September 24, 2025 • 43 mins
Anthony Romero, the longest-serving executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, joins us to talk about free speech and the new McCarthyism, ICE detentions, the fight to protect birthright citizenship, and the cultural influence of Bad Bunny.
You can listen now on the free iHeartRadio app. New episodes drop every Wednesday.
The Moment is a production of Radio Ambulante Studios and iHeart's My Cultura Podcast Network.
Follow us on Instagram at:
@JorgeRamosNews
@PaoRamos
@RadioAmbulante
@MyCulturaPodcasts
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 (00:00):
Ola.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
I'm cor Caramos, and this is the moment in Momento Momento,
So let's talk about what we do power.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
I'll tell you one of the most recent reporting trips
that I was on, because I think this has a
lot to do with today's episode. So a couple of
months ago, at this point, I was in Costa Rica
and in Panama, and I was following a group of
Venezuelan migrants, some of whom had either self deported from
(00:40):
the United States or were waiting in limbo in Mexico,
but all of them were reverse migrating. At some point
they had decided that I mean, listen to this, now,
this is how bad it is. They had decided that
their life is better in Venezuela, in that authoritarian regime
than it is in the United States.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
So this is new because last year it was exactly
the opposite that were coming to this unity.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
I mean literally until the point that Donald Trump was inaugurated,
you still had hundreds of migrants that were still trying
to go into the United States, right, still driven by
this idea, right that democracy is still possible in this country.
But what really stuck with me when I was doing
this reporting trip was this very simple sort of notion
now that one of the immigrants, Athian Stone, told me,
(01:26):
and he said, why would I go into the US
if I've just left an authoritarian regime like Venezuela. And
so that calculation, I think is one of the ideas
that is that is getting lost in this country right
now that people are from Afar are literally looking at
us and seeing some resemblance of the very same authoritatian
regimes that they're leaving. And so that gets me to
(01:50):
think about you now, thinking about you in the eighties
in Mexico, and I'm thinking if there was ever a
time when you were growing up in Mexico and becoming
a journalist where you felt that your own rights as
a journalist were being restricted.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
That's exactly why I came to the United States. I
didn't want to be a censor journalist. And back then Mexico,
the nineteen eighties, Mexico was not a democracy. Mexico was
la victalura, perfect bargazjosa, and then this perfect dictatorship. I
just didn't want to live in a perfect dictatorship. I
wanted to be completely free as a journalist. So I
(02:26):
decided to leave Mexico and Okay, that was one of
the most difficult decisions and most important decisions in my
life to become I didn't want to be an immigrant.
I had I was forced to be an immigrant. So
I left Mexico with a promise. I promised myself that
I would never leave again in a country that was
(02:46):
not a democracy. So I came to the States. Ronald
Reagan was president, and then I remember watching the TV
journalists criticizing openly the president n a capola. Nothing happened.
I loved it. It was complete freedom of expression and said,
I want to live in this country, kto be business depace.
(03:07):
And now we're seeing that things are changing in this country.
Still we have the freedom, we have the freedom to
say whatever we want, but it's not as it's not
as easy. But I'm I'm sticking to my promise that
I don't want to live in a country that is
not a democracy, and I'm not willing to take the
fact that this country is not exactly what I expected
(03:28):
when I came from it.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Even even that question now, like are we still living
in the democracy that you came.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
To It is not the same. I mean, that is
what we have to fight for that right.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
But even even that now as a framework, like we
are no longer perhaps living in that very same democracy
that wants sort of lured you and I think as journalists,
you know, we think of authoritary regimes in a very
specific way. Now we think that a coup happens, or
there's sort of this likeviolen revolt, and then this sudden
(04:03):
suddenly are like freedom of speech, our freedom to express ourselves,
like all these rights, we think that they just disappear
like this. But I think what worries me is that
we are standing in a democracy where I see some
of our own colleagues and journalism that are self censoring.
Sometimes The way that these rights sort of disappear is
(04:26):
we almost like, don't We're not like paying attention.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
To them, But do you feel free to save whatever
you want?
Speaker 3 (04:32):
I do, But I see that there are some people
in institutions, in law firms, in schools, in big media
networks that are scared, that are scared to raise their voice,
to ask the question, to sort of counterpower the way
that you've always taught me to do, And that worries me,
and I think that is exactly what's the heart of
(04:53):
today's episode, you know, which is what if the rule
of law can't stop? Don't trump?
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Because I agree with you, and this is not a
profession for those who want to be silent. But also
we still believe that this is a nation of laws.
The question is if those laws are going to be
enough to stop this change?
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Will those laws be enough to stop the President of
the United States. To talk about that, we speak to
the person whose organization has spearheaded the legal fight for
the rule of law in the United States. That's the
American Civil Liberties Union.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
After the break, Anthony rometro the longer serving executive director
in the history of the ACLU.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Yaboas Anthony Rometto welcome, Thank you, Welcome to the moment.
Great one of the busiest people in the entire country.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
Got a lot going on.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
I wonder what I know.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
I actually want to start on election there. So November
twenty twenty four, one of the first things that you say,
shortly after Donald Trump points you say that the ACOU
is even more prepared. Now, yeah, fast forward to where
we are. You see that Donald Trump is deploying the
National Guard. He's essentially turning Ice into a police force.
(06:12):
Defies the constitution still obsessed with a massing.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Power, massive deportation.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Massive deportation.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
The list goes on.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
And so looking back at that statement, now you saying
we're even more prepared now, is there anything that you
were not prepared for.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
I don't think we were prepared for the velocity of
all the policy changes coming right down the pike. I mean,
in some ways, we were prepared because we had scoped
out many of the issues. We went much further than
the last time around. Last time around, we had a
thirty page document that I thought was our plan. This
time around, we had literally hundreds of pages of documents
scoping out different cases and theories and clients and what
(06:51):
we would file and where we would file. But we
didn't expect it all to be coming at full force.
I mean, it was not just the fire home, it
was all the fire hoses on at the same time.
And I think what was remarkable was the way in
which the nonprofit sector more broadly responded. The ACUS played
a critical role, but thank god, there have been others
(07:12):
on the front line, so first responders, if you will,
and so we haven't had to do we haven't had
to swing at every pitch and we've been much more
strategic about saying, okay, not our lane, pass ou over
to democracy forward, passed it over to democracy defenders, pass
it over to public citizen.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
You see a more coordinated effort against the administration.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
We're in constant touch with each other.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
So it was overwhelming what happened. It was completely overwhelming.
It because you've said in the past that the Trump
team was more prepared for the second term than for
the first.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Timebsolutely, and they were. They were. They're not making the
same rookie mistakes that they made the first time around,
which were, for instance, the Muslim band. It took them
three bites of the apple before they got that firstand right,
I mean the Muslim bandy. We knew it was dead
on arrival from the minute they announced it with the
executive order back in twenty seventeen, because there's no way
it would pass scrutiny. Now many of their executive orders
(08:05):
have been scrubbed, right, and so we are really going
toe to toe to kind of make sure that we
knock them out.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
But again, you might say that you're opposting each one
of them. However, it seems to me that they're doing
whatever they want regardless of what the judges are saying,
regardless of what you are saying.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
I think it's to be determined still, I mean, yeah,
first off, I mean I get this sentiment a lot,
and believe me, I feel that way too at the
end of the day. I feel that way at the
beginning of the day. I feel like I've got they.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Don't care about the law or they don't care about
the all these order from the judges.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
I mean, there are a couple of things. First, I
think we're winning many more cases than people realize. We
are losing a bunch. I mean, they have been able
to close down USAID, They've been able to fire all
these federal government workers. They've been able to kind of
overhaul the federal government. The Unitary Executive is on steroids.
That's clear, right, But you also have to look at
the ones that we have begun to want and then
(08:59):
like the alien enemies at birthwry citizenship. We'll get into it.
I'm sure there was a big win so far, Jorge.
Now to be determined whether the Supreme Court stands with
us in the end or whether they kind of back
the Trump administration. And so far they've been giving more
than half the loaf to the Trump administration. But I'm
still hopeful that in some of our cases they will
be with us. Now, some of these lawsuits we went
(09:20):
in knowing we the larger community went in knowing that
these were hell Mary passes. We were playing for time, right,
And so it was clear that some of the folks
who brought the lawsuits to for instance, protect federal workers,
that in the end it was probable that some judge
would rule that the government, that the federal government has
(09:40):
a right to cast out its employees have been so wicious.
But you played for time, and time is a win, right.
Those employees that remained on payroll, that had time to
wind up their kind of affairs, so look about getting
new jobs to figure out whether or they were going
to take the kind of the packages they were being offered.
And so I think part of this is also defining
(10:01):
what success looks like.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
But maybe let me just give you an example you
want clearly with the appeals court that blocked deportations under
the Alien Enemies Act. Yeah, all right, deportations continue, Yeah
they don't care, I mean continue and even at a
more rapid pace.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Yeah. So a couple of things, I mean the Alien
Enemies Act is they are enjoyed, their stopped from using
it right now to deport people and deny people do process.
So that's still a win in our in our and
the two hundred clients that we brought that case on
behalf of we now have to try to bring them
back right So that's still to be determined whether or
not we succeeded bringing them back into the country because
(10:38):
they're now in Venezuela. They went to scott first, remember
we do. We removed around fifty three of two and
fifty three as well, and now most of them are
back in ven Azuella and a number of them want
to come back. That's what we're in the middle of
sorting out. Then there's a third lawsuit under the Alien
Enemies Act about whether or not the government some did
it's nose at the federal judge Bosberg when he said
(11:00):
turn the planes around. Then they openly defy him. So
that's going to they continue to push them, so that
one is still to be determined, and we're pushing that
one very hard. Now. The deportations writ large, there is
no one lawsuit that can stop them. That's the thing.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
That's what worries me, right, Like, I think we spend
so much time talking about, rightly so Venezuela and migrants,
but I'm even thinking about the larger picture between ICE
and CBP. They've deported over three hundred and fifty thousand
people already just in the first seven months of this administration.
Many of these folks were perhaps racially profiled, denied due process,
(11:39):
the truly snatched on the streets, disappeared, And so I'm
thinking about them, right, and I'm thinking about what justice
looks like for them, But more than anything, what accountability
looks like for ICE, Like who's to be held accountable
for those people?
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Totally right, And that's the much harder question. And it's
going to get worse, right, I mean it is going
to get it's going to get worse. Sure, this big
beautiful bill, they have so much money now to grow
ICE the Department of Homeland Security. When they finally bring
all the resources in the Department of Homeland Security, it
will be the fifth largest armed force of any country. Right,
(12:14):
it'll be enormous. So what we're seeing now is just
the prelude and so and there it is retail, right,
you have to kind of raid by raid, site by sight.
You've got to challenge the circumstances of the raid. Did
they deny people due process right? Did they read the
Miranda rights if they were being charged criminally? Were they
(12:36):
picking out people based on the color of their skin?
The fair skin people get pulled aside and get let
go and the darkest can people get questioned?
Speaker 2 (12:44):
Yes, yes, yes, yes, I mean they're doing exactly that. Yes,
they're doing exactly that.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
And that's where those lawsuits have to be brow one
by one. There's not one lawsuit like birthright citizenship. One
lawsuit will knock it out. I'm pretty confident that'd be
our case, hopefully later on this year. One lawsuit in
Alien Enemies Act will not out the use of the
other exact on the deportations in the raids. There is
not one self a bullet.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
I'm sorry, but but you've seen the videos, no rate
of the rate, mask agents without identification, just basically kidnapping people,
and people are asking, what's your idea? Who you?
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Who you are?
Speaker 2 (13:21):
They have not, they have no idea. It's happening over
and over again, all across the country and more and more. Yeah,
so can you stop that?
Speaker 1 (13:31):
I think we can stop. We can I'm not sure
we can stop at all. I mean, I think we
can stop the worst of the abuses. I think we
can bring some of the seminal cases that kind of
talk about whether or not the administration is going too far.
We have to bring public opinion with us. This is
all about grabbing people into the pool, right, grabbing the
(13:52):
corporate leadership, grabbing Republicans, grabbing agribusiness where they're they're having
difficulty getting people to pick the crops in the fields.
And so we have a case out of Current County
in California where it was clear exactly what you described,
the deportations were breaking every rule in terms of like
targeting people based on race, not providing them any due process,
(14:15):
summarily deporting the papers, no papers, expertited removal, and so
be able to document that and bring the public dialogue
along is really critical. A lot of people thought, oh,
it's good that we deport the criminals. It's good that
we deport the drug cartels. That's what they thought they were.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Again, they have no criminal records exactly.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
So that's where you have to bring the conversation along with.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
Them, and then you feel confident that the Supreme Court
will not revoke birthright citizenship.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
I am pretty confident.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
That surprises me.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
I don't know. I'm kind of clear only coffee in
the morning.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
But I just think you trust the system.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
I have to still sin tell us why, because I
think it's just too far a bridge for them to cross.
It is in the Constitution, it's in the statute, and
I think in the conversation, I was at the Supreme
Court when they listened to the earlier argument around universal injunctions,
and the Court decided that one because they wanted to
(15:18):
get throw a bone to the Trump administration. I think
reading between the lines when they get to the merits
of birthright citizenship, I don't think they're going to stand
with the Trump administration, and so in some ways they
threw them a bone under the universal injunctions to say here,
this one is a challenge. But I think in the end,
I think they're not going to go that far. I mean,
(15:40):
think about what birthright citizenship is. I mean, birthright citizenship
is the way we solved our original sin on chattel
slavery right. It is how a nation of immigrants became
a nation right that we're all equaled under the law.
To do away with that is to kind of create
an intergenerational mechanism forced my discrimination that will change the
(16:01):
face of this country.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Let me tell you a little story. As you know,
in twenty fifteen, I was following Donald Trump and I
got ejected from a press conference.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
I remember, all right, so as part of.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
You that's part of my personal history.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
What people don't know is that after I was ejected
from the from the press conference, he actually allowed me
to come back and then I had the opportunity to
talk to him, maybe ten to fifteen minutes. It was
it was pretty intense, but we had the opportunity. News
was that I was ejected. The reality is that after
I was ejected, we had a we had a very
intense conversation and he clearly told me and I asked
(16:36):
him about birth right citizenship, and he said that can
be changed. So he was completely convinced that ten years
ago that he was going to change that. And we
were saying, hey, listen to this, it's dangerous for our constitution,
for our country. Nobody, nobody pays attention. So he believed
that ten years ago and he believes that right now.
(16:57):
So he's gonna he's gonna try.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
Is definitely trying. I mean, it's definitely clear that they're trying.
And I when I there were still some people in
the Trump in the Trump orbit who were talking to
me even after the election, before the inauguration, and it
was clear that they were going to run that play.
And I came back to the a CLU, I'm like,
we have to get the birthright citizenship lawsuit ready.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Did people think you were exaggerating?
Speaker 1 (17:20):
They thought, Oh, they're not going to go that far.
I think they're going to try most of the countries
if they won the exactly And part of what was
interesting to me was just the fact that they would
start with that. I mean, you're totally right hoar here,
and I'm not I'm not minimizing their their addition, their aggression,
their desires.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
They were convenienced back then, and maybe what's what's behind that.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
I think they really feel like it's impossible to fix
the immigration system unless you deal with birthright citizenship. They
feel like that is the the primary poll, if you will,
for migration, that people are pulled to this country because
their kids born here will be American citizens.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
So how do you prep or a cage like birthright citizenship.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Well, we spent months literally thinking through the theory, the clients,
the venue. We knew we wanted to sue in the
first circuit, so we knew we wanted to file somewhere
in New Hampshire, Massachusetts. So we had to file find
an immigrants group in New Hampshire, an Indonesian immigrants group
in New Hampshire. We then had to find members of
(18:25):
their organization who were pregnant whose children would be born
after the executive order because they couldn't be born before
or too late in order to have standing. And so
we had that case ready. We had literally identified individuals
in the class in this organization, so that when I
got word that they were going to run the gauntlet
(18:46):
on birthright citizenship and do that on day one, I
went back and told the team ready people, and then
within two hours we filed that. As soon as the
President signed that executive order, we had filed electronically.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
Yeah, definitely, I think we're not even talking about a
legal fight. It's an ideological right, and I think so many,
so many people within that administration fundamentally believe know that
if you are an immigrant, you're not worthy of American citizenship, right,
and so I think sometimes these conversations are more about that.
(19:19):
And that's why perhaps I'm more cynical than you, Anthony,
because I do feel that this country once had an
ability to look at black and brown people as inferior,
like we were capable of that as a country. And
so that's what worries me now that we're sort of
pulled between these two forces of who we are supposed
to be and then really who we once were. And
(19:40):
you're kind of in the middle of that fight.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Yeah, I'm in the middle of that fight. And the
reason why I still think we get a Roberts and
we get an amy Cony Barrett, because all we need five.
All you have to do is the Supreme Court litigations
count to five. You have to count to seven. Five.
You never count to nine. You never get the two.
You never get a leader on Thomas. And the reason
why I think is I think they were about their
own reputation, their own standing in history. And Roberts is
(20:05):
the kind of the the protector of the legacy of
his court. The Roberts Court is not going to go
back to a moment when this becomes equivalent of a
dread Scott, you know, a terrible moment in American jurisprudence.
And so that's why I'm still optimistic. I mean, I
think certainly the people within the Trump administration are dying
to do away with birthright citizenship. I just don't think
(20:26):
they're going to get it this time around.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Because the basic math is five four sixty three, and
people are thinking that way. You know that he has
the support. Actually there's the belief that they not only
control the White House and Congress, that they actually control
the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
Yeah, and and I think that's largely true. I mean,
I think in a lot of ways, the Supreme Court,
the majority of the Supreme Court is going to try
their best to give the Trump administration the benefit of
the debt. The universal injunction case, right, I mean, it's
a little esoteric, but it's worth talking about. So this
is in the context of right citizenship, like universal injunctions.
(21:01):
Should one judge be able to grant an injunction that
applies across the country. It's been a headache for liberals. Right,
there was always one judge out of Texas that would
judge Chismeric who would rule against planned parenthood or rule
against reproductive rights, and it would have nationwide implications. So
it's been a problem. Right, it should have been fixed now.
(21:22):
The Supreme Court could have not fixed it in this
case because the New Jersey Attorney General made a brilliant
argument saying, look, I have an interest in making sure
that my residents if they're pregnant and they go out
of state and the baby is born in Georgia. I
A is the head of New Jersey. The New Jersey
Atorney General have an interest in making sure that my
residents have birthright where they're born. So that would have
(21:45):
been a perfect instance of granting a universal injunction. The
Supreme Court through the bone to the Trump administration, I think,
because they're going to give us the stake ultimately on
birthrights citizenship.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
We want to talk about free speech.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Thinking about free speech, obviously, we're talking about an administration
that is putting an enormous amount of pressure on universities,
media outlets, journalists, activists, activists, and even institutions like the Smithsonian.
And so I'm wondering, from your perspective, when you're looking
at these institutions and some of these organizations, do you
ever feel led down?
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Sure? Why, yeah, daily, daily, Yeah. I mean we're in
a modern day McCarthy. I put the Trump administration's activities
that bother be the most into three big buckets, and
the first one is this one, the modern day McCarthy,
where they're targeting individuals institutions based on the ideology or
the viewpoints that they don't agree with the Trump administration.
(22:48):
And you have Columbia, and you have Harvard, you have
the law firms, you have Mahmood Khalil, the activists who
are being used pulled off the streets and then endeavored
to deport them. All of that is examples of targeting
individuals who don't agree with the Trump orthodoxy. And the
(23:08):
fact that big powerful institutions like these law firms capitulated
is really troubling, especially and not only them, But I'm
more troubled about the lawyers in some ways. Maybe it's
my own parochial nature of the lawyer, but I think
the lawyers should have stood up straight and stood up
for their professions for themselves. Networks and universities paying I mean,
(23:31):
don't get me going on the media outlets who are
paying these defamation lawsuits that they would readily win because
they're afraid of currying the wrath of the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Do you feel like it's important to call them out?
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Sure? I mean, Paul Weiss is a firm that disappoints.
And that's why I think firms like Wilmer Hale and
General Block and Sussman Godfrey who stood up and then
fought those executive orders, are critically and that's where ultimately
I think the code on that story will be determined.
(24:05):
I don't think it's great for these law firms. They
find themselves over a barrel. Once you start paying an extortionist,
you never have a final payment, right, they're gonna.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Be that's that you're calling.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
Sure, isn't that what the trumpet? You? You give me
one hundred million dollars and maybe I let you argue
your cases in court, and maybe you bring my cases
and maybe you represent my interests, and maybe next year
it's another one hundred million dollars. When all they have
is the power, they don't have the authority. Clearly, cases
is either a slam dunk. There's not been. None of
(24:37):
these law firms I have challenged the executive orders have
lost a case. They just decided to pay the extortionists
is better than fighting, then lowering up and fighting.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
So these are new fights. Let me ask you about
a classical fight. A CD has always been committed to
defending free speech, even from the far right. Is it
Are you still doing that?
Speaker 1 (25:01):
Sure?
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Even today?
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Even five, it's not too dangerous.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
No, I think it's necessary. I mean, look, it's not
popular among progressives, liberals or activists. It's necessary. When we
stand up for the rights of groups we don't agree with,
we lay down a marker. So the case I think
the most relevant. There are always cases. There are smaller
cases where we've represented a white supremacist in New Hampshire
and other activists who said kind of anti Semitic things
(25:28):
in the Midwest. The biggest case was Nravvulo, when we
took up the NRA as our client. The NRA came
to us saying, Cuomo trying to shut us down because
he doesn't agree. Governor Cuomo is trying to shut us
down because he doesn't agree with our position on gun
ownership and was using all the power in the New
York State to come down on the NRA, trying to
(25:49):
sever business ties with the NRA. And they said, but
you have the best First Amendment lawyers, where you take
our case and we took it, so they had a case,
they had a case. We won that one nine zero
Sonya Soda mayorro and with the majority, that is now
the case we are citing in the Harvard litigation or
in the law Firm litigation where we're talking about the
(26:10):
US government should not be allowed to use the powers
of the government to target institutions with whom it has
a disagreement, an ideological disagreement. That's why I think it's
critically important we stand up for this.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
So hate speech is protected, yes, yes, Burning the flag
is protected, yes, absolutely.
Speaker 3 (26:28):
Even though Trump is signing executive orders that are essentially
telling the American people that it.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Is and we will jump in lawful to burn.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
An American flag. And to be clear, it is not
illegal to burn an American flag.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
It is not illegal to burn an American flag. And
for decades we have fought things like constitutional amendments that
would make a flag burning a crime. I mean, it
is a political statement, it's a political act. It's not
one I agree with. I've never burnt a flag. I
have flags in front of my house right now for
labor Day weekend, I've put a flag in front of
my house. I've refused to see the flag, but I
(27:01):
think it's important for political activists to have a right
to express themselves as they wish.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
So because of the political flights that we're in right now,
do you think ACLU has been forced to move to
the left.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
I don't think we have changed, right. I think we've
always been pro immigrant, from the beginning with the Palmer
rates in nineteen twenty. We've always been for the rights
and do process rights of immigrants. We've always been for
the rights of women and repuctive rights and health. We've
always been pro racial justice. I think what's happened is
the tectonic plates of partisan politics have shifted out from under.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
We felt more lawsuits done never before, and not against
the Trumpe administry.
Speaker 1 (27:40):
Over one hundred and fifty seventy nine class actions. Yeah, okay,
but I think what's changed is that there once was
a time when you had Republicans who believed in civil rights.
I mean, the Voting Rights Act was enacted with Republican leadership.
I mean President Reagan was the one who signed the
extension of the Voting Rights Act. Pro immigrant presidents George Bush.
(28:02):
I remember criticizing him when you and I first met
after the War on Terror. He was still more pro
immigrant than anything we've seen.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
He was even considering maybe not a legalization or an homnesty,
but similar.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
Something very similar. But diplomacy cold been sent to Fox.
You know, we remember moments. We remember the fact that
there were kind of log cabin Republicans who actually were
kind of being forces within the Republican Party for LGBT rights.
That's changed, right.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
You mentioned LGBTQ. Right, so I have to jump in
as a lesbian who may one day get married. Should
I be worried about the Supreme Court overturning.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
There's another place, Anthony York and even smiling, I think
it's also because it's in the Supreme Court and it's
also been enacted by statute. I know other people feel differently,
and a lot of people have run to get married,
and I think it's great. I have not gotten married.
I still maybe will maybe exercise the rights somedays I
love someone, but we haven't just kind of signed on
(29:00):
city Hall.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
And so you're not you are not rushing to get married, No,
I don't.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
I think I think there are some things that will
really be beyond the pale. I think, like undoing gay marriage,
undoing birthright citizenship. I think they made some elements. Surely
some elements of Trump administration would love to undo that.
I don't think they succeed.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
You just said something. There's some elements that the Trumpe
administration may undo. If you put yourself in Trump's legal
team and you look at the way that they are
dismantling systems, or the way that they're trying to undo things,
or the way that they are trying to literally like reimagine,
you know, the way that you invoke and act. Is
(29:42):
there something to learn from them?
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Sure? I think. I think there's a timidity that we've had.
And this is where I keep telling my folks, this
is not what I'm doing because I'm too busy in
the day to day. Some group of people need to
be thinking about what we build differently after this, and
it can't be just less RESI the stuff they took apart.
Someone needs to be thinking about what needs to be
(30:04):
put in the place of everything that's been taken down,
and so they need to think ambitiously and broader. I mean,
if anything I've learned from the Trump administration is that
they have not been held back by the idea of oh,
this is too timid, or this is too too much,
or this is to too large a leap. They've gone there,
(30:25):
and I think there is a lesson for us in that.
I think that sometimes the policy of social change or
social equity is a little bit too incremental, and I
think we just need to kind of like wipe it
clean and start afresh.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
So the resistance are the judges, is the legal system.
I'm not journalists.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Oh, the journalists are playing a critical role. And we
have some journalists. We have a journalist you probably know
who's been incarcerated because he was live streaming or kind
of a protest and they've kind of try to hold him.
He's not an American citizen, and so we're representing him.
The journalists are critical. There are activists who are out there.
You're not seeing the marches and the demonstration.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
The marches other than what we saw in Los Angeles.
I haven't seen those marches anywhere.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
But I think you're seeing a lot of people turn
out in local districts. I think people understand now that
maybe those national marches don't have the impact that people
want them to be, and so sometimes focusing your energy
more locally, more targeted in manner. I mean, one of
the things we've done is that we've created this whole
kind of blueprint for what we call firewall for freedom,
(31:37):
which what can people do in their local jurisdictions with
their local mayor city councils, governors, attorneys general. Let's put
the stiff in the spine of these local elected officials
who can sever the kind of the immigration programs of
two eighty seven G programs with the federal government. That's
critically important. I don't want to take a lot of
people up on the hill. I'd rather them turn out
(31:58):
in their lobby, in their in their district, with their mayors,
with their city councils, with their governors. And so the
locus of our of our activism, Jorge has changed really considerably.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
Have you ever called Trump an authoritarian leader?
Speaker 1 (32:18):
Sure? Sure he is that he is that. I mean,
that is that is what we are seeing. And Frankomo,
you know you have to call it for what it is.
I mean, this is not a surprise, and I'm not
given to hyperbola. I think it's really important that we
don't deal the lily. When the facts are sufficient, all
you do is state the facts.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
So if you say that that he's an authoritarian leader,
then we're losing them our democracy.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
I think we're in the we're in the battle for
our democracy. I don't think we've lost it yet, but
I think so many of the institutions and the norms.
I mean, this is part of the three buckets a
modern day McCarthy, right, where they're targeting people based on
their on their speech. Second bucket is when they're targeting
the politically weak to score cheap political points with their constituents.
(33:07):
So there I put the immigrants and the attack on
trans people. The third one the attack on the institutions
and norms that undergird our democracy, the role of Congress,
the role of the courts, the role of the press.
The deployment of the National Guard, for instance, completely usurping
the power of the governors and the states. We've delegated
(33:28):
most of the power to the states, and yet now
this president feels that he can exert the National Guard
and the military to usurp the power of our governors.
And that is an enormous change in the rule of law.
Speaker 3 (33:43):
You said that this second time around. You're part of
a larger coalition of partners that's more ready. What does
that coordination look like? What do those partnerships there are?
Speaker 1 (33:55):
There are clear divisions of labor, like, for instance, we
did not swing at every pitch. We did not take on,
for instance, the the DOGE attacks on US government agencies
or US government workers. That was Democracy Forward and Sky Perryman,
who is an amazing leader. I've forwarded kind of clients
to her. I kind of referred donors to her. This
(34:17):
is where they were out in front. There were clear
parts of that agenda. It's not a civil liberties or
civil rights issue to necessarily be asked by Elon Musk.
If you're a federal government employee, unless you're being targeted
for your political speech, then it's a civil liberties issue,
but just generally not my lane, that's their lanth. And
so in places where we overlap, then we will sit
(34:38):
down and talk about who does what, and who takes
the lead, and who takes who follows, how can we
support one another. It's really much more effective. I mean
part of it is because it's necessity is the mother
of invention. We don't have time for Rolo Derby politics.
We all understand that we're all in over our heads.
The only way to win is to divide this work
(34:59):
up into one another, and that's what has happened in
this sector.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
Approximately how many groups are part of this sort of
like coordinated.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
There are about thirty on a less serve in one,
and then I think there's a smaller group around five
or six that are don't talk in touch with each other,
and there's constant contact. I mean, for instance, on the
issues around transgender rights, there were cases that we took,
there were cases that LAMBDA took, there were cases that
the National Center for Lesbian Rights took. That was all
(35:28):
sorted out before the election so that we could really
divide it up and make sure that we knew the
only way to score is that you can't have the
whole team standing on second base. So you got to
make sure you have people spread out right.
Speaker 3 (35:40):
This is like the invisible part of the resistance that
people don't see.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
There's a whole quarters a little bit of negotiation and
not we don't always agree, and sometimes there are disagreements
and then we have to talk it through like adults.
But we realize that the cause is bigger and so
that's worth working through.
Speaker 3 (35:56):
What's the point in which you feel very scared and
in which you tell us that, yes, we're losing our democracy.
What's that breaking point?
Speaker 1 (36:03):
I don't know where this ends, right, That's where I
get nervous. We fight this day to day, and we
fight it strategically, and we fight out. We think long term,
and we plan what if we lose, what if we win,
how do we appeal? What do we come back? We
lay the groundwork for twenty twenty seven, twenty twenty eight,
twenty twenty nine, twenty twenty thirty. I'm just looking at plans,
(36:23):
both good and bad, for what this looks like if
we don't get out of this. The thing I worry
about is when people turn off and they begin to
kind of normalize all of this, that it's normal for
the government to be targeting individuals that doesn't agree with
it's normal to deploy the military and the National Guard
(36:46):
in our cities.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
But we are somehow normalized in that we are. It
happened already national Guard at the border, then it was
in LA then in DC, then Chicago and then.
Speaker 1 (36:57):
Maybe Boston, right, And that's part of what we need
to kind of like that's where we we remain kind
of very aggressive and trying to sound the alarm. I
mean one of the things we've been doing. So we
litigate a lot with these one hundred and fifty plus lawsuits.
We lobby our local liketed officials right to make sure
that they stand up as a firewall for freedom.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
Do you have enough morning for that?
Speaker 1 (37:20):
It's you know, the rich. The rich are complicated, you
know the wall.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
You rich one to give less?
Speaker 1 (37:27):
Now, oh you bet. I'm not going to kiss and tell.
But there are so many oh yeah, Middle East. They
say it out loud. People who are with us and
Trump one point zero who couldn't write a big enough
check are missing in action this time around. Thank god
for the ordinary folk, right, the ordinary people who crowdsource
the acou that's sustaining the budget comes from one hundred
(37:51):
dollars or less.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
I mean, do you ever feel demoralized? I know your
job is to be a leader, to be outspoken, to
be here, to smile at us. Do you ever go
back home and you're like, man.
Speaker 1 (38:02):
I can't believe that this After more than forty years
of working at this set of issues that at the
end of my career we have fewer rights and liberties
than I thought we deserve. And the idea that I
don't know where this ends. And part of what gives
me kind of the hope is that I might personally
lose hope. This individual might lose the faith, might be
(38:22):
the priest who stops believing in God and then steps
away from the church. But there's an institution that doesn't
lose faith. And that's what I've believed in, is the
building an institution that has the staying power that's much
bigger than any one person, that has the fervor and
the zeal and the staying power that outlass any one individual.
Speaker 2 (38:42):
You just said the phrase at the end of my career.
Can I get a little personal I've known you for
a long time, all right, Okay, So as someone who
spent thirty eight years doing the same as I did,
and you've been twenty twenty four years, you see time
for a change. I see you.
Speaker 1 (39:02):
It might be it might be no, not right away.
I think that the steady hand.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
You said at the end of my career.
Speaker 1 (39:07):
Well probably, you know, several more years. I want to
see this through. I want to see the Trump administration through.
I'm kind of stubborn. You know that about me, Jorge,
You know I'm kind of like.
Speaker 2 (39:15):
Oh, this is a personal fight.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
Yeah, well it's just it's it's it's a fight I'm
personally involved with and committed to. But I also feel like,
you know, I'm definitely most most of my career is
behind me as opposed to in front of me, and
there will be a moment when there's a new, dynamic
leader who will take over and re envision an organization.
Part of what I love about if Trump taught us anything,
don't put too much trust in any one person, right,
(39:38):
You have to believe in something bigger than that one person.
And so I believe in the fact that an institution
will have to be broader than and bigger than and
remake itself. And that's someone with a lot more energy
and dynamism will come in and kind of feel like.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
Yet not yet, not yet yet, so you want to
see this through. I feel the same way. In other words,
I believe that I had to come back as an
independent journalist at least for these government.
Speaker 3 (40:00):
Total totally agree and then need to to finish. Who
saw you how to fight? Where do you get this
fighting spirit from?
Speaker 1 (40:10):
I don't know. I think I saw it a lot
with my father. He was not really a fighter in
the way that you would think. He was a very
easygoing guy, and he had a beautiful smile and he
loved to laugh. But he had grit and resilience, and
I saw what he went up against. You know, he
was a Puerto Rican guy. Probably I'm not sure I
(40:31):
ever saw him write a sentence, so I know he
read the newspaper, but I'm not sure he was capable
of long form writing. Super smart, just not well educated,
fourth grade and yet he just stayed at it, like
grit and determination my mother who just believed, no matter what,
you know, no matter what the circumstances, that things could
(40:53):
be better. So I think you learned that at home.
You learned that close to the people, and for being
Puerto Rican two and I think Puerto Rican, you know,
history and culture is there's a lot there. It's not
It's not been the sole focus of my career. There
have been other people who've been focused on it. But
I think it's uh, you certainly will you grow up
(41:14):
knowing about politics, right, It's it's quick to figure out. Okay,
I'm a US citizen, I'm whether there or here, but
if I'm in Puerto Rico, I don't get a chance
to vote for the presidency. That takes a lot of
explaining for a youngster, you know, like I could vote
for you know, when I'm eighteen, I could vote for
the president of the United States, but my cousins in
Puerto Rico couldn't. How do you explain that? You know,
(41:37):
it's it's it's a challenge.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
So let's just finish. As we began talking about Bad Bunny.
Speaker 1 (41:43):
Bad Bunny, Bad Bunny is amazing.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
He's fantastic. He's just incredible.
Speaker 1 (41:48):
My nephew is one who turned me on to Bad
Bunny years ago. I'm like, what are you listening to?
You said Bad Bunny. I'm like, wow, Okay, I listen,
and you know, it's incredible how he is just a
new type of leader, you know, Spanish centric, his focus
on Puerto Rico. His music is universal. He can he
can sing universally in a language that is not a
(42:11):
universal language, they say, but he's making it so I
think it's incredible. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (42:16):
I saw him in an Alistaiostea in Mexico City. I
was so impressed because it was just him and a
DJ eighty thousand people, Anthony, and he controlled completely that stadium.
He stopped singing. There was complete silence, and then he's
doing like meditations. In the middle of the concert, he
puts a towel on top of his head and then
(42:36):
he stays there like for two or three minutes.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
I should try that, I should. I need to try
that a little bit more.
Speaker 2 (42:44):
Anthony, thank you so much. Both of you keep on
smiling the same way I keep.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
I keep smiling because I keep working. It's the best
way to work with a smile, Anthony.
Speaker 3 (42:57):
The Moment is a production of Radian Bullant Studios in
part intnership with iHeart Michael to the podcast network.
Speaker 2 (43:03):
Our staff includes Daniela Larcon, Lauda Rojasa Ponte, Miguel Santiago
Colon and Lisa Serda, with the help from Paula Alian,
Diego Corso, Natalie Ramirez and Elsa Lianaujoa. Our theme song
is by Elias Gonzalez. The CEO Radio Bulante Studios is
Carolina Guerrero.
Speaker 3 (43:22):
Executive producers I Heart are Arlene Santana and Leo Romes.
Pablo Guda also serves as a producer.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
If you like the moment, Pero tambien te gustam podcast Tennespanol.
Look for Radio Bulante Historias de Toda America Latina wherever
you listen to podcasts, I'm hort Ramos.
Speaker 3 (43:40):
And am Paula Ramas.
Speaker 2 (43:42):
Thanks for listening.
Ola.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
I'm cor Caramos, and this is the moment in Momento Momento,
So let's talk about what we do power.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
I'll tell you one of the most recent reporting trips
that I was on, because I think this has a
lot to do with today's episode. So a couple of
months ago, at this point, I was in Costa Rica
and in Panama, and I was following a group of
Venezuelan migrants, some of whom had either self deported from
(00:40):
the United States or were waiting in limbo in Mexico,
but all of them were reverse migrating. At some point
they had decided that I mean, listen to this, now,
this is how bad it is. They had decided that
their life is better in Venezuela, in that authoritarian regime
than it is in the United States.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
So this is new because last year it was exactly
the opposite that were coming to this unity.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
I mean literally until the point that Donald Trump was inaugurated,
you still had hundreds of migrants that were still trying
to go into the United States, right, still driven by
this idea, right that democracy is still possible in this country.
But what really stuck with me when I was doing
this reporting trip was this very simple sort of notion
now that one of the immigrants, Athian Stone, told me,
(01:26):
and he said, why would I go into the US
if I've just left an authoritarian regime like Venezuela. And
so that calculation, I think is one of the ideas
that is that is getting lost in this country right
now that people are from Afar are literally looking at
us and seeing some resemblance of the very same authoritatian
regimes that they're leaving. And so that gets me to
(01:50):
think about you now, thinking about you in the eighties
in Mexico, and I'm thinking if there was ever a
time when you were growing up in Mexico and becoming
a journalist where you felt that your own rights as
a journalist were being restricted.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
That's exactly why I came to the United States. I
didn't want to be a censor journalist. And back then Mexico,
the nineteen eighties, Mexico was not a democracy. Mexico was
la victalura, perfect bargazjosa, and then this perfect dictatorship. I
just didn't want to live in a perfect dictatorship. I
wanted to be completely free as a journalist. So I
(02:26):
decided to leave Mexico and Okay, that was one of
the most difficult decisions and most important decisions in my
life to become I didn't want to be an immigrant.
I had I was forced to be an immigrant. So
I left Mexico with a promise. I promised myself that
I would never leave again in a country that was
(02:46):
not a democracy. So I came to the States. Ronald
Reagan was president, and then I remember watching the TV
journalists criticizing openly the president n a capola. Nothing happened.
I loved it. It was complete freedom of expression and said,
I want to live in this country, kto be business depace.
(03:07):
And now we're seeing that things are changing in this country.
Still we have the freedom, we have the freedom to
say whatever we want, but it's not as it's not
as easy. But I'm I'm sticking to my promise that
I don't want to live in a country that is
not a democracy, and I'm not willing to take the
fact that this country is not exactly what I expected
(03:28):
when I came from it.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Even even that question now, like are we still living
in the democracy that you came.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
To It is not the same. I mean, that is
what we have to fight for that right.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
But even even that now as a framework, like we
are no longer perhaps living in that very same democracy
that wants sort of lured you and I think as journalists,
you know, we think of authoritary regimes in a very
specific way. Now we think that a coup happens, or
there's sort of this likeviolen revolt, and then this sudden
(04:03):
suddenly are like freedom of speech, our freedom to express ourselves,
like all these rights, we think that they just disappear
like this. But I think what worries me is that
we are standing in a democracy where I see some
of our own colleagues and journalism that are self censoring.
Sometimes The way that these rights sort of disappear is
(04:26):
we almost like, don't We're not like paying attention.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
To them, But do you feel free to save whatever
you want?
Speaker 3 (04:32):
I do, But I see that there are some people
in institutions, in law firms, in schools, in big media
networks that are scared, that are scared to raise their voice,
to ask the question, to sort of counterpower the way
that you've always taught me to do, And that worries me,
and I think that is exactly what's the heart of
(04:53):
today's episode, you know, which is what if the rule
of law can't stop? Don't trump?
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Because I agree with you, and this is not a
profession for those who want to be silent. But also
we still believe that this is a nation of laws.
The question is if those laws are going to be
enough to stop this change?
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Will those laws be enough to stop the President of
the United States. To talk about that, we speak to
the person whose organization has spearheaded the legal fight for
the rule of law in the United States. That's the
American Civil Liberties Union.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
After the break, Anthony rometro the longer serving executive director
in the history of the ACLU.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Yaboas Anthony Rometto welcome, Thank you, Welcome to the moment.
Great one of the busiest people in the entire country.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
Got a lot going on.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
I wonder what I know.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
I actually want to start on election there. So November
twenty twenty four, one of the first things that you say,
shortly after Donald Trump points you say that the ACOU
is even more prepared. Now, yeah, fast forward to where
we are. You see that Donald Trump is deploying the
National Guard. He's essentially turning Ice into a police force.
(06:12):
Defies the constitution still obsessed with a massing.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Power, massive deportation.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Massive deportation.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
The list goes on.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
And so looking back at that statement, now you saying
we're even more prepared now, is there anything that you
were not prepared for.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
I don't think we were prepared for the velocity of
all the policy changes coming right down the pike. I mean,
in some ways, we were prepared because we had scoped
out many of the issues. We went much further than
the last time around. Last time around, we had a
thirty page document that I thought was our plan. This
time around, we had literally hundreds of pages of documents
scoping out different cases and theories and clients and what
(06:51):
we would file and where we would file. But we
didn't expect it all to be coming at full force.
I mean, it was not just the fire home, it
was all the fire hoses on at the same time.
And I think what was remarkable was the way in
which the nonprofit sector more broadly responded. The ACUS played
a critical role, but thank god, there have been others
(07:12):
on the front line, so first responders, if you will,
and so we haven't had to do we haven't had
to swing at every pitch and we've been much more
strategic about saying, okay, not our lane, pass ou over
to democracy forward, passed it over to democracy defenders, pass
it over to public citizen.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
You see a more coordinated effort against the administration.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
We're in constant touch with each other.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
So it was overwhelming what happened. It was completely overwhelming.
It because you've said in the past that the Trump
team was more prepared for the second term than for
the first.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Timebsolutely, and they were. They were. They're not making the
same rookie mistakes that they made the first time around,
which were, for instance, the Muslim band. It took them
three bites of the apple before they got that firstand right,
I mean the Muslim bandy. We knew it was dead
on arrival from the minute they announced it with the
executive order back in twenty seventeen, because there's no way
it would pass scrutiny. Now many of their executive orders
(08:05):
have been scrubbed, right, and so we are really going
toe to toe to kind of make sure that we
knock them out.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
But again, you might say that you're opposting each one
of them. However, it seems to me that they're doing
whatever they want regardless of what the judges are saying,
regardless of what you are saying.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
I think it's to be determined still, I mean, yeah,
first off, I mean I get this sentiment a lot,
and believe me, I feel that way too at the
end of the day. I feel that way at the
beginning of the day. I feel like I've got they.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Don't care about the law or they don't care about
the all these order from the judges.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
I mean, there are a couple of things. First, I
think we're winning many more cases than people realize. We
are losing a bunch. I mean, they have been able
to close down USAID, They've been able to fire all
these federal government workers. They've been able to kind of
overhaul the federal government. The Unitary Executive is on steroids.
That's clear, right, But you also have to look at
the ones that we have begun to want and then
(08:59):
like the alien enemies at birthwry citizenship. We'll get into it.
I'm sure there was a big win so far, Jorge.
Now to be determined whether the Supreme Court stands with
us in the end or whether they kind of back
the Trump administration. And so far they've been giving more
than half the loaf to the Trump administration. But I'm
still hopeful that in some of our cases they will
be with us. Now, some of these lawsuits we went
(09:20):
in knowing we the larger community went in knowing that
these were hell Mary passes. We were playing for time, right,
And so it was clear that some of the folks
who brought the lawsuits to for instance, protect federal workers,
that in the end it was probable that some judge
would rule that the government, that the federal government has
(09:40):
a right to cast out its employees have been so wicious.
But you played for time, and time is a win, right.
Those employees that remained on payroll, that had time to
wind up their kind of affairs, so look about getting
new jobs to figure out whether or they were going
to take the kind of the packages they were being offered.
And so I think part of this is also defining
(10:01):
what success looks like.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
But maybe let me just give you an example you
want clearly with the appeals court that blocked deportations under
the Alien Enemies Act. Yeah, all right, deportations continue, Yeah
they don't care, I mean continue and even at a
more rapid pace.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Yeah. So a couple of things, I mean the Alien
Enemies Act is they are enjoyed, their stopped from using
it right now to deport people and deny people do process.
So that's still a win in our in our and
the two hundred clients that we brought that case on
behalf of we now have to try to bring them
back right So that's still to be determined whether or
not we succeeded bringing them back into the country because
(10:38):
they're now in Venezuela. They went to scott first, remember
we do. We removed around fifty three of two and
fifty three as well, and now most of them are
back in ven Azuella and a number of them want
to come back. That's what we're in the middle of
sorting out. Then there's a third lawsuit under the Alien
Enemies Act about whether or not the government some did
it's nose at the federal judge Bosberg when he said
(11:00):
turn the planes around. Then they openly defy him. So
that's going to they continue to push them, so that
one is still to be determined, and we're pushing that
one very hard. Now. The deportations writ large, there is
no one lawsuit that can stop them. That's the thing.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
That's what worries me, right, Like, I think we spend
so much time talking about, rightly so Venezuela and migrants,
but I'm even thinking about the larger picture between ICE
and CBP. They've deported over three hundred and fifty thousand
people already just in the first seven months of this administration.
Many of these folks were perhaps racially profiled, denied due process,
(11:39):
the truly snatched on the streets, disappeared, And so I'm
thinking about them, right, and I'm thinking about what justice
looks like for them, But more than anything, what accountability
looks like for ICE, Like who's to be held accountable
for those people?
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Totally right, And that's the much harder question. And it's
going to get worse, right, I mean it is going
to get it's going to get worse. Sure, this big
beautiful bill, they have so much money now to grow
ICE the Department of Homeland Security. When they finally bring
all the resources in the Department of Homeland Security, it
will be the fifth largest armed force of any country. Right,
(12:14):
it'll be enormous. So what we're seeing now is just
the prelude and so and there it is retail, right,
you have to kind of raid by raid, site by sight.
You've got to challenge the circumstances of the raid. Did
they deny people due process right? Did they read the
Miranda rights if they were being charged criminally? Were they
(12:36):
picking out people based on the color of their skin?
The fair skin people get pulled aside and get let
go and the darkest can people get questioned?
Speaker 2 (12:44):
Yes, yes, yes, yes, I mean they're doing exactly that. Yes,
they're doing exactly that.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
And that's where those lawsuits have to be brow one
by one. There's not one lawsuit like birthright citizenship. One
lawsuit will knock it out. I'm pretty confident that'd be
our case, hopefully later on this year. One lawsuit in
Alien Enemies Act will not out the use of the
other exact on the deportations in the raids. There is
not one self a bullet.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
I'm sorry, but but you've seen the videos, no rate
of the rate, mask agents without identification, just basically kidnapping people,
and people are asking, what's your idea? Who you?
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Who you are?
Speaker 2 (13:21):
They have not, they have no idea. It's happening over
and over again, all across the country and more and more. Yeah,
so can you stop that?
Speaker 1 (13:31):
I think we can stop. We can I'm not sure
we can stop at all. I mean, I think we
can stop the worst of the abuses. I think we
can bring some of the seminal cases that kind of
talk about whether or not the administration is going too far.
We have to bring public opinion with us. This is
all about grabbing people into the pool, right, grabbing the
(13:52):
corporate leadership, grabbing Republicans, grabbing agribusiness where they're they're having
difficulty getting people to pick the crops in the fields.
And so we have a case out of Current County
in California where it was clear exactly what you described,
the deportations were breaking every rule in terms of like
targeting people based on race, not providing them any due process,
(14:15):
summarily deporting the papers, no papers, expertited removal, and so
be able to document that and bring the public dialogue
along is really critical. A lot of people thought, oh,
it's good that we deport the criminals. It's good that
we deport the drug cartels. That's what they thought they were.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Again, they have no criminal records exactly.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
So that's where you have to bring the conversation along with.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
Them, and then you feel confident that the Supreme Court
will not revoke birthright citizenship.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
I am pretty confident.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
That surprises me.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
I don't know. I'm kind of clear only coffee in
the morning.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
But I just think you trust the system.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
I have to still sin tell us why, because I
think it's just too far a bridge for them to cross.
It is in the Constitution, it's in the statute, and
I think in the conversation, I was at the Supreme
Court when they listened to the earlier argument around universal injunctions,
and the Court decided that one because they wanted to
(15:18):
get throw a bone to the Trump administration. I think
reading between the lines when they get to the merits
of birthright citizenship, I don't think they're going to stand
with the Trump administration, and so in some ways they
threw them a bone under the universal injunctions to say here,
this one is a challenge. But I think in the end,
I think they're not going to go that far. I mean,
(15:40):
think about what birthright citizenship is. I mean, birthright citizenship
is the way we solved our original sin on chattel
slavery right. It is how a nation of immigrants became
a nation right that we're all equaled under the law.
To do away with that is to kind of create
an intergenerational mechanism forced my discrimination that will change the
(16:01):
face of this country.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Let me tell you a little story. As you know,
in twenty fifteen, I was following Donald Trump and I
got ejected from a press conference.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
I remember, all right, so as part of.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
You that's part of my personal history.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
What people don't know is that after I was ejected
from the from the press conference, he actually allowed me
to come back and then I had the opportunity to
talk to him, maybe ten to fifteen minutes. It was
it was pretty intense, but we had the opportunity. News
was that I was ejected. The reality is that after
I was ejected, we had a we had a very
intense conversation and he clearly told me and I asked
(16:36):
him about birth right citizenship, and he said that can
be changed. So he was completely convinced that ten years
ago that he was going to change that. And we
were saying, hey, listen to this, it's dangerous for our constitution,
for our country. Nobody, nobody pays attention. So he believed
that ten years ago and he believes that right now.
(16:57):
So he's gonna he's gonna try.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
Is definitely trying. I mean, it's definitely clear that they're trying.
And I when I there were still some people in
the Trump in the Trump orbit who were talking to
me even after the election, before the inauguration, and it
was clear that they were going to run that play.
And I came back to the a CLU, I'm like,
we have to get the birthright citizenship lawsuit ready.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Did people think you were exaggerating?
Speaker 1 (17:20):
They thought, Oh, they're not going to go that far.
I think they're going to try most of the countries
if they won the exactly And part of what was
interesting to me was just the fact that they would
start with that. I mean, you're totally right hoar here,
and I'm not I'm not minimizing their their addition, their aggression,
their desires.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
They were convenienced back then, and maybe what's what's behind that.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
I think they really feel like it's impossible to fix
the immigration system unless you deal with birthright citizenship. They
feel like that is the the primary poll, if you will,
for migration, that people are pulled to this country because
their kids born here will be American citizens.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
So how do you prep or a cage like birthright citizenship.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Well, we spent months literally thinking through the theory, the clients,
the venue. We knew we wanted to sue in the
first circuit, so we knew we wanted to file somewhere
in New Hampshire, Massachusetts. So we had to file find
an immigrants group in New Hampshire, an Indonesian immigrants group
in New Hampshire. We then had to find members of
(18:25):
their organization who were pregnant whose children would be born
after the executive order because they couldn't be born before
or too late in order to have standing. And so
we had that case ready. We had literally identified individuals
in the class in this organization, so that when I
got word that they were going to run the gauntlet
(18:46):
on birthright citizenship and do that on day one, I
went back and told the team ready people, and then
within two hours we filed that. As soon as the
President signed that executive order, we had filed electronically.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
Yeah, definitely, I think we're not even talking about a
legal fight. It's an ideological right, and I think so many,
so many people within that administration fundamentally believe know that
if you are an immigrant, you're not worthy of American citizenship, right,
and so I think sometimes these conversations are more about that.
(19:19):
And that's why perhaps I'm more cynical than you, Anthony,
because I do feel that this country once had an
ability to look at black and brown people as inferior,
like we were capable of that as a country. And
so that's what worries me now that we're sort of
pulled between these two forces of who we are supposed
to be and then really who we once were. And
(19:40):
you're kind of in the middle of that fight.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Yeah, I'm in the middle of that fight. And the
reason why I still think we get a Roberts and
we get an amy Cony Barrett, because all we need five.
All you have to do is the Supreme Court litigations
count to five. You have to count to seven. Five.
You never count to nine. You never get the two.
You never get a leader on Thomas. And the reason
why I think is I think they were about their
own reputation, their own standing in history. And Roberts is
(20:05):
the kind of the the protector of the legacy of
his court. The Roberts Court is not going to go
back to a moment when this becomes equivalent of a
dread Scott, you know, a terrible moment in American jurisprudence.
And so that's why I'm still optimistic. I mean, I
think certainly the people within the Trump administration are dying
to do away with birthright citizenship. I just don't think
(20:26):
they're going to get it this time around.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Because the basic math is five four sixty three, and
people are thinking that way. You know that he has
the support. Actually there's the belief that they not only
control the White House and Congress, that they actually control
the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
Yeah, and and I think that's largely true. I mean,
I think in a lot of ways, the Supreme Court,
the majority of the Supreme Court is going to try
their best to give the Trump administration the benefit of
the debt. The universal injunction case, right, I mean, it's
a little esoteric, but it's worth talking about. So this
is in the context of right citizenship, like universal injunctions.
(21:01):
Should one judge be able to grant an injunction that
applies across the country. It's been a headache for liberals. Right,
there was always one judge out of Texas that would
judge Chismeric who would rule against planned parenthood or rule
against reproductive rights, and it would have nationwide implications. So
it's been a problem. Right, it should have been fixed now.
(21:22):
The Supreme Court could have not fixed it in this
case because the New Jersey Attorney General made a brilliant
argument saying, look, I have an interest in making sure
that my residents if they're pregnant and they go out
of state and the baby is born in Georgia. I
A is the head of New Jersey. The New Jersey
Atorney General have an interest in making sure that my
residents have birthright where they're born. So that would have
(21:45):
been a perfect instance of granting a universal injunction. The
Supreme Court through the bone to the Trump administration, I think,
because they're going to give us the stake ultimately on
birthrights citizenship.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
We want to talk about free speech.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Thinking about free speech, obviously, we're talking about an administration
that is putting an enormous amount of pressure on universities,
media outlets, journalists, activists, activists, and even institutions like the Smithsonian.
And so I'm wondering, from your perspective, when you're looking
at these institutions and some of these organizations, do you
ever feel led down?
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Sure? Why, yeah, daily, daily, Yeah. I mean we're in
a modern day McCarthy. I put the Trump administration's activities
that bother be the most into three big buckets, and
the first one is this one, the modern day McCarthy,
where they're targeting individuals institutions based on the ideology or
the viewpoints that they don't agree with the Trump administration.
(22:48):
And you have Columbia, and you have Harvard, you have
the law firms, you have Mahmood Khalil, the activists who
are being used pulled off the streets and then endeavored
to deport them. All of that is examples of targeting
individuals who don't agree with the Trump orthodoxy. And the
(23:08):
fact that big powerful institutions like these law firms capitulated
is really troubling, especially and not only them, But I'm
more troubled about the lawyers in some ways. Maybe it's
my own parochial nature of the lawyer, but I think
the lawyers should have stood up straight and stood up
for their professions for themselves. Networks and universities paying I mean,
(23:31):
don't get me going on the media outlets who are
paying these defamation lawsuits that they would readily win because
they're afraid of currying the wrath of the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Do you feel like it's important to call them out?
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Sure? I mean, Paul Weiss is a firm that disappoints.
And that's why I think firms like Wilmer Hale and
General Block and Sussman Godfrey who stood up and then
fought those executive orders, are critically and that's where ultimately
I think the code on that story will be determined.
(24:05):
I don't think it's great for these law firms. They
find themselves over a barrel. Once you start paying an extortionist,
you never have a final payment, right, they're gonna.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Be that's that you're calling.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
Sure, isn't that what the trumpet? You? You give me
one hundred million dollars and maybe I let you argue
your cases in court, and maybe you bring my cases
and maybe you represent my interests, and maybe next year
it's another one hundred million dollars. When all they have
is the power, they don't have the authority. Clearly, cases
is either a slam dunk. There's not been. None of
(24:37):
these law firms I have challenged the executive orders have
lost a case. They just decided to pay the extortionists
is better than fighting, then lowering up and fighting.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
So these are new fights. Let me ask you about
a classical fight. A CD has always been committed to
defending free speech, even from the far right. Is it
Are you still doing that?
Speaker 1 (25:01):
Sure?
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Even today?
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Even five, it's not too dangerous.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
No, I think it's necessary. I mean, look, it's not
popular among progressives, liberals or activists. It's necessary. When we
stand up for the rights of groups we don't agree with,
we lay down a marker. So the case I think
the most relevant. There are always cases. There are smaller
cases where we've represented a white supremacist in New Hampshire
and other activists who said kind of anti Semitic things
(25:28):
in the Midwest. The biggest case was Nravvulo, when we
took up the NRA as our client. The NRA came
to us saying, Cuomo trying to shut us down because
he doesn't agree. Governor Cuomo is trying to shut us
down because he doesn't agree with our position on gun
ownership and was using all the power in the New
York State to come down on the NRA, trying to
(25:49):
sever business ties with the NRA. And they said, but
you have the best First Amendment lawyers, where you take
our case and we took it, so they had a case,
they had a case. We won that one nine zero
Sonya Soda mayorro and with the majority, that is now
the case we are citing in the Harvard litigation or
in the law Firm litigation where we're talking about the
(26:10):
US government should not be allowed to use the powers
of the government to target institutions with whom it has
a disagreement, an ideological disagreement. That's why I think it's
critically important we stand up for this.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
So hate speech is protected, yes, yes, Burning the flag
is protected, yes, absolutely.
Speaker 3 (26:28):
Even though Trump is signing executive orders that are essentially
telling the American people that it.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Is and we will jump in lawful to burn.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
An American flag. And to be clear, it is not
illegal to burn an American flag.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
It is not illegal to burn an American flag. And
for decades we have fought things like constitutional amendments that
would make a flag burning a crime. I mean, it
is a political statement, it's a political act. It's not
one I agree with. I've never burnt a flag. I
have flags in front of my house right now for
labor Day weekend, I've put a flag in front of
my house. I've refused to see the flag, but I
(27:01):
think it's important for political activists to have a right
to express themselves as they wish.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
So because of the political flights that we're in right now,
do you think ACLU has been forced to move to
the left.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
I don't think we have changed, right. I think we've
always been pro immigrant, from the beginning with the Palmer
rates in nineteen twenty. We've always been for the rights
and do process rights of immigrants. We've always been for
the rights of women and repuctive rights and health. We've
always been pro racial justice. I think what's happened is
the tectonic plates of partisan politics have shifted out from under.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
We felt more lawsuits done never before, and not against
the Trumpe administry.
Speaker 1 (27:40):
Over one hundred and fifty seventy nine class actions. Yeah, okay,
but I think what's changed is that there once was
a time when you had Republicans who believed in civil rights.
I mean, the Voting Rights Act was enacted with Republican leadership.
I mean President Reagan was the one who signed the
extension of the Voting Rights Act. Pro immigrant presidents George Bush.
(28:02):
I remember criticizing him when you and I first met
after the War on Terror. He was still more pro
immigrant than anything we've seen.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
He was even considering maybe not a legalization or an homnesty,
but similar.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
Something very similar. But diplomacy cold been sent to Fox.
You know, we remember moments. We remember the fact that
there were kind of log cabin Republicans who actually were
kind of being forces within the Republican Party for LGBT rights.
That's changed, right.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
You mentioned LGBTQ. Right, so I have to jump in
as a lesbian who may one day get married. Should
I be worried about the Supreme Court overturning.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
There's another place, Anthony York and even smiling, I think
it's also because it's in the Supreme Court and it's
also been enacted by statute. I know other people feel differently,
and a lot of people have run to get married,
and I think it's great. I have not gotten married.
I still maybe will maybe exercise the rights somedays I
love someone, but we haven't just kind of signed on
(29:00):
city Hall.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
And so you're not you are not rushing to get married, No,
I don't.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
I think I think there are some things that will
really be beyond the pale. I think, like undoing gay marriage,
undoing birthright citizenship. I think they made some elements. Surely
some elements of Trump administration would love to undo that.
I don't think they succeed.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
You just said something. There's some elements that the Trumpe
administration may undo. If you put yourself in Trump's legal
team and you look at the way that they are
dismantling systems, or the way that they're trying to undo things,
or the way that they are trying to literally like reimagine,
you know, the way that you invoke and act. Is
(29:42):
there something to learn from them?
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Sure? I think. I think there's a timidity that we've had.
And this is where I keep telling my folks, this
is not what I'm doing because I'm too busy in
the day to day. Some group of people need to
be thinking about what we build differently after this, and
it can't be just less RESI the stuff they took apart.
Someone needs to be thinking about what needs to be
(30:04):
put in the place of everything that's been taken down,
and so they need to think ambitiously and broader. I mean,
if anything I've learned from the Trump administration is that
they have not been held back by the idea of oh,
this is too timid, or this is too too much,
or this is to too large a leap. They've gone there,
(30:25):
and I think there is a lesson for us in that.
I think that sometimes the policy of social change or
social equity is a little bit too incremental, and I
think we just need to kind of like wipe it
clean and start afresh.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
So the resistance are the judges, is the legal system.
I'm not journalists.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Oh, the journalists are playing a critical role. And we
have some journalists. We have a journalist you probably know
who's been incarcerated because he was live streaming or kind
of a protest and they've kind of try to hold him.
He's not an American citizen, and so we're representing him.
The journalists are critical. There are activists who are out there.
You're not seeing the marches and the demonstration.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
The marches other than what we saw in Los Angeles.
I haven't seen those marches anywhere.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
But I think you're seeing a lot of people turn
out in local districts. I think people understand now that
maybe those national marches don't have the impact that people
want them to be, and so sometimes focusing your energy
more locally, more targeted in manner. I mean, one of
the things we've done is that we've created this whole
kind of blueprint for what we call firewall for freedom,
(31:37):
which what can people do in their local jurisdictions with
their local mayor city councils, governors, attorneys general. Let's put
the stiff in the spine of these local elected officials
who can sever the kind of the immigration programs of
two eighty seven G programs with the federal government. That's
critically important. I don't want to take a lot of
people up on the hill. I'd rather them turn out
(31:58):
in their lobby, in their in their district, with their mayors,
with their city councils, with their governors. And so the
locus of our of our activism, Jorge has changed really considerably.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
Have you ever called Trump an authoritarian leader?
Speaker 1 (32:18):
Sure? Sure he is that he is that. I mean,
that is that is what we are seeing. And Frankomo,
you know you have to call it for what it is.
I mean, this is not a surprise, and I'm not
given to hyperbola. I think it's really important that we
don't deal the lily. When the facts are sufficient, all
you do is state the facts.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
So if you say that that he's an authoritarian leader,
then we're losing them our democracy.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
I think we're in the we're in the battle for
our democracy. I don't think we've lost it yet, but
I think so many of the institutions and the norms.
I mean, this is part of the three buckets a
modern day McCarthy, right, where they're targeting people based on
their on their speech. Second bucket is when they're targeting
the politically weak to score cheap political points with their constituents.
(33:07):
So there I put the immigrants and the attack on
trans people. The third one the attack on the institutions
and norms that undergird our democracy, the role of Congress,
the role of the courts, the role of the press.
The deployment of the National Guard, for instance, completely usurping
the power of the governors and the states. We've delegated
(33:28):
most of the power to the states, and yet now
this president feels that he can exert the National Guard
and the military to usurp the power of our governors.
And that is an enormous change in the rule of law.
Speaker 3 (33:43):
You said that this second time around. You're part of
a larger coalition of partners that's more ready. What does
that coordination look like? What do those partnerships there are?
Speaker 1 (33:55):
There are clear divisions of labor, like, for instance, we
did not swing at every pitch. We did not take on,
for instance, the the DOGE attacks on US government agencies
or US government workers. That was Democracy Forward and Sky Perryman,
who is an amazing leader. I've forwarded kind of clients
to her. I kind of referred donors to her. This
(34:17):
is where they were out in front. There were clear
parts of that agenda. It's not a civil liberties or
civil rights issue to necessarily be asked by Elon Musk.
If you're a federal government employee, unless you're being targeted
for your political speech, then it's a civil liberties issue,
but just generally not my lane, that's their lanth. And
so in places where we overlap, then we will sit
(34:38):
down and talk about who does what, and who takes
the lead, and who takes who follows, how can we
support one another. It's really much more effective. I mean
part of it is because it's necessity is the mother
of invention. We don't have time for Rolo Derby politics.
We all understand that we're all in over our heads.
The only way to win is to divide this work
(34:59):
up into one another, and that's what has happened in
this sector.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
Approximately how many groups are part of this sort of
like coordinated.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
There are about thirty on a less serve in one,
and then I think there's a smaller group around five
or six that are don't talk in touch with each other,
and there's constant contact. I mean, for instance, on the
issues around transgender rights, there were cases that we took,
there were cases that LAMBDA took, there were cases that
the National Center for Lesbian Rights took. That was all
(35:28):
sorted out before the election so that we could really
divide it up and make sure that we knew the
only way to score is that you can't have the
whole team standing on second base. So you got to
make sure you have people spread out right.
Speaker 3 (35:40):
This is like the invisible part of the resistance that
people don't see.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
There's a whole quarters a little bit of negotiation and
not we don't always agree, and sometimes there are disagreements
and then we have to talk it through like adults.
But we realize that the cause is bigger and so
that's worth working through.
Speaker 3 (35:56):
What's the point in which you feel very scared and
in which you tell us that, yes, we're losing our democracy.
What's that breaking point?
Speaker 1 (36:03):
I don't know where this ends, right, That's where I
get nervous. We fight this day to day, and we
fight it strategically, and we fight out. We think long term,
and we plan what if we lose, what if we win,
how do we appeal? What do we come back? We
lay the groundwork for twenty twenty seven, twenty twenty eight,
twenty twenty nine, twenty twenty thirty. I'm just looking at plans,
(36:23):
both good and bad, for what this looks like if
we don't get out of this. The thing I worry
about is when people turn off and they begin to
kind of normalize all of this, that it's normal for
the government to be targeting individuals that doesn't agree with
it's normal to deploy the military and the National Guard
(36:46):
in our cities.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
But we are somehow normalized in that we are. It
happened already national Guard at the border, then it was
in LA then in DC, then Chicago and then.
Speaker 1 (36:57):
Maybe Boston, right, And that's part of what we need
to kind of like that's where we we remain kind
of very aggressive and trying to sound the alarm. I
mean one of the things we've been doing. So we
litigate a lot with these one hundred and fifty plus lawsuits.
We lobby our local liketed officials right to make sure
that they stand up as a firewall for freedom.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
Do you have enough morning for that?
Speaker 1 (37:20):
It's you know, the rich. The rich are complicated, you
know the wall.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
You rich one to give less?
Speaker 1 (37:27):
Now, oh you bet. I'm not going to kiss and tell.
But there are so many oh yeah, Middle East. They
say it out loud. People who are with us and
Trump one point zero who couldn't write a big enough
check are missing in action this time around. Thank god
for the ordinary folk, right, the ordinary people who crowdsource
the acou that's sustaining the budget comes from one hundred
(37:51):
dollars or less.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
I mean, do you ever feel demoralized? I know your
job is to be a leader, to be outspoken, to
be here, to smile at us. Do you ever go
back home and you're like, man.
Speaker 1 (38:02):
I can't believe that this After more than forty years
of working at this set of issues that at the
end of my career we have fewer rights and liberties
than I thought we deserve. And the idea that I
don't know where this ends. And part of what gives
me kind of the hope is that I might personally
lose hope. This individual might lose the faith, might be
(38:22):
the priest who stops believing in God and then steps
away from the church. But there's an institution that doesn't
lose faith. And that's what I've believed in, is the
building an institution that has the staying power that's much
bigger than any one person, that has the fervor and
the zeal and the staying power that outlass any one individual.
Speaker 2 (38:42):
You just said the phrase at the end of my career.
Can I get a little personal I've known you for
a long time, all right, Okay, So as someone who
spent thirty eight years doing the same as I did,
and you've been twenty twenty four years, you see time
for a change. I see you.
Speaker 1 (39:02):
It might be it might be no, not right away.
I think that the steady hand.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
You said at the end of my career.
Speaker 1 (39:07):
Well probably, you know, several more years. I want to
see this through. I want to see the Trump administration through.
I'm kind of stubborn. You know that about me, Jorge,
You know I'm kind of like.
Speaker 2 (39:15):
Oh, this is a personal fight.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
Yeah, well it's just it's it's it's a fight I'm
personally involved with and committed to. But I also feel like,
you know, I'm definitely most most of my career is
behind me as opposed to in front of me, and
there will be a moment when there's a new, dynamic
leader who will take over and re envision an organization.
Part of what I love about if Trump taught us anything,
don't put too much trust in any one person, right,
(39:38):
You have to believe in something bigger than that one person.
And so I believe in the fact that an institution
will have to be broader than and bigger than and
remake itself. And that's someone with a lot more energy
and dynamism will come in and kind of feel like.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
Yet not yet, not yet yet, so you want to
see this through. I feel the same way. In other words,
I believe that I had to come back as an
independent journalist at least for these government.
Speaker 3 (40:00):
Total totally agree and then need to to finish. Who
saw you how to fight? Where do you get this
fighting spirit from?
Speaker 1 (40:10):
I don't know. I think I saw it a lot
with my father. He was not really a fighter in
the way that you would think. He was a very
easygoing guy, and he had a beautiful smile and he
loved to laugh. But he had grit and resilience, and
I saw what he went up against. You know, he
was a Puerto Rican guy. Probably I'm not sure I
(40:31):
ever saw him write a sentence, so I know he
read the newspaper, but I'm not sure he was capable
of long form writing. Super smart, just not well educated,
fourth grade and yet he just stayed at it, like
grit and determination my mother who just believed, no matter what,
you know, no matter what the circumstances, that things could
(40:53):
be better. So I think you learned that at home.
You learned that close to the people, and for being
Puerto Rican two and I think Puerto Rican, you know,
history and culture is there's a lot there. It's not
It's not been the sole focus of my career. There
have been other people who've been focused on it. But
I think it's uh, you certainly will you grow up
(41:14):
knowing about politics, right, It's it's quick to figure out. Okay,
I'm a US citizen, I'm whether there or here, but
if I'm in Puerto Rico, I don't get a chance
to vote for the presidency. That takes a lot of
explaining for a youngster, you know, like I could vote
for you know, when I'm eighteen, I could vote for
the president of the United States, but my cousins in
Puerto Rico couldn't. How do you explain that? You know,
(41:37):
it's it's it's a challenge.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
So let's just finish. As we began talking about Bad Bunny.
Speaker 1 (41:43):
Bad Bunny, Bad Bunny is amazing.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
He's fantastic. He's just incredible.
Speaker 1 (41:48):
My nephew is one who turned me on to Bad
Bunny years ago. I'm like, what are you listening to?
You said Bad Bunny. I'm like, wow, Okay, I listen,
and you know, it's incredible how he is just a
new type of leader, you know, Spanish centric, his focus
on Puerto Rico. His music is universal. He can he
can sing universally in a language that is not a
(42:11):
universal language, they say, but he's making it so I
think it's incredible. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (42:16):
I saw him in an Alistaiostea in Mexico City. I
was so impressed because it was just him and a
DJ eighty thousand people, Anthony, and he controlled completely that stadium.
He stopped singing. There was complete silence, and then he's
doing like meditations. In the middle of the concert, he
puts a towel on top of his head and then
(42:36):
he stays there like for two or three minutes.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
I should try that, I should. I need to try
that a little bit more.
Speaker 2 (42:44):
Anthony, thank you so much. Both of you keep on
smiling the same way I keep.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
I keep smiling because I keep working. It's the best
way to work with a smile, Anthony.
Speaker 3 (42:57):
The Moment is a production of Radian Bullant Studios in
part intnership with iHeart Michael to the podcast network.
Speaker 2 (43:03):
Our staff includes Daniela Larcon, Lauda Rojasa Ponte, Miguel Santiago
Colon and Lisa Serda, with the help from Paula Alian,
Diego Corso, Natalie Ramirez and Elsa Lianaujoa. Our theme song
is by Elias Gonzalez. The CEO Radio Bulante Studios is
Carolina Guerrero.
Speaker 3 (43:22):
Executive producers I Heart are Arlene Santana and Leo Romes.
Pablo Guda also serves as a producer.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
If you like the moment, Pero tambien te gustam podcast Tennespanol.
Look for Radio Bulante Historias de Toda America Latina wherever
you listen to podcasts, I'm hort Ramos.
Speaker 3 (43:40):
And am Paula Ramas.
Speaker 2 (43:42):
Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com