience, and the
hundreds of radio stations that are making it possible for
(50:17):
people across the country to listen to the Middle. I'm
Jeremy Hobson. I'll talk to you next week.
Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson, and happy fourth
of July to you.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
So in addition to.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Our weekly live call and show The Middle, we also
do a weekly podcast called One Thing Trump Did. It
started earlier this year, and each week we take on
a single topic and try to break it down with
the same non partisan approach we do on The Middle,
but no callers and a guest who knows what they're
talking about this hour, because of the holiday, we are
(00:31):
bringing you three pieces of three episodes of One Thing
Trump Did. First, we're going to talk about attacks from
the Trump White House on law firms that the president.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Sees as his enemies.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Next, we'll look at cuts to US foreign aid and
particularly to HIV and AIDS funding in Africa. And finally
we'll bring you part of our live event in Denver
looking at how deportations are playing out in and around
the Mile High City. That's all coming up this hour.
So let's start with the law firms. Former Attorney General
Alberto Gonzalez, who served on George W. Bush, joined me
(01:01):
on the podcast. In April, President Trump had issued an
executive order against the storied law firm Covington and Berling,
stripping its lawyers of security clearances, among other things, in
retribution for providing pro bono legal services to Jack Smith,
who was prosecuting cases against Trump for the Justice Department.
Trump also went after Perkins Coy, Paul Weiss, jennerin Block,
(01:23):
Wilmer Hale, and other law firms. I asked Alberto Gonzalez
if this was what it looked like retribution.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
It's certainly a peer city retribution. I guess I've had
a conversation with him. I would ask him, is this
solely based on retribution? But it may also be a
calculated way to minimize the effectiveness of challenges to what
he's doing as president today. Because many of these are
being rbing challenged, they're going to be challenging court, which
(01:52):
means law firms have to be involved, and so this
may be his way of handicamping herding those firms and
thus making the challenges against his policies less effective. So
it could be that I don't know the man, I've
only met him once. I'm inclined to give people the
benefit of the doubt, but I would have to admit
(02:14):
it certainly appears to be retribution. And I think first
one was petty. Secondly, I think it's dangerous given the
enormous power of the president United States, every president wields,
and I think to do something like this for petty purposes.
As I said, I think it's dangerous.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
For people who are not law school graduates. Why is
this such a big deal too, even if it's not retribution,
even if it's just to try to handicap some of
these law firms from being able to represent anybody who's
suing him and trying to stop his agenda. Why is
it a big deal for the President of the United
States to be specifically signing executive orders against some of
(02:54):
the biggest law firms in the country.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Well, I mean because it is the law firms that
vindicate the rights of every American citizen. A very American
company going to court requires, particularly on difficult legal issues,
the assistance, the guidance, the expertise of law firms. And
if they're unwilling to do that because they're going to
(03:17):
be scared of making the administration angry, I think that's
a dangerous place to be. That's not the America, certainly
not the America that I know. I think that lawyers
and law firms have a special obligation to protect the
rule of law. The rule of law is what gives
us predictability in our lives. It makes sure that our
(03:38):
property rights are respected, that our personal privileges are protected,
and all of us play a role in advancing the
rule of law. For example, simply serving on a jury
that advance is the rule of law, or when you vote,
that advance is the rule of law. It just happens
to be that lawyers, and I happen to be a lawyer,
plays a critical role with respect to protecting the rule
(04:01):
of law. And if lawyers aren't stepping up and speaking
out against these kinds of attacks, I think that's that's
disappointing and dangerous. I must confess some level of disappointment
in the silence that I'm hearing amongst a lot of firms.
Obviously we're seeing some pushback, and I think I think
(04:23):
that is a good thing, but it's it's something that
I think all Americans should be watching very very carefully,
because you and I may be in need of the
services of a lawyer someday, and the government shouldn't be
in the it shouldn't be in the business of telling
us who we should or should not hire to represent
us in court.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
What do you think of the firms like Paul Weiss
and Scatten that have settled the matter to try to
just stop the stop the bleeding, I guess, but but
also upset a lot of their employees and others.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
I don't know the financial situation of these firms. I'm
assuming they're quite quite profitable. I don't know what kind
of pressure they got from key clients, so let me
put that aside. But as a general matter, I too
am disappointed because I don't think it is going to
(05:20):
any kind of pressure from the administration is going to
go away. I think it will encourage the administration to
do this to other firms. I think it'll raise the
price of appeasing the administration, And so I tend to
lean towards being in support of those firms who filed
(05:41):
suit to oppose the president. The rhetor from the judges
tell me that they're equally appalled at these kinds of
tactics by the administration. Now it remains to be seen,
of course, when the litigation is ultimately concluded, what the
final outcome is going to be. But certainly I think
the judges who've had an opportunity to look at the
(06:04):
situation based on the pleadings, have some very serious questions
about the actions of this administration. And again, for me,
one of the most disappointing aspects of this is that,
in fact, this is simply about retribution. I mean, get
over it. It's over. He's been elected president. We got
a lot of important things that we need the president's
(06:25):
attention on, and to me, this simply confirms that perhaps
President Trump lacks the integrity, certainly lacks the maturity to
serve as president of United States.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
For those firms that are suing and have taken this
to court, what kind of case do you think they have?
Speaker 3 (06:45):
I think they have a very good case. And I
equate it to all the lawyers who worked on the
January sixth cases and were fired, Okay because they did that.
They did their jobs, that's what they're supposed to do
at the de Partment of Justice. They were successful at it,
and what's the reward they get. They are betrayed by
(07:05):
their government, and so I think that that is the
ultimate betrayal as far as far as as I'm concerned,
and I think for the firms, I think that the
pressure that's being put on them because of a relationship
they had with someone the president did not like, or
because they were involved in litigation in which the outcome
(07:27):
was adverse to the president. Again, I think that's just wrong.
If in fact he lost, it's because it's because he
didn't have you know, the law was not on his side,
and the farms should not be penalized for simply doing
their job.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
And doing it well. Alberta Ganzalaz.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
One of the things I remember about one of our
founding fathers, John Adams, is that before he was president,
as a lawyer, he represented British soldiers involved in the
Boston massacre. Because that's what we do in this country.
Everyone has a right to representation. What does it mean
for the president to go after lawyers who represented people
(08:02):
on the other side of a case that he was in.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Well, as I said at the outset, I mean, what
he's trying to do is limit the number of great
lawyers or good lawyers that can take positions represent clients
in opposition to what he wants to accomplish or wants
to do. And in a republic like ours, I think
that's very, very dangerous. The President United States obviously wields
a great deal of power in our country under our constitution,
(08:28):
and he obviously has the discretion to exercise that power
as he sees fit. But one of the great things
about the rule of law, the rule of law also
exists in addition to protecting your rights and your property,
it exists to check abuses of power. We want to
make sure that the most powerful office in the world,
(08:51):
that the decisions made there are always going to be
based on what is best for this country, not what
is based on political or personal gains of the individual
who sits in that office. And so that is extremely
important as far as I'm concerned, is providing a check
on abuse of power.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
You have said here that you believe that one of
the main aims of what the president is doing here
is to try to keep some of the best lawyers
from attacking pieces of his agenda. But even if the
firms do settle with the president or fight him in
court and win, do you think that he's already done
(09:31):
what he needs to do, which is essentially to bully
them into not representing clients who might be opposed to
him politically.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Maybe well, up to wait and see. You're right, I mean,
it's certainly since a message, a chilling message, somewhat might say,
but I don't think we're really going to have the
outcome of this battle, and I do consider it sort
of a battle or a struggle. So you know, I
think as more and more firms step up, I think
you're going to see the tie turn. And I think
(09:58):
at least I'm at least hopeful that you'll see the
efforts by the administration to cause fear in the halls
of law firms around the country. I'm hopeful that those
efforts will diminish.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
There's a lot that's going on that many people feel
is outside the law, including sending migrants to a third
country without any due process, or deciding not to spend
money that Congress has already appropriated. How does what's happening
with the law firms play into that, and how do
you feel about it as a former Attorney General of
(10:31):
the United States.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Well, I think securing our borders, particularly in the post
none leven world, we have to know who is in
this country and why. So I'm certainly sympathetic. I'm with
virtually every American that if you're a dangerous immigrant in
this country, unlawfully, you need to be deported. However, there
are a number of immigrants that are here who may
(10:53):
be undocumented, but their contributors to society social security. Without them,
various economies like in agriculture, in hospitality would be severely damaged.
And so we've got to figure out a way to
put them in some kind of legal status relatively quickly.
(11:13):
There shouldn't be anybody in this country here in an
unlawful status. We need to know who they are, what
they're doing. And I think most Americans would agree with that,
and all Americans I know would agree that if you're
a dangerous undocumented immigrant in this country, you should not
be in this country. You should be deported. The danger, however,
(11:33):
is making that determination. How do we know who you
are and what risk you pose and what benefits you
provide as an employee or as a worker rather, And
that's where you need to have I think, an ordered process,
not one that's rushed in the dead of night. People
are rounded up and simply flown away. And I suspect
(11:54):
most of the individuals, if not virtually all, deserve to
be routed up deported and they are dangerous. But there
may be some that are not in that category. But
we just don't know, and I think that's what the
judge is trying to find out. He's not saying that
the president doesn't have authority because in the area of
naw security and an immigration and foreign policy, the president's
(12:17):
given a great deal of discretion by the Congress and
by the courts. But what we don't know here yet
are the facts. And the facts may bear out the
righteousness of this action by this administration, but it may
not with respect to one individual or two individuals or whatever.
And that's what the judge is trying to ascertain. Okay,
(12:38):
who have you got? What was the process? And I
think we all would rest easy or knowing that there
was an ordered process and the government is rounding up
people that we don't want in this country and have
no business being in this country.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez on one thing, Trump did
You can hear that entire episode on our podcast in
Ship with iHeart podcasts on the iHeart app or wherever
you listen to podcasts. Up next cuts to AIDS funding
in Africa. You're listening to the middle. This is the middle.
I'm Jeremy Hobson, in this hour for the holiday, we
are taking a listen to parts of three episodes of
(13:14):
our weekly podcast extra called One Thing Trump Did. Each week,
we pick a single thing the Trump White House is
doing and break it down in a non partisan way.
For this segment, we're looking at something that happened early
on in Trump's term, when the White House stopped all
foreign eight, including for HIV and AIDS relief in Africa.
The program PEPFAR, or the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief,
(13:37):
was launched in two thousand and three and is credited
with saving more than twenty million lives by providing HIV medication,
but it was also lumped in with all other foreign
asistants which the Trump administration paused. On Day one, I
spoke with Jen Kates, director of the Global Health and
HIV Policy Program at KFF, and I started by asking
her to give us the basics on pepfar right.
Speaker 4 (13:59):
So going to the basics and going back to a
time before PEP far existed, where I've been working on
HIV issues for long enough that I do remember that time,
and at that time, virtually nobody in Sub Soaran Africa
had access to HIV treatments like we did in the
United States at the time, and it meant that if
you got infected with HIV and you lived there in
(14:21):
that part of the world, you almost assuredly died. As
you had mentioned, President George W. Bush created pep FAR,
which has it's not overstating it to say that it
has completely changed the trajectory of the HIV epidemic in
subsar in Africa and turned around what was going to
be a devastating impact on the continent. The way that
(14:43):
it has worked over the past twenty plus years, since
it had to actually build a lot of the health
system that was needed to deliver HIV drugs, HIV prevention,
HIV services, it had created a funding system where it
provided grants and contracts to many thousands of implementing organizations NGOs,
(15:08):
private entities, universities, and countries themselves, and through this large
network all over the world began implementing programs from antrotravirals
to like I said, prevention and a whole range of services.
So it really worked through organizations to deliver services and
help to create health infrastructure in countries. In about fifty
(15:29):
five countries.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
And when you say antiretrovirals. These are basically medications that
people with HIV would take every day that keeps the
virus undetectable, makes it impossible for them to transmit to
other people. And then when you say prevention, this is
what's called PREP, which can be taken by people who
are HIV negative to keep them.
Speaker 4 (15:49):
That way exactly. And Pepford did both of those things
and Pepford did other things too, which is fund the
various aspects of the healthcare system that are needed to
provide anti retroviral therapy or PREP or other services such
as laboratories, supply chains, to make sure that the drugs
can get to a country, that they can get to
(16:10):
a clinic, healthcare workers who can meet with people at
risk for HIV or with HIV and provide them with
care as well. As you know, it's not just about drugs.
So it provided a range of services, with i'd say
anti retrovirals being the lynchpin of the constellation of things
that it provided.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
And does all the funding for this come from the
United States.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
So when you look at the global HIV epidemic in
low and middle income countries, so in the countries where
historically the governments themselves have not had the budgets to
provide treatment and prevention to people with HIV in their countries.
The far majority of the money that's provided has come
from the US government, and that's either been directly as
(16:57):
I described, you know, providing money to organizations or countries,
as well as providing contributions to international organizations like the
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria that also
work with countries. But if you put it all together,
the far majority of it is the United States.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
Government, And in the last two decades, the let's say
African countries that get the most out of this program
haven't been able to step in and start paying for
more of it themselves.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
You know, there's evidence and data that show they have,
but just not at the level that could replace what
the US has done. And there's many reasons for that.
You know, there's every reasons, including like economic crisis that
happened in two thousand and eight COVID, which drove down
the global economy, including the economies of those countries. Those
countries owe a lot of debt, and because they owe
(17:46):
a lot of debt, it's been very hard for them
to devote more resources to health. But frankly, the other
reason is that the US government and other donors haven't
really pressured them as much to do that work they historically.
You put that all together, and there was a situation
where the US was footing most of the bill and
those countries were either not able to fill in those
(18:10):
you know, fill in much more or just didn't. So
that was a bit of a challenge and it had
been raised increasingly by Congress and others.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Okay, so here's the part of the conversation that as
many articles as I read, I probably won't be able
to figure out the actual answer.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
And maybe you can help.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
So the State Department says that pepfar is exempt from
the funding pause at USAID, but some people on the
ground are saying that's not the case.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
The money is not flowing. What is going on with
it right now?
Speaker 4 (18:41):
So what happened was day one of the second Trump administration,
an executive order came out that said, we are undertaking
a ninety day review of all of our foreign assistants
and as part of that, we're going to stop any
new funds that we have, you know, in our in
our agencies from going out. We want to first decide
do the programs we have align with our interests.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Now.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
That sounds fine, and in fact was not a huge surprise,
since it was recommended by Project twenty twenty five to
do that, but what happened next was not expected. The
administration went on to say, Oh, in addition, we are
freezing all current work. So for anyone that we have
already paid or who we owe money to, for all
(19:27):
the clinics that are you know that's that are staffed
by people that we fund, for all the HIV drugs
that are sitting in you know, facilities waiting to go
to clinics, stop all of that work. We're doing a
stop work order. And this wasn't specific to PEPFAR. They
did this virtually for all foreign aid, and they froze
(19:48):
all of the payments and all of the work, and
as you can imagine, that created a very challenging situation.
A few days after that, the Secretary of State Secretary
of rubio Ha had already announced that they were going
to not freeze anything that was considered humanitarian life saving treatment,
and that became He then applied that to pep FAR
(20:11):
and said for very specific parts of pet FAR, namely
care and treatment mostly there would not be a freeze.
So it wasn't that all of pet FAR was exempt
from this freeze. Part of pet FAR was exempt, so
that was important. But what also was the case is
by the time that happened, many of the implementers I
(20:34):
talked about, all the implementers had either not gotten information
that they could start work again or had to lay
off thousands of healthcare workers or close clinics because they
weren't getting paid. So even for let's say a project
that was given a reprieve, many of those projects just
couldn't even do anything anymore, and some still said they
haven't been paid. So it is not the case that
(20:56):
every pet FAR supported care and treatment program around the
world is functioning it at this time. Many more are
than they were, but it's not one hundred percent. And
in addition, what they also said is that prevention is
not permitted and prep you were talked about PREP before.
(21:16):
Part of what they said was prep other than for
pregnant and breastfeeding women is no longer permitted. So they
really limited what parts of PEPFAR we're going to be permitted.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
And has anybody made the case to you of why
they would not want to permit funding for PREP, which
clearly has been very effective.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
Well, I think that their definition of life saving treatment
are mostly services that go to people who already have
HIV and not services that go to people to prevent
them from getting HIV. Why that is, you know, I
think there from things I've read and some of the
testimonies and hearings that some members of Congress of Hell called,
(22:00):
they think that some of the behaviors that put people
at risk or not behaviors that should be supported some
of the views that were from twenty twenty five years
ago or thirty years ago around why people are at
risk for HIV. But in general, I think it's a
much narrower view of what life saving means. Clearly, preventing
somebody from getting HIV in the first place is a
(22:22):
way to save somebody's life, and as you mentioned, PREP
is highly effective. There's also just to stick with PREP
for a second. Just in the last year, there were
two clinical trials that finish that showed that a new
form of PREP, a very effective injectable PREP were for
twice a year, could you can get an injection and
(22:44):
it prevented almost all HIV infections. And the US before
the second Trump administration was poised to make a large
purchase of this new prep medication as soon as it
was approved by the FDA, which is going to be
very soon. It was going to partner with the Global
Fund and purchase it to provide to two million people
at risk, and now that's in jeopardy.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
So just based on what you're hearing, with some of
the funding not getting through, maybe some of it is
continuing to get through in Africa right now, are there
people who are you know, just up in arms outraged
because they can't get their medication that they've been getting.
Speaker 4 (23:23):
From what I heard, yes, there are people that are
not getting the medication, and from what I've heard, they're
mostly afraid and unsure about what will happen next. You know,
they have relied on these systems that have been largely
supported by the US, and it was a very abrupt stoppage. So,
you know, there's some places where treatment is flowing and
other places where it's not. And it's very hard to
(23:44):
get information about, you know, the day to day impacts.
Other than there's been some media reports. There are some
NGOs that are sharing the information because a lot of
the information systems that pep FAR had were taken down immediately.
So PEFER had a pretty sophisticated information database which you
tracked outcomes in almost real time, and that was taken
(24:05):
down within a couple of days because I think because
the stop work order that I mentioned and the entities
that were funded to run that data system were dismissed,
and there's not personnel really to do it. There's nobody
on the staff on the ground who would have been
collecting the data and providing it or not able to
(24:25):
do that work.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
Jen, let's talk about the congressional authorization for pep FAR
since the President's executive order that has expired.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Why did that happen.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
Yeah, So that's a whole other thing that's been going on.
And if we have been talking maybe two or three
months ago, I would have said that's the most important
thing to focus on, but it's not. Meaning that the
Foreign aid review and freeze is probably the more urgent,
but this is an important thing as well, and it's
very hard to understand, frankly, unless you are somebody who
(24:56):
is in DC and talks about these things all the time.
So I'll try to break it down. Any programs and
departments and agencies in the US government are created through
what's called an authorizing bill. Congress has committees that are
authorizing committees, and those committees pass bills to create things,
to say, we want to create the National Institutes of Health,
we want to create the State Department, we want to
(25:18):
create USAID. These are bills that authorize the government to
stand up something. For example, when pef FAR was first created,
Congress passed an authorizing bill. Now, the important thing about
authorizing bills is they don't provide the money. That's what
the appropriators do. So even when you create a program,
you still have to have the other part of Congress
fund it, so they kind of work in tandem. The
(25:40):
other thing about these bills, and I'm going into, like
you know, beyond Schoolhouse Rock, is we have lots of detail,
but it's important. The other thing about authorizing bills is
it's really important what detail they have. Often they'll say, Okay,
we're creating such and such and it's going to end
on in five years, or it's going to end in
two years, or it's going to sunset times. They don't
say that at all. They create something and it's there forever.
(26:03):
PEP FAR was created in a sense as permanent part
of US law that never had an end date. What
is the case, though, is that unless Congress provides money
for it, it can't do anything. Remember I mentioned that
PEPFAR has had all this bipartisan support. Well, that allowed
it to be reauthorized every five years, and Congress would say, yes,
(26:23):
let's you know, we're showing our support again, we're reauthorizing it.
And that was good because it showed that there was support.
It allowed Congress to there were a few provisions in
the law that did sunset, so it allowed Congress to
kind of extend them. Congress made some changes as more
was learned. That was all fine and good, But in
the last few years everything has become so politicized and
(26:47):
there have been a lot more political issues raised about
pep FAR, including around abortion, and we can talk about that.
That really stymied the reauthorization process. So a year ago
Congress Republicans in Congress especially could not agree with Democrats
to reauthorize pep FAR, And at the end of the day,
what they decided to do was to reauthorize it for
(27:08):
one year, which they did, which is unusual. Usually it
was five years. Well, that just expired, as you mentioned
in March twenty fifth, what does that mean. That means
that pef FAR continues. It was I think symbolically a
bit of a challenge because Congress was not able to
sort of make the statement that it wanted to reauthorize
(27:28):
this program. But the program doesn't end. The only practical
things that happen where there as I mentioned a few
things in the bill that sunset, meaning they ended, they're
no longer requirements. Congress would have to do something to
make those continue, but it doesn't really have a day
to day impact on the program. What has a much
(27:50):
bigger impact on the program is if the administration decides
not to spend the money that Congress is giving to it,
which is really doesn't usually happen, but happening right now.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
And when you mentioned abortion, this is because I think
there was a clinic or maybe there were more than
one clinic that that that had provided abortions and also
was getting money for pep FAR.
Speaker 4 (28:12):
So yeah, so US law prohibits the use of federal
funds international funds for abortion, and that's been long, long standing,
and that's a that's a very hard line and not
one that that uh PEPFAR had you know, PEPFER has
always been very clear about that, as have foreign aid programs.
What happened was that it was discovered, and PEFER has
(28:34):
had guidance and all these things, and there's trainings. What
happened is it was discovered that I think a couple
of nurses that were supported by PEPFER, their salaries were
supported by PEPFAR, had never had the training and were
providing abortion services. That got discovered, it stopped, and it finally,
you know, I think the government paid back PEPFER is
about four thousand dollars, but it was a violation. And
(28:57):
when that information was brought to the attention of Congress,
this was after the abortion discussion had happened on the
Hill and they were already concerned, they got even more concerned.
And Republican members of Congress in particular have basically said
that they don't truyt. They weren't trusting that PEPFAR was
not able to manage the situation, and so that created
(29:19):
a real challenge for the program. Even before the feign
aid freeze was announced. I mean, this came out just
I think a couple weeks before, so that is still there.
I think with the having the Trump administration in place
and having reduced the program significantly at this point, that
concern hasn't really surfaced right now because the program is
(29:41):
really just providing mostly care and treatment right now.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
So we're talking about how this funding helps people, let's say,
in Africa, but in fact, what this funding does is
also prevent drug resistant strains of HIV from coming back
to the United States. If people get taken off their
medication in Africa and then maybe they get on new
medication later, it could be that the HIV in their
(30:07):
bodies develops into a drug resistance strate. Are there worries
about what.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
This could mean for the United States from a health perspective?
Speaker 4 (30:14):
Definitely. I mean you actually said it exactly the way
people are talk about it in the field, which is
when the US government has spent money on infectious diseases,
whether it's HIV, a bola TV. Part of the reason
it's done, and of course is to help people in
poorer countries that aren't able to get the services we get,
(30:34):
but part of the reason it's done is to keep
those diseases at bay and prevent more harmful versions or
prevent spread from coming to the United States and what
you do. The scenario you present, it is not a
far fetched scenario. Treatment is being interrupted in Africa because
of this, and it could lead to drug resistance, which
is a real problem for people with HIV who will
(30:58):
not be able to get medications eventually that could help them.
It could also create the spread of a drug resistant virus.
So all it's hard, I think for an average American
to understand that trying to control infectious diseases in other
countries that they may never go to has an impact
on our lives. But it does. We just you know,
(31:19):
it's like the same thing with public health. You don't
know it's not working until something happens. Mostly you go
about your day and you don't think about it because
the system is working to make to mitigate that risk.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
That was Jen Kates, director of the Global Health and
HIV Policy Program at kff UP. Next, we'll talk about
how the Trump administration's aggressive deportation policy is playing out
at the local level with a panel of reporters and
advocates in Denver. Stay with us, you're listening to the middle.
This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson on this special
(31:52):
holiday edition of the show, we're listening to three episodes
of our weekly podcast Extra One Thing Trump Did, in
which we pick one topic everyonek week and break things
down in a nonpartisan way with a guest who knows what.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
They're talking about.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
In this final segment, we're going to take a trip
to Denver, Colorado, where I spoke with a number of
immigration reporters and advocates in front of a live audience
in March about how Trump's deportation program was playing out there.
My guests were Kyle Harris, a reporter with Denver Wright,
Alison Sherry, Colorado Public Radio's immigration and justice reporter, Andrea Looyer,
(32:25):
executive director at Casa de Pause, which offers outreach and
support to people who are released from the Immigration Detention
Center in Aurora, Colorado, And Jordan T. Garcia, the program
director for Colorado's for Immigrant Rights. I started off by
asking reporter Kyle Harris what he's noticing.
Speaker 5 (32:42):
I would say it's been one at least in terms
of my coverage of fear, there has been. I spend
a lot of time with families. I spend a lot
of time with folks who are going through the process
of seeking asylum, trying to figure out how to build
a life here, and those communities are really radically terrified.
The other beat that I have is covering the mayor's office,
(33:05):
and so you know, the mayor has been dragged to
Washington as part of a congressional investigation into so called
sanctuary cities, and that has also created quite a lot
of heightened political tension here as well.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
And Denver is a sanctuary city.
Speaker 5 (33:20):
Denver does not describe itself as a sanctuary city, and
the mayor calls this a welcoming city, and that's been
the case for since the late nineties. It's not a
sanctuary city in the sense that local law enforcement does
in some ways work with Ice immigration customs enforcement.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
But so a lot of fear is what you're seeing.
Speaker 5 (33:43):
I'm seeing a ton of fear. Fear from families, fear
from business owners, fear from landlords, even in this climate.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
We'll get into sure, Allison, what about you?
Speaker 6 (33:54):
Well, you know I cover mostly law enforcement and immigration
as a beat. So I will say since the inauguration,
there have been raids here, you know, sort of the
national screaming headlines are playing out here at a very
local level. There was a raid on February fifth, where
ICE and a bunch of federal law enforcement went to
(34:17):
five apartment buildings saying that they were police. Didn't say
that they were ICE, just kind of yell police, police, police, police,
and then knock on doors. There were a couple of
criminal warrants signed by judges where people go in, where
they go in and they knock down a door. But
also they were trying to catch people coming out of
their apartments going to work, getting in cars. So I
(34:39):
will say locally, it's happening here. It's quiet a little.
They've quieted down. But because of the work that Jordan's
group has done with the rapid response, Colorado has uniquely
been called out by the Department of Homeland Security Secretary
Christy Nome and Tom Homan, who's head of ICE, for
being a problem state to grab people. You know, a
(35:01):
lot of the ICE agents right now have quotas numbers
of people they're supposed to be getting every day, and
it's been more difficult I think. I mean, they've said this,
so I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. It's been
more difficult here than in other states because of I mean,
they say it's because of our local laws. But I
think it's also because there just aren't that many criminal
(35:23):
people running around without papers. I mean, I just don't
think it's like, you know, the entire city of Aurora
is not just one well.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
And so what you're saying, though, is that they actually
are focused more on people who are criminals as opposed
to just people who are here illegally or are people
getting swept up in these rates.
Speaker 6 (35:41):
No, I would say it's ramped up. And even in
the last two weeks, they are not focusing just on
people who are criminals or have criminal charges pending. They
are focusing on everybody. And I was at the detention
center last week interviewing a Mauritanian who has no criminal record.
I interviewed a guy yesterday who has no criminal record
who was swept up in a raid at apartment building
an Aurora. So no, I don't I think it's I
(36:04):
think it's ramping up.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
Now, when a raid happens, how do you get alerted
to it, I mean, do you is it sort of
like Jordan tells you that there's a raid happening. How
do you find out that there's a raid happening.
Speaker 7 (36:14):
The way that we do that is people will call
our dispatchers, and our dispatchers will send out confirmers, and
confirmers go to the site and they verify ICE activity
if there is any, and then we're able to give
that information back to the community.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
And what is it that you do when you arrive
and you find out that ICE is there? And ICE
would say, we're doing our job.
Speaker 7 (36:33):
We do say that it's important to kind of be
polite and be you know, respectful, but also to get facts.
A lot of times what I say when I show
up to a site like that, as I say, Hey,
I got a call from someone who's really scared. Can
you tell me what's happening?
Speaker 1 (36:48):
And do they communicate back to you?
Speaker 7 (36:49):
Oftentimes yes, in certain ways. I'll tell you one thing
is that most police officers do not like to be
mistaken for ICE. So if they are police officers, they
will give you their card in Denver, or they'll give
you their some information about themselves. They do not like
to be confused with ICE. ICE is like very unliked.
(37:11):
So a lot of times we are able to get
accurate information to people if it is ICE. Oftentimes what
they'll do is they'll tell us, you know, we're here
with drug enforcement or we'll here with alcohol, tobacco and
firearms or something like that.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
And do you agree with Allison's description of the fact
that the raids were happening early on in the Trump
administration and maybe they've quieted down a little bit since then.
Speaker 7 (37:35):
I think the force that we saw on February fifth
was pretty intense. I would say they were at least
one hundred or more officers, which just the tax dollars
alone is alarming. But since then we've seen smaller type operations.
Speaker 6 (37:53):
And you should say what you guys were doing on
February fifth, because I don't think the audience probably knows
or can picture what the rapid was spons was doing,
which and I think, forgive me if I'm wrong, but
you guys were out there with megaphones, yelling rights and Spanish.
Don't leave your door, don't leave, don't leave your apartment
right now. You don't have to answer, you know, you
don't have to unroll your car window, you don't have
(38:14):
to stop, you don't have to You were guys, and
you're yelling at in Spanish and English.
Speaker 8 (38:18):
So that's exactly what's what happens. And so I I'm
the executive director Gessa. But like Jordan said, we are
everybody goes on the ground. We work closely together, and
so whence your when's you're a confirmer. Once you're a
part of an organization, you drop whatever you're doing and
you go confirm on a site. And so we have
megaphones that we like. I have a megaphone in my car.
I have flyers that I'm ready to give out. So
(38:41):
that's another thing. It's even when you arrive on sites
and ICE has already gone or it wasn't ice, it's
being able to provide people this information. And so really
that's what it was. It was on February fifth. It's
providing no your rights information, don't open the door if
people don't have a warrant. You have the right to
remain inside your apartment. You have the right to remain silent.
You have the right to ask for them to give
(39:02):
you that warrant or give show you the piece of
paper under your door. You don't have to make that
physical contact with them. And so it's really just spreading
this information that keeps people out of detension. Like Alison
mentioned earlier, they were showing up on February fifth, yelling police, police, police,
that's scary.
Speaker 1 (39:19):
The guy that she's touching, say, Ice was yelling police, police, police,
which is which is not correct.
Speaker 8 (39:23):
Because so a lot of people what you I'm an immigrant,
I was born I was born in Mexico City, but
I grew up in Aurora, And so when people talk
about Aurora, it's very interesting because I've actually grew up there.
And you are if you hear police police, police come
to your door and you're an immigrant, you're going to
open the door because that's scary, and you're told that
(39:45):
you're supposed to follow the law. And so by them
doing that and opening the door to what actually was Ice,
they were, they found themselves in handcuffs, and now we've
seen that that is exactly what happened. So we are
we're talking about simply knowing that when it's police, you
have to give them your name and your day of birth,
but when it's ice, you don't have to talk to them.
Speaker 6 (40:06):
And police don't like to be tagged together with them
because they need to solve crimes. Their number one job
is to solve crimes, whether they're a federal la enforcement agency,
the drug enforcement Agency, the ATF, Denver police Aurora police.
They're not worried about immigration status. So if they're all
lumped together, who's going to report a crime? If they're
(40:27):
worried the ICE is going to be rounding them.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
They lose the trust of them, they lose.
Speaker 6 (40:30):
The trust of the community.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
President Trump has put a lot of attention on Aurora, Colorado.
As we said, he said it was taken over by
Venezuelan gang members. The mayor of the city said that
was exaggerated. The President said he wouldlaunch something called Operation Aurora. Kyle,
I know you have done some reporting on what happened
in Aurora. Why did that become such a focus for
(40:51):
President Trump?
Speaker 5 (40:52):
Well, it started really over the summer. So in the summer,
CBZ Management, which was a property manager company, contracted with
a Florida pr firm who basically started pushing this idea
that trained Aragua, a Venezuelan prison gang had taken over
a series of apartments in Aurora. Daniel Drinsky, who's a
(41:14):
councilwoman in Aurora, took the mantle on this and it
was allowed public conversation. There was video that showed armed
men going through one of Cbz's apartment complexes. That video
went viral, and the idea of trained Aragua being like
the scariest gang in the world really in some ways
(41:36):
seem to have taken off around Aurora, Colorado. We did
not see firsthand some massive gang presence. We saw a
lot of families, We saw a lot of community people
who are trying to get by day to day. But
the national narrative spun this idea of a gang takeover
so thoroughly. And really, those apartment buildings, I mean they
were what Aurora Mike Kaufman described as as slums and
(41:59):
described them as out of state slum lords. They were
in rough condition, and the management company was really looking
to get out of a legal struggle with the city
of Aurora and more recently now with Denver. In fact,
one of the one of the folks with CBZ is
on a warrant right now, has a warrant right now
because he didn't show up to court at any rate.
(42:21):
All this pops nationally. Trump takes it up. He pledges
he's going to come to Aurora. He talks about it
in the presidential debate. He shows up at the gay
Lord Hotel. You know, he's talking very muscularly about taking
on train de Ragua shows up on the outskirts of Aurora.
He has an invitation from Mayor Mike Kaufman, a fellow Republican,
(42:41):
to come check out what's actually happening in the city
because Aurora was taking hits. Also in terms of business,
Trump does not go to any of the apartment complexes,
but he does launch this Operation Aurora, which he described
at the time as you know, the first step of
his mass deportation plan. So that is is what it
took off. And you know, if you were if you
(43:02):
were living here right after Inauguration Day, you were waiting
for those raids that we saw on February fifth to explode.
On day one, we were all on edge assuming there
would be mass ice raids that took a couple of
weeks to happen.
Speaker 1 (43:15):
It's funny, I didn't see any of that in the
one hundred and forty four character tweets about this that
went viral across the internet.
Speaker 5 (43:21):
No, the ins and outs of CBC management or not
the first thing the administration was conclited about.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
So Allison, as you're trying to figure out as you're
reporting on this, who is actually being taken in and
caught in these raids deported obviously, who who's being sent
on planes to El Salvador in recent days? How much
do you know about who it is that is actually
(43:47):
being captured and deported.
Speaker 6 (43:50):
That has been a harder question than you'd think to
figure out, because, as Andrea has said, they have been
completely not transparent about who all these people are. You know,
I think us along with every other media organization, or like, well,
who is on the Alsalva or plane? Like can we
look at can we just give us a list of
names and so we can look up their criminal records?
Were they facing criminal charges in the United States. What
(44:12):
we have determined is that there are all kinds of
people being deported. There are people without criminal records at
all who have been put into removal proceedings, including the
very prominent t Neetvisguerra, who is an outspoken immigrant advocate
in Denver and Aurora since twenty ten about keeping families together.
And she's still in detention and it seems I mean,
(44:34):
her lawyers would say it seems a little bit like
a persecution of a because she's been very outspoken against
the Trump administration and family separation. But we know people
like her have been swept up in these raids. But
we also know that some people who have serious criminal
charges or serious criminal allegations are also getting deported without
going through the US criminal justice system. And I think,
(44:56):
you know, I asked the head of the DEA local here,
I said, does that make us safer? I mean, you've
got a guy, you know has been trafficking fentanyl into
the United States, and you're just deporting him. You're not
going to send him to the US Attorney's office for
a federal prosecution or federal prison. And he's like, it's easier, frankly,
to just deport people than it is to actually go
through the criminal justice system. These cases are difficult, and
(45:18):
maybe they wouldn't get he wouldn't get convicted, and then
he'd be out on the street again. So that's their line.
They do believe that deportations, above everything else is sort
of the goal.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
Kyle. Let me go back to you and ask how
these measures, the deportations, every the fear that you talked about,
how they impacted daily life in Denver, the economy. How
are people coping with this, even if they're not worried
for themselves or somebody that they know is affecting the
community and the economy.
Speaker 5 (45:49):
People are not showing up to shop. I've heard that
from business owners who say, our client tells just not
coming in and we're having a hard time making and.
Speaker 1 (45:57):
Because they are here, because they're undocumented, and they're worried
they're going to be captured.
Speaker 5 (46:02):
Because folks are here undocumented, or they're simply afraid of ICE.
I mean, there are people who are here with citizenship
who have told me they are afraid of being deported
by ICE. People are just afraid for their friends, and
that's a huge thing economically. The other thing is, you know,
you have a lot of people who have been renting
who are undocumented, who are here and documented but in
(46:24):
ways that maybe the Trump administration does not perceive as legal.
Those folks are also really scared to go to work.
And if people are scared to go to work, it's
hard to pay rent. Where a city that a few
years ago had encampments throughout our city sentiment and the
mayor was elected on the promise of ending unsheltered homelessness
(46:44):
in four years, ending homelessness in four years, and I
think what we're seeing is the possibility that a crisis
that in some ways had been addressed could be re
emerging if people are afraid to access services, work.
Speaker 1 (46:57):
Et cetera. Alison, what are you saying of the impact
on the broader community.
Speaker 6 (47:02):
There has been a real concentrated effort to push legally
the federal government in Colorado. I mean, I just I
think the number of lawsuits I'm sure there are lawyers
listening and in the audience has really jumped up. You know,
there are so many petitions for relief to get like,
for example, Jeanete Viscuta out of detention. There have been
a lot of people who are actually not filing claims
(47:26):
for asylum. That has slowed down because I think anyone
is saying, I'm not going to raise my hand and
put my name down on a piece of paper for
this federal government. I don't trust them, so I'm just
going to live in the shadows. I'm not going to
have any numbers. And I'm sure Andrea and Jordan can
speak to that way better than me. But I think
that's a very fascinating trend because it's almost deterring people
(47:47):
from following the rules.
Speaker 1 (47:49):
Andrea, for audience outside of the Denver area who may
have heard all about Aurora from President Trump and on
others during the campaign, what is happening now? Have a
lot of the migrants who were busted into the Denver
area stayed here? Have they left? Like, what's what's the latest?
Speaker 8 (48:09):
We saw a lot of people settle, but we also
saw a lot of people leave. On our end. In
the way that we see people, it's hard to get
a good picture of how many people stay and how
many people leave. So I would say that in the
last year, we saw a lot of people settle, and
that's not a thing that we have seen before. Now
we're seeing a lot of people who are in community
(48:30):
and are still kind of in that resource space or
honestly kind of in that re emerging that Kyle is
talking about, like that crisis that we maybe see again
where people are gonna end up unhoused. The other thing
is it just it was very chaotic in the way
that I think Denver did a lot of things. No again,
like they did a lot of really good things too,
(48:52):
but they didn't have program management right, So a lot
of these people were housed halfway, so they weren't provided
rap services. They were kind of just provided housing, which
doesn't allow somebody who doesn't have an understanding of living
in another country how to settle. So I think we're
going to start seeing a lot of people who didn't
essentially get the right assistance the first time around, but
(49:13):
on not like my currently like on our release, and
we are just truly seeing a lot of what Allison
is talking about, people with no criminal records, living in
community for years and years and years and then just
going to work and getting caught up. These are the
people that are getting picked up, not just here but
around the country.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
That was Andrea Looyer, executive director at Kasada Pause. Also
joining me Denver Wright, reporter Kyle Harris, Colorado Public Radio
Immigration and Justice reporter Allison Sherry, and Jordan T. Garcia,
who's program director for Coloraden's for Immigrant Rights. That conversation
was recorded in March, and again these three snippets that
we've heard this hour or part of our weekly podcast
Extra One Thing Trump Did, which you can find by
(49:55):
subscribing to the Middle wherever you get your podcasts. The
Middle is brought to you by long Bok Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media in Urbana, Illinois, and produced by
Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander Samburmus DAWs, John barth An Akadestlar,
and Brandon Condrits. Our technical director is Steve Mork. Thanks
to our satellite radio listeners, our podcast audience, and the
hundreds of radio stations that are making it possible for
(50:17):
people across the country to listen to the Middle. I'm
Jeremy Hobson. I'll talk to you next week.
Host
Jeremy Hobson
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.