October 10, 2025 • 42 mins
As fears of martial law grow, Governors Gavin Newsom, JB Pritzker, and Tina Kotek break down what’s really happening with the National Guard, ICE, and federal power. They discuss how states are pushing back, whether we can rely on the courts, and what it means for the future of American democracy.
00:00 Introduction
2:40 Breaking News From Illinois
7:30 "Portland Is Not Burning"
11:25 ICE Raids In Chicago & The Politics Of Fear
15:15 Noem Means No Actual Crisis
20:42 This Is A Preview Of Things To Come
27:05 Can We Get Justice In The Courts?
31:04 The Insurrection Act
34:17 The Public Is Pushing Back Peacefully
38:13 The National Guard Don't Want This Either
IG: @ThisisGavinNewsom
Email: TIGNPod@gmail.com
Substack: Gavinnewsom
Phone: 855-6NEWSOM
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):
This is not what Americans want to see.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
The only invasion or mayhem that's occurring is happening because
the Trump administration is visiting it upon our city.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
This is not who we are as Americans. We have
checks and balances, we have the court.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
In June of this year, in the second largest city
in the United States of America, President of the United
States called up seven hundred active duty Marines. He didn't
send them overseas. He sent them to an American city.
It was just days after he had federalized some four
thousand National Guard. Unprecedented act done not at the behest
(00:39):
of the state's governor, myself, but against my advice my counsel,
certainly against my consent. We said at the time this
was a preview of things to come. A few months
later we saw what happened and another major American city
in Washington, d C. With the militarization of their streets.
(01:00):
And of course since then, we've seen similar actions by
this president and Christy Noman homeland security in other major
American cities, not least of which just in the last
few days in Chicago, Illinois, Portland, Oregon. And the anticipation
is we're going to see additional actions by this president
(01:21):
all across the United States of America. This is unprecedented
in modern American history. This is, dare I say, a
constitutional crisis, but it's also a crisis that not only
divides but also brings people together. And one of the
things that I've enjoyed, perhaps more than most aspects of
(01:41):
my job, is working collaborative and getting to know some
of America's outstanding leaders, Leaders like JB. Pritzker, leaders like
Tina Kotec, both now on the front lines of this
constitutional crisis, on the front lines as it relates to
the militarization of their city and their state's streets. And
(02:01):
it's such a treat opportunity to be able to connect
not only with both of them in private, but now
to connect with them in public. I don't think we've
had this kind of dialogue in this kind of forum before,
and I'm looking forward to the conversation and I hope
you'll enjoy this conversation with both JB. Pritzker and Tina
(02:24):
Cotech on this unique podcast. This is Gavin Newsom and
this is JB. Pritzker and Tina Cootech. I'm really pleased
this is a great and rare opportunity to have two
remarkable leaders in the thick of things right now, governor
(02:45):
of the great State of Illinois and the Great State
of Oregon, on the front lines of this growing constitutional crisis,
this sort of relentless and unprecedented overreach from the federal government.
What's happening on the streets of Chicago and Portland obviously
in the news and top of mind, but I'm really
(03:06):
pleased to have Jabantino with me to be able to
compare and contrast and to talk about the world we're
living in and what defines this moment. But at this moment,
Governor Pritzker, I'm told that you just have some news
from a court that is adjudicated on a possibility of
a temporary restraining order.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
That's right, well, great to see you both.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
And the TRO has been granted by Judge Perry here
in Illinois, and she is reading.
Speaker 4 (03:37):
Her oral decision right now.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
We're getting it literally blow by blow, But she began
by saying she's granting it in part, and so we're
waiting because honestly, most of what she's read so far
has been.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
A complete victory on the TRO.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
But there must be some piece of it that she's
not granting, so we're waiting to hear about that, But
she is basically questioning the credibility of DHS and ICE
and CBP in all of what they have reported. She
has gotten a lot of reports from local and state
law enforcement about what's going on, puts credibility in that,
(04:17):
and those are our folks here in Illinois. So we're
very pleased so far with the ruling. But I promise you,
before we're done, we'll probably have the end of her
oral decision and I'll be able to give you whatever
the d part piece is.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
I appreciate, Governor, and it just goes to the nature
of this moment and how fast paced, hour by hour
things are. There's so many court proceedings that are underway,
not least of which here in California and obviously in
Oregon as well. But before I get to Tina, just
to be on that, paint the picture of you went
to court for what specific reason to push back against
(04:52):
what specific action by the president.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Yeah, so what's going on on the ground here is
that there our Texas National Guard that have been federalized.
They already have arrived, our Illinois National Guard also have
been federalized. They're in process of gathering and there's some
training that the President has ordered. We're a little bit
unaware of what that training will be, but we know
(05:18):
where it will take place. And then, actually, Gavin, we
have about fourteen California.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
National Guard that are on the ground here.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
They were diverted after the decision in Oregon, and we
don't know whether we'll see more.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
We just know right now they're fourteen.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
So you know, this is I mean, I've called it
an invasion because when you look at the numbers that
they're calling up five hundred National guardsmen, these are not
folks who are trained to do, you know, policing or
any kind of you know, crime fighting. They're terrific, by
the way, all of our National Guards, you know, we
(05:58):
send them abroad to defend our country and they do
an amazing job at that, you know. But the idea
that they should act as well some sort of you know,
protection against crime, or to protect the facilities here or
the Ice officials on the ground ridiculous. So, I mean,
(06:19):
they should be used for what they're trained to do,
which is to fight wars or here in our state,
of course, and yours too, you know, emergencies that we
need to call them up for, whether it was COVID
or flooding or anything else.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
So it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
We're very proud of our National Guard, and I don't
want anybody to get the idea otherwise.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
We just want them to be used for what they
signed up for.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
It's such an important predicate for this conversation is the
respect and admiration, the reverence we have for these men
and women in uniform being used in unprecedented ways, I think,
abused under the circumstances, and I just want to paint
the picture of those circumstances, because you're right. We had
fourteen of our National guardment and women that were sent
(07:02):
originally to Oregon against again our objections. They had already
been federalized by the Trump administration, sent to do quote
unquote training up in Oregon, and then a judge not
dissimilarly issued a judication a tro in favor of a
(07:22):
governor kotech in your work, and then we're sent those
fourteen to Chicago. But let's let's talk a little bit
about what's happening in Portland right now, what's happening in Oregon,
and where are you and some of these court decisions. Governor, well,
thank you.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
And thanks for having us. Kevin, first of all, I
want to thank both of you to know that I
can pick up the phone and we can have a conversation.
You know, GB, I'm sorry this is happening to the
people of a Pillinois and when it was happening in California,
we were feeling the same way about things in your home.
Stay Gavin, this is not how it should go right
in our case. You know, I wake up on a
(07:59):
Saturday war and the President is tweeting or on social
media saying we should send full forces to Oregon, and
I'm like, what what are you talking about?
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Right?
Speaker 1 (08:09):
We have an ice facility one block radius and you
know the city is doing well. You know, we have
our challenges, but you know, people are living their lives here.
And I'm like, what is the reality check When the
President believes he needs to go over the top of
governors to pulling, you know, military intervention into the city.
He first wanted to call up the Oregon National Guard.
(08:30):
We went to court and got a temporary restraining order
because and I think you're seeing the JB's case as well.
The judges are looking at the facts on the ground.
They're talking to local law enforcement. They're trying to understand
does the president have the ability to call this an
insurrection and a rebellion? He does not, right, and so
(08:50):
in our case, we go to court. The judge says,
by the way, a federal judge appointed by President Trump
in his first term, says, hey, facts on the ground
don't match. This is a note you can't do this.
So they start appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court, which
is where we are now, and then they start trying
to move Texas in California to Oregon. Texas troops California troops.
(09:12):
The judge comes in on a special hearing on a
Sunday night. It says, you didn't hear me the first time.
That's a no, you can't do that. So, you know,
we need the courts. They are with us. We need
the rule of law to stand up against this. This
is not what Americans want to see. They don't want
to see their citizens soldiers in the streets of American cities.
(09:34):
And it's not about our three states, it's about every state.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
So the state of mind on the Trump administration and
JB seems to see be that it's just they painting
a picture lawlessness and complete chaos that you, we, all
of us, are overwhelmed by the facts on the ground,
and all he's doing is advancing a fundamental paradigm of
law and order. And it's remarkable that we are not
(10:00):
more grateful and saying thank you, mister President. So paint
the picture. I mean is a chaos, complete insanity. And
in Portland, Oregon, as we speak, is a city being
burned down. As the President described.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Portland is not burning. We are not a military target.
So when this first started, Portlanders were a little like,
I don't know if abused is the right word, because
people are still scared. You know, they're scared about the
immigration enforcement. We have immigrant communities that are concerned. People
aren't worried about the drum administration, but they're like, what
is this national news thing saying there's a problem in
my city. I'm out shopping, I'm going to the park,
(10:37):
I'm running in a marathon, and downtown Portland people are
They're going to social media and being like this is
not a warzone, right, showing all their photos, and that
absurdity has now moved into complete disbelief, right because it
continues to go on. Right, we had Secretary Home Land
Security Secretary here earlier this week. I'm like, okay, great,
(10:58):
she's going to be on the ground, going to see
what's happening. And then they go to DC and say,
we're lying. We don't understand the situation. You know, this
is organized domestic terrorism. It is shocking. Everyone has just
kind of shaking their head here they don't understand it,
and now it's just become chilling and worrisome.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
So, speaking of chilling, JB. We saw those images of
people descending from helicopters in the dead of night, armed
masked men going into apartment building, people quite literally asleep,
people without clothing. We've seen in the middle of the day,
tear gasping, dispensed. I mean, those images are indeed chilling.
(11:39):
Give us a sense of what you're dealing with. Specifically
on the ground in Chicago.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
The only invasion or mayhem that's occurring is happening because
the Trump administration is visiting it upon our city. You
saw that that South Shore building in Chicago, middle of
the night, blackhawk helicopters we had, we had ICE agents
repelling out of this military helicopter down the side of
(12:06):
this building. It has about one hundred and thirty people
in it. They were targeting a few I'm talking about
a single digit number of people that they said were
gang members. But the one hundred and thirty people had
their doors broken down, their windows broken, everything was ransacked
in the building. We saw pictures and video of all
(12:26):
of it. They took innocent people out and zip tied
their hands children, I might add, and a number of
these people were US citizens and others were legal residents
of the state of Illinois and the United States of.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
America, and yet they were held for hours.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
And these ice agents, first of all, I don't think
they really have been trained in law enforcement. Our CPD
Chicago Public Sorry Police Department, as well as our Illinois
State Police, we know that when we're targeting gang members,
and we do this with DEA and with FBI also,
(13:06):
we target them, we determine where they are at a building,
and then we make sure that we keep innocent people
away from that area and we protect them while we
go in and take people out. That's not what happened here.
We had over one hundred agents attacking a building. It
looked like Fallujah. They and they one other thing. They
(13:27):
set up dozens of cameras for social media purposes ahead
of this, and then they used all of that footage
to turn it into this sort of I don't know,
adventure looking, you know thing for Christy Nomes social media,
so they could, I'm not sure, advertise the idea to
(13:49):
what people joining ice. I'm not sure exactly who they
were trying to convince, but it all looked like BS
in their social media. It was BS in fact on
the ground. And the result is we have traumatized children.
Of course, we've got elderly people again who are held
for hours. We've got an entire community around this building
who's wondering like are they next? And this is what's
(14:12):
happening all across the city of Chicago, this kind of
trauma that's occurring in our communities. People are afraid to
go outside. They can't walk their kids to school. Again,
if you're brown or black, you're liable to be stopped
and held. And this is in a circumstance where you know,
again children trying to get to school and their parents
trying to.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
Walk them there.
Speaker 5 (14:31):
I went to an elementary school and there were children
there who were worried that at the end of the
school day when they walk home, their parents might not
be home, that they will been taken away and disappear.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
And that's the word we hear all the time, disappeared.
And just to underscore governa what you just said, I mean,
it's sanctioned now, It's been sanctioned under the shadow docket
the Supreme Court that the Trump administration can racially profile
on the basis not just of sci in color, but
also where people congregate and the accent or the language
(15:04):
they speak, which is chilling beyond words. But you mentioned
just the video side of this and the promotional side
of this, and you of course brought up Christy Noman
and Tina. You just met with Christy? No, did you not?
Was she she was up in Portland? Do you have
a chance to engage in dialogue with her?
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Yeah? I found out the through unofficial channels the day
before that she was coming to town, and so I
reached out and said, hey, can we meet. It's interesting
to see a cabinet secretary traveling with right wing social
media influencers. It's interesting to see that same cabinet secretary
standing on a federal building with those same types of
folks with you know, with filming and other things. This
(15:47):
is a made for TV movie that they are producing
to try to make a point. You know, I thought
we could have a you know, reasonable conversation, but you know,
it's hard to have a rational conversation with irrational people.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
You know.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
Then Secretary now goes back and has a you know,
meeting at the White House just yesterday talking about you know,
Antifa and the way they talk about it. I don't
know what they're talking about. It doesn't any expert on
anything in this country is just perplexed by what they're
trying to say about what is happening in our major cities.
And so I just come back to what are the
(16:21):
facts on the ground. What does it mean to keep
our community safe. We have a president and an administration
that doesn't care about the safety of Americans. Look, you
take an oath to the Constitution at the President of
the United States, as we do as governors. Our job
is to stand up and protect everybody in our state,
and his job is to protect everybody in our country.
(16:42):
But what I heard from the Secretary was we have
the right and with that with impunity, to be as
aggressive with military policing tactics that we want to use,
and we don't care if it upsets people, and we
don't care if it creates more tension and more problems
for your city. They literally don't care.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
And I want to get to the more problems and
more tension and what lies underneath this and ask you
both in a moment, what you believe this is really
all about, if it's not about the issue of crime.
But I'm old enough to remember, I think you both
are as well. There was a governor by the name
of Nome, Christy Nome, who just last year was on
(17:23):
Fox News outraged, outraged by the very notion that then
President Joe Biden would consider, rumored as it was at
the time, consider to federalize her National Guard, she said
as governor of her home state. She said, that would
be a clear constitutional violation and we would have quote
(17:44):
unquote a war, she said, on our hands. Did that
come up in your conversation? Was a maya coopa? Was
there an expression of complete recognition of her hypocrisy?
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Well, that would have had me phone off the chair. No,
we did not see that. We didn't see any kind
of like, hey, I see where you're coming. From I
used to be a governor. It was the sense that
just you know, you should be trusting your governors, you
should be trusting the people who were there. And as
a former governor, she should know better. Every state is
under threat now, every state, and we got to remember
(18:18):
that we don't want our guards people, we don't want
active military in our streets. These are United States of America.
That is not who we are.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Yeah, and just to underscore that, I mean, a few
months ago, of course, we saw four thousand federalized Guard,
and we saw seven hundred active duty Marines. We saw
active duty marines or in send overseas that were sent
to the second largest city on American streets. And we
still have hundreds of federalized guards. Two hundred ten are
still in your state doing absolutely nothing. Those fourteen that
(18:48):
were sent to quote unquote train the Guard in JB's
state and the rest sitting in the armories here doing
again nothing in Los Angeles. So it begs the question, JB,
what the hell is this all about? I mean, what
do you think at the core is really going on here?
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Well, I just want to go back for just a
moment to say, another governor that's signed on to that
same letter to President Biden, and who spoke out against
the deployment and federalization troops was Greg Abbott in Texas.
So an, FYI, you signed on, and I signed on,
(19:26):
and all of the governors across the country signed on
to that same notion that really there should be extremely
limited circumstances where the federal government is federalizing, and obviously
for foreign warriors for protecting the homeland from outside, that is.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
Something that we all believe in. But anyway, I just
wanted to highlight that Greg Abbott in just in case, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
Two people that don't know it's Texas. Greg Abbot sent
against the objections of Governor Pritzker, sent the Texas National
Guard into Chicago. Remind us, Governor, how many National Guard
from Texas were sent up to your state.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Two hundred national Guard arrived yesterday. They are gathered at
a federal facility. I have not allowed them to stay
at our state facilities, and they have not yet deployed
onto the streets of Chicago. I might add, because of
the they were waiting at the judge's behesse for her decision,
and we still are awaiting the end of the delivery
(20:33):
of her decision, but which I'll give you before the
end if I can. But here's what I think it's
all about, and I think you have to add in.
So I think we all understand they're deploying troops into
major American cities and right now all blue cities, Democratic
(20:53):
controlled cities in blue democratic controlled states. You can include Washington,
d c. In that as well, So why those places?
And then add to this, so it's ice cbp ICE,
which just is getting about one hundred billion dollars to
(21:13):
beef up front. That's about ten times what it was
under President Biden in the Big Beautiful Bill. So they're
obviously doing something here that has never been done before.
Then add to that, all fifty states had our voter
rolls called up by the DOJ subpoena. We had to
(21:37):
deliver our voter roles. Why they didn't tell us why,
but they have, you know, hinted that, well, there might
be fraud. They're going to look through our voter rolls.
Very private information in addition to people's names and addresses,
other private information that are included in those voter files.
We've rejected. We haven't sent those that in Ian. We've
(22:01):
only given them what's publicly available. But here's what's important
about this. I believe that what they're going to do
is use the voter rolls that they have to try
to make a claim next year at election time in November,
if they're losing the election, that there is fraud in
the elections in whatever states they want to claim that,
(22:24):
and that therefore those elections either should be disregarded or
that they should be able.
Speaker 4 (22:31):
To count the ballots themselves.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
So why do I think that Because in twenty twenty,
when they were saying stop the steal, when they were
rioting at January sixth at the Capitol, Michael Flynn was
calling for the president to confiscate the ballot boxes and
determine the results of the election himself. And then you know,
(22:58):
this is I just, you know, want to get everybody.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist type. I'm just somebody who
has watched enough about Donald Trump to know that he
believes in this idea that there's massive fraud that could
take place, or at least he believes enough that he
could convince a lot of people of it, and he
(23:18):
believes in militarizing our city. He's been talking about taking
over Chicago with the military for more than a decade,
like before he was president the first time. So this
is what I think he's got in mind. At posting
people at polling places in twenty twenty six wouldn't surprise
me at all to deter people from voting.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
It would scare a lot of people I know from
the polling places.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
But why would he do it again, scare them away,
claim that he's protecting the voting, and then of course
declare fraud wherever it is that he believes he isn't.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
Winning as governor. Let me just reinforce that. And those
are sobering words, and I don't want to I hope
people are absorbing what you just said, and also how
you said it in the context of even being situationally
aware that you did say it, meaning you're not prone
to conspiracy theories, the idea. It may sound absurd to some,
but I'll just underscore that. Look, I think there's a
(24:16):
direct thread that comes from the call he made to
Greg Abbott about finding five seats that he's quote unquote
entitled to because he knows, all things being equal, he's
going to lose the midterm elections and de Facto's presidency ends.
It's sure there'll be fire and fury, but they'll finally
be congressional oversight, there'll be some accountability, and that's why
(24:37):
he is trying to rig the next election. Obviously, when
you nationalize or federalize the guard and you put these
guard all across the country, increasingly we're seeing that, as
you suggest, growing city by city. But you add to
that what you said, which is now the ability to
hire an additional with that one hundred billion dollars, ten
thousand members of ICE, the largest domestic police force anywhere
(25:02):
in the world, that my words, seemingly are increasingly swearing
an oath of office, not to the constitution, but by
some activity and actions that we've seen, first Dan here
to the president himself, i e. What he did at
the Democracy Center when we kicked off our proposition fifty
and he sent ICE and he sent border patrol to
(25:23):
scare people from participating our event. This is a preview
of things to come at voting booths and palling places
all across the country. Long way away of saying I
could not agree governor with you more, this is about
something much more insidious than just control. In the short run.
This is about power in the long run.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
As a president who believes in the absolute power that
he thinks he has, he told a woundful of hundreds
of military generals that it's an okay idea to put
our military troops, federalizing the National Guard into our cities
for practice. Can't allow this to be normalized because the
(26:06):
authoritarianism is going to creep up on us. We have
to know that this is wrong. This is not who
we are as Americans. We have checks and balances, we
have the courts, the states have rights, governors have a
role to play. This is not how our democracy should operate.
Regardless of what even if that theory, which I think
(26:27):
sounds like a really strong one, isn't true, we should
all agree that when you just get comfortable with troops
in your cities, bad things are going to happen.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
And not only a bad things going to happen. They
were anticipated in this context. The founding Fathers created a framework. Obviously,
you know, three co equal branches of government, popular sovereignty,
the rule of law, and that fundamental system of checks
and balances is not in balance right now because you
have a supine speaker. Johnson and Congress that are nowhere
(27:01):
to be found. And so I want to go to
this issue of rule of law because both of you,
not both of you, all of us have been the
beneficiary of federal judges, some appointed by Trump himself, as
Tina you rightfully noted referenced, that have all adjudicated in
favor of this overreach. So how confident are you, JB. Tina?
(27:26):
Are you in the rule of law? How confident are
you in the courts?
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Well, let me say that I've been pleased to see
the decisions so far in these cases, and I'll give
you an update before we were finished, because I did.
Speaker 4 (27:43):
Just get an update. But I'll just tell you I'm not.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Very confident about what the Supreme Court will do these
are as. You know, a plurality of judges that were
appointed by Donald Trump himself. So I'm concerned about what
will happen at that level. But we have to rely
on our courts.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
At the moment.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
That really is the only place that we can go
for justice. I'm not going to break the law here.
I don't do what Donald Trump does. He threatens to
jail you, Gavin and me. This is a guy who's
been convicted of thirty four felonies. So I find that ironic,
but mostly.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
By the way jv. You and I are going to
count on Tina to get us out of jail.
Speaker 4 (28:29):
Tina, I got you back, I will get you out.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
I will come. I will be there for you.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Cake with a file inside would be helpful, Thank you.
But you know, look, I think we have to rely
on our courts and believe in the law and the
Constitution of the United States. It is working so far
with regard to this federalization of troops, and in a
number of other instances. I don't agree with some of
(28:56):
the court rulings so far in other cases around the
Supreme Court, of course. But again, what we're focused on,
I mean, the three of us, is making sure that
we're able to get justice somewhere, because we're not able
to get it from a Congress that isn't doing any oversight.
We're definitely not able to get it from a president who,
(29:17):
in my mind, is suffering from dementia, and you know,
you don't know from one day to the next what
he's going to decide or what power he's going to
invoke that's never been invoked before, and how the people
around him. Tom Holman, Christy Homan, I mean Christy nom
Greg Bovino at CBB, how they're going to carry out
(29:38):
things that he may not even know about, because it
does appear that he doesn't do any reading or studying
or even questioning. So I'm concerned about all that, But
again I'm focused on I think we can get justice
in the courts. And Tina's example of the Trump appointed
judge rulings, as she did, you know, is I think
(30:01):
a good son.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
You know, it's interesting. I don't want to fall prey
to the president's state of mind, but not lost on me,
just in terms of the way you framed it and
how much Donald Trump cares about truth building, trust, facts
and is interested in lifelong learning. He was asked today
(30:22):
about Habeas Corpus and asked said, who who Habeas who?
In relationship to what's happening in your backyard, Dina, President
the United States.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
And remember, this is why we fought the American Revolution. Right,
we fought for the rule of law. We fought for
being protected by an entity that had power over us.
That is what the American Revolution was about. Right that
our country is based on a rule of law for
a reason, you know, so I have faith in my
attorney in general, he's doing a great job. I think
individual federal judges they know what the law is, they're
(30:53):
going to stand up for the Constitution. I do get nervous,
you know, there's a lot of nervous all day long.
But when we go up to the Supreme Court, if
that's where this is headed, that is concerning.
Speaker 3 (31:03):
Are you both concerned about the President's willingness to openly
discuss the Insurrection Act Because one of the things that
we have been blessed by here in the state of
California are a number of lower court decisions, including Justice
(31:23):
Bryer on the question of posse committatis, and the issue
of posse coommititatis, for those that don't know, is not
a complicated one. It's fundamentally about not allowing the federal
military to be used for domestic policing, period, full stop,
unless the President invokes the Insurrection Act. So there's a scenario,
(31:46):
is there not where even if the courts adjudicate in
favor of what we believe are these fundamental constitution of principle,
the president himself can simply invoke the Insurrection Act. Is
that plausible outcome? Here. From your perspective, either of.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
You, I think it's it's I think it's possible. I
will say that again, rule of law. You know, there's
a reason it's called the Insurrection Act. It's about an insurrection,
a foreign invasion, right where you've got to defend against collapse.
And that's not occurring in Portland. It's not occurring in Chicago,
(32:24):
it wasn't occurring in LA and certainly not Washington, DC.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
And I am I mean, I think that could happen.
But here's the scarier part.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
He doesn't need to invoke the Insurrection Act. He's already
militarized the Customs and Border Patrol and ICE and as
you just repeated, you know, one hundred billion dollars to
hire new ICE agents. And I want to add one thing.
This is very strange to me.
Speaker 4 (32:55):
You know, the.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Customs and Border Patrol is not supposed to be a
util in fact, by law, not allowed to be utilized
anywhere other than within one hundred miles of the border.
I'm here in Chicago.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Did they move on?
Speaker 2 (33:11):
I mean, I mean, there might be people who'd like
to move Illinois right now. But but but you know,
Canada is very far away from Chicago. They're claiming that
Lake Michigan is the border, and so Oak Street Beach
in Chicago is the border apparently. So this is another
issue where they're using civilian law enforcement right and even
(33:38):
taking people out of FBI and DEA and ATF and
moving them over to ICE for ICE duties and CBP.
It was CBP that was marching around in uniforms with
automatic weapons in downtown Chicago. That was CBP customers and
Border Patrol, not ICE. So I'm just saying, you don't
need the military to do what he wants to do
(34:00):
militarize the cities. So that's I think even more frightening.
I mean, we could maybe hold him back on the
Insurrection Act, but he doesn't need it.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
What we talk about the courts, what about the court
of public opinion? Where's where the people? I mean, are
you distilled? I've been. We've been just overwhelmed by this
overwhelming opposition to what's going on in our streets and sidewalks.
People are angry, they're outraged. It's not about red versus blue,
(34:34):
It's about red, white and blue. People are seeing this
country that we fought for two hundred and forty nine
years about to enjoy the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary
the best of Roman Republic and Greek democracy, and we're
seeing this remarkable moment of vandalism where the people of
Oregon we're are the people of Illinois.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
The vast majority of Oregonians are mad. They don't agree
with this. The group that is most impactful when I
hear the stories, it's our veterans, folks who've served in
the National Guard, people who have been veterans of the
active military. They know that this is wrong and they
are appalled by it, and so I think they speak
(35:15):
forcefully for people across my state that this shouldn't be happening.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
Well, we have peaceful protesters, of course, around the ICE
facility in Broadview, Illinois. That's just outside Chicago, it's not
in the city. About two blocks of protesters, you know,
lining the sidewalks. It's not an enormous number, but you know,
more than one hundred people each day, and they're upset.
Speaker 4 (35:40):
I think what I take.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
As an indicator of something important that's happening, though, is
there are a lot of protests that are occurring that
are not necessarily just at the ICE facility, but that
are about what's happening to the country. And yes, of
course there's going to be the No King's Rally on
October eighteen, which I think will be another indicator. But
you know what's happening in the neighborhoods when ICE is
(36:05):
coming in with their unmarked vehicles and wearing masks and
you know, attacking people's homes is their neighbors are coming
out and yelling at the Ice of it, and people
are angry.
Speaker 4 (36:19):
Just like Tina said, people see it and they're like,
what is happening? What kind of a country do we
live in?
Speaker 2 (36:25):
And I mean US citizens, people who are documented, and yeah,
people who are undocumented, but by the way, have never
broken a law in the United States. They've never done
anything wrong. They're paying tax, is going to work. I mean,
we should deal with comprehensive immigration reform.
Speaker 4 (36:40):
We all agree, but.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
I'm just saying, like, you know, they said they were
coming after the worst of the worst.
Speaker 4 (36:45):
That's not what they're doing. And they come into our neighborhoods.
Here's what gives me hope.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
You see people coming out of their homes onto the sidewalks,
yelling and pulling out their phones to video film everything.
I've asked them to do that because it becomes evidence.
It also becomes I think inspiring for people across the
country to say.
Speaker 4 (37:06):
This is wrong. We've got to do something about this.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
And then I think we've all got to remind people
that in the end, how we're going to solve for
this is people have to show up and vote against
it in twenty twenty six in November.
Speaker 3 (37:19):
That's right, And I want to applaud the work both
of you have done on Know Your Rights Campaign, on
providing legal support for those families that have illegally been
torn apart because of some of these activities. And I
also appreciate the clarity to which you both have communicated
that none of us are are count and seeing violent criminals,
(37:41):
and we're not shielding violent criminal acts actors in any way,
shape or form. That's not what this is about. But JB,
we open with you, can we close with you? Just
you said that I don't know how you're multitasking here,
but you broke some news with us on the t
r O.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
We're uprising our multitasking.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
What was anything further?
Speaker 2 (38:04):
You want to illuminate terms of the chip they implanted
in my brain, you know, that's giving me the info.
They the judge seems to have enjoined the federalization, so
we expect to see that in.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
The oral decision.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
That's that's uh going to be delivered tomorrow morning. So
I think we'll we'll know the kind of the final
full ruling by then. But I feel, you know, reasonably
confident based upon what she was saying. My team is
handing me a note even as we speak. Yeah, just
to remind I think all of us that this this
(38:44):
is first of all, it's a big victory for us
to you know, hold back the federalization of our National Guard.
These people don't, by the way, they don't want to
be called up I mean, just like in California. They
don't want to be called up standing against their own
citizens who they've been protecting, who they rest q on
a regular basis when there's a real disaster.
Speaker 4 (39:03):
They don't want to do that. And I don't think
the Illinois National Guard wants.
Speaker 2 (39:07):
You, and I don't think the Texas National or the
California want to come to Illinois to do that. They
may not be from here, but you know, they know
that what they're doing isn't what they signed up to do.
So I'm very pleased with so far with what we
know about the judges ruling, and I feel, you know,
reasonably confident when we get to read it. Finally, tomorrow morning,
we're going to see a full tro and no troops
(39:30):
on the ground in Chicago, but we'll have to see.
Speaker 3 (39:33):
I appreciate that update. And also just you know, not
just simmar how we opened as well. You know, these
for us, the National Guard. These are the folks that
are out there during the fire, in the middle of
the fire, and during our recovery, and they were heroes.
I mean, the biggest problem we had. We had thousands
of National Guard. They were there protecting the residents of
(39:54):
Los Angeles, and the biggest problem they had were a
number of people coming up to get selfies with them,
giving them food, water, and they were overwhelmed. And these
are our neighbors. These are nurses and doctors, these are
firefighters and law enforcement officers that are quite literally being
taken now off the street and been asked to mask up.
And I think it's so important that we underscore what
(40:15):
you just said, JB, that that we're not at war
with them, quite the contrary, and that's what's so abusive
about what the President of the United States has done.
But I want to just say this in closing. I
want to thank you both for what you've done, the
moral clarity to which you both have met this moment,
how effectively you've communicated, how effectively you've galvanized the public
(40:39):
to understand what's at stake. Thank you for the partnership
in terms of the comparing contrast and the sharing of
information with our legal teams and with our staff. It
distills from me a sense of well being. You know,
it's old adage. You want to go fast, go alone,
you want to go far, go together, And this is
(41:01):
a time for us to partner, and it's a time
for us to I think, really raise the red flag
of alarm about what's really going on in this country
and what we're up against.
Speaker 2 (41:13):
Well, thank you Gavin, and thank you Tina. Both of
you have spoken with as we're going through what we're
going through in Chicago, and I think we've all each
advised each other about ideas that we have. And you
talk about speaking with moral clarity. Gavin, I can't thank
you enough for you having done that since early before
(41:35):
the you know, the invasion of La by those troops
and I and you keep it up, and Tina, I know,
you know, I just I know all of this has
been jarring for the people of Oregon, but you have
been such a beacon for them.
Speaker 4 (41:51):
And I've watched you.
Speaker 2 (41:53):
As things are happening here in Chicago and thought, you know, oh,
I got to take that idea. That's a great idea
the way you've expressed yourself. So thank you for all
of your advice along the way.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Thanks JB, Thank you Gavin. You know, we stick together.
We'll get through this. But it's been an honor working
with you. We're going to keep hanging out together because
we got to keep fighting. This is this is going
to be a brawl. So let's let's let's keep together
and appreciate you.
Speaker 3 (42:16):
Both well, appreciate it's a rare opportunity for us to
get together in this public manner. I think it's really important. Again,
grateful for both of you taking the time, particularly with
the preciousness that is time at this moment. Thank you guys.
Speaker 1 (42:31):
Thanks
This is not what Americans want to see.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
The only invasion or mayhem that's occurring is happening because
the Trump administration is visiting it upon our city.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
This is not who we are as Americans. We have
checks and balances, we have the court.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
In June of this year, in the second largest city
in the United States of America, President of the United
States called up seven hundred active duty Marines. He didn't
send them overseas. He sent them to an American city.
It was just days after he had federalized some four
thousand National Guard. Unprecedented act done not at the behest
(00:39):
of the state's governor, myself, but against my advice my counsel,
certainly against my consent. We said at the time this
was a preview of things to come. A few months
later we saw what happened and another major American city
in Washington, d C. With the militarization of their streets.
(01:00):
And of course since then, we've seen similar actions by
this president and Christy Noman homeland security in other major
American cities, not least of which just in the last
few days in Chicago, Illinois, Portland, Oregon. And the anticipation
is we're going to see additional actions by this president
(01:21):
all across the United States of America. This is unprecedented
in modern American history. This is, dare I say, a
constitutional crisis, but it's also a crisis that not only
divides but also brings people together. And one of the
things that I've enjoyed, perhaps more than most aspects of
(01:41):
my job, is working collaborative and getting to know some
of America's outstanding leaders, Leaders like JB. Pritzker, leaders like
Tina Kotec, both now on the front lines of this
constitutional crisis, on the front lines as it relates to
the militarization of their city and their state's streets. And
(02:01):
it's such a treat opportunity to be able to connect
not only with both of them in private, but now
to connect with them in public. I don't think we've
had this kind of dialogue in this kind of forum before,
and I'm looking forward to the conversation and I hope
you'll enjoy this conversation with both JB. Pritzker and Tina
(02:24):
Cotech on this unique podcast. This is Gavin Newsom and
this is JB. Pritzker and Tina Cootech. I'm really pleased
this is a great and rare opportunity to have two
remarkable leaders in the thick of things right now, governor
(02:45):
of the great State of Illinois and the Great State
of Oregon, on the front lines of this growing constitutional crisis,
this sort of relentless and unprecedented overreach from the federal government.
What's happening on the streets of Chicago and Portland obviously
in the news and top of mind, but I'm really
(03:06):
pleased to have Jabantino with me to be able to
compare and contrast and to talk about the world we're
living in and what defines this moment. But at this moment,
Governor Pritzker, I'm told that you just have some news
from a court that is adjudicated on a possibility of
a temporary restraining order.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
That's right, well, great to see you both.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
And the TRO has been granted by Judge Perry here
in Illinois, and she is reading.
Speaker 4 (03:37):
Her oral decision right now.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
We're getting it literally blow by blow, But she began
by saying she's granting it in part, and so we're
waiting because honestly, most of what she's read so far
has been.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
A complete victory on the TRO.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
But there must be some piece of it that she's
not granting, so we're waiting to hear about that, But
she is basically questioning the credibility of DHS and ICE
and CBP in all of what they have reported. She
has gotten a lot of reports from local and state
law enforcement about what's going on, puts credibility in that,
(04:17):
and those are our folks here in Illinois. So we're
very pleased so far with the ruling. But I promise you,
before we're done, we'll probably have the end of her
oral decision and I'll be able to give you whatever
the d part piece is.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
I appreciate, Governor, and it just goes to the nature
of this moment and how fast paced, hour by hour
things are. There's so many court proceedings that are underway,
not least of which here in California and obviously in
Oregon as well. But before I get to Tina, just
to be on that, paint the picture of you went
to court for what specific reason to push back against
(04:52):
what specific action by the president.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Yeah, so what's going on on the ground here is
that there our Texas National Guard that have been federalized.
They already have arrived, our Illinois National Guard also have
been federalized. They're in process of gathering and there's some
training that the President has ordered. We're a little bit
unaware of what that training will be, but we know
(05:18):
where it will take place. And then, actually, Gavin, we
have about fourteen California.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
National Guard that are on the ground here.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
They were diverted after the decision in Oregon, and we
don't know whether we'll see more.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
We just know right now they're fourteen.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
So you know, this is I mean, I've called it
an invasion because when you look at the numbers that
they're calling up five hundred National guardsmen, these are not
folks who are trained to do, you know, policing or
any kind of you know, crime fighting. They're terrific, by
the way, all of our National Guards, you know, we
(05:58):
send them abroad to defend our country and they do
an amazing job at that, you know. But the idea
that they should act as well some sort of you know,
protection against crime, or to protect the facilities here or
the Ice officials on the ground ridiculous. So, I mean,
(06:19):
they should be used for what they're trained to do,
which is to fight wars or here in our state,
of course, and yours too, you know, emergencies that we
need to call them up for, whether it was COVID
or flooding or anything else.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
So it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
We're very proud of our National Guard, and I don't
want anybody to get the idea otherwise.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
We just want them to be used for what they
signed up for.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
It's such an important predicate for this conversation is the
respect and admiration, the reverence we have for these men
and women in uniform being used in unprecedented ways, I think,
abused under the circumstances, and I just want to paint
the picture of those circumstances, because you're right. We had
fourteen of our National guardment and women that were sent
(07:02):
originally to Oregon against again our objections. They had already
been federalized by the Trump administration, sent to do quote
unquote training up in Oregon, and then a judge not
dissimilarly issued a judication a tro in favor of a
(07:22):
governor kotech in your work, and then we're sent those
fourteen to Chicago. But let's let's talk a little bit
about what's happening in Portland right now, what's happening in Oregon,
and where are you and some of these court decisions. Governor, well,
thank you.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
And thanks for having us. Kevin, first of all, I
want to thank both of you to know that I
can pick up the phone and we can have a conversation.
You know, GB, I'm sorry this is happening to the
people of a Pillinois and when it was happening in California,
we were feeling the same way about things in your home.
Stay Gavin, this is not how it should go right
in our case. You know, I wake up on a
(07:59):
Saturday war and the President is tweeting or on social
media saying we should send full forces to Oregon, and
I'm like, what what are you talking about?
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Right?
Speaker 1 (08:09):
We have an ice facility one block radius and you
know the city is doing well. You know, we have
our challenges, but you know, people are living their lives here.
And I'm like, what is the reality check When the
President believes he needs to go over the top of
governors to pulling, you know, military intervention into the city.
He first wanted to call up the Oregon National Guard.
(08:30):
We went to court and got a temporary restraining order
because and I think you're seeing the JB's case as well.
The judges are looking at the facts on the ground.
They're talking to local law enforcement. They're trying to understand
does the president have the ability to call this an
insurrection and a rebellion? He does not, right, and so
(08:50):
in our case, we go to court. The judge says,
by the way, a federal judge appointed by President Trump
in his first term, says, hey, facts on the ground
don't match. This is a note you can't do this.
So they start appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court, which
is where we are now, and then they start trying
to move Texas in California to Oregon. Texas troops California troops.
(09:12):
The judge comes in on a special hearing on a
Sunday night. It says, you didn't hear me the first time.
That's a no, you can't do that. So, you know,
we need the courts. They are with us. We need
the rule of law to stand up against this. This
is not what Americans want to see. They don't want
to see their citizens soldiers in the streets of American cities.
(09:34):
And it's not about our three states, it's about every state.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
So the state of mind on the Trump administration and
JB seems to see be that it's just they painting
a picture lawlessness and complete chaos that you, we, all
of us, are overwhelmed by the facts on the ground,
and all he's doing is advancing a fundamental paradigm of
law and order. And it's remarkable that we are not
(10:00):
more grateful and saying thank you, mister President. So paint
the picture. I mean is a chaos, complete insanity. And
in Portland, Oregon, as we speak, is a city being
burned down. As the President described.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Portland is not burning. We are not a military target.
So when this first started, Portlanders were a little like,
I don't know if abused is the right word, because
people are still scared. You know, they're scared about the
immigration enforcement. We have immigrant communities that are concerned. People
aren't worried about the drum administration, but they're like, what
is this national news thing saying there's a problem in
my city. I'm out shopping, I'm going to the park,
(10:37):
I'm running in a marathon, and downtown Portland people are
They're going to social media and being like this is
not a warzone, right, showing all their photos, and that
absurdity has now moved into complete disbelief, right because it
continues to go on. Right, we had Secretary Home Land
Security Secretary here earlier this week. I'm like, okay, great,
(10:58):
she's going to be on the ground, going to see
what's happening. And then they go to DC and say,
we're lying. We don't understand the situation. You know, this
is organized domestic terrorism. It is shocking. Everyone has just
kind of shaking their head here they don't understand it,
and now it's just become chilling and worrisome.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
So, speaking of chilling, JB. We saw those images of
people descending from helicopters in the dead of night, armed
masked men going into apartment building, people quite literally asleep,
people without clothing. We've seen in the middle of the day,
tear gasping, dispensed. I mean, those images are indeed chilling.
(11:39):
Give us a sense of what you're dealing with. Specifically
on the ground in Chicago.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
The only invasion or mayhem that's occurring is happening because
the Trump administration is visiting it upon our city. You
saw that that South Shore building in Chicago, middle of
the night, blackhawk helicopters we had, we had ICE agents
repelling out of this military helicopter down the side of
(12:06):
this building. It has about one hundred and thirty people
in it. They were targeting a few I'm talking about
a single digit number of people that they said were
gang members. But the one hundred and thirty people had
their doors broken down, their windows broken, everything was ransacked
in the building. We saw pictures and video of all
(12:26):
of it. They took innocent people out and zip tied
their hands children, I might add, and a number of
these people were US citizens and others were legal residents
of the state of Illinois and the United States of.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
America, and yet they were held for hours.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
And these ice agents, first of all, I don't think
they really have been trained in law enforcement. Our CPD
Chicago Public Sorry Police Department, as well as our Illinois
State Police, we know that when we're targeting gang members,
and we do this with DEA and with FBI also,
(13:06):
we target them, we determine where they are at a building,
and then we make sure that we keep innocent people
away from that area and we protect them while we
go in and take people out. That's not what happened here.
We had over one hundred agents attacking a building. It
looked like Fallujah. They and they one other thing. They
(13:27):
set up dozens of cameras for social media purposes ahead
of this, and then they used all of that footage
to turn it into this sort of I don't know,
adventure looking, you know thing for Christy Nomes social media,
so they could, I'm not sure, advertise the idea to
(13:49):
what people joining ice. I'm not sure exactly who they
were trying to convince, but it all looked like BS
in their social media. It was BS in fact on
the ground. And the result is we have traumatized children.
Of course, we've got elderly people again who are held
for hours. We've got an entire community around this building
who's wondering like are they next? And this is what's
(14:12):
happening all across the city of Chicago, this kind of
trauma that's occurring in our communities. People are afraid to
go outside. They can't walk their kids to school. Again,
if you're brown or black, you're liable to be stopped
and held. And this is in a circumstance where you know,
again children trying to get to school and their parents
trying to.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
Walk them there.
Speaker 5 (14:31):
I went to an elementary school and there were children
there who were worried that at the end of the
school day when they walk home, their parents might not
be home, that they will been taken away and disappear.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
And that's the word we hear all the time, disappeared.
And just to underscore governa what you just said, I mean,
it's sanctioned now, It's been sanctioned under the shadow docket
the Supreme Court that the Trump administration can racially profile
on the basis not just of sci in color, but
also where people congregate and the accent or the language
(15:04):
they speak, which is chilling beyond words. But you mentioned
just the video side of this and the promotional side
of this, and you of course brought up Christy Noman
and Tina. You just met with Christy? No, did you not?
Was she she was up in Portland? Do you have
a chance to engage in dialogue with her?
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Yeah? I found out the through unofficial channels the day
before that she was coming to town, and so I
reached out and said, hey, can we meet. It's interesting
to see a cabinet secretary traveling with right wing social
media influencers. It's interesting to see that same cabinet secretary
standing on a federal building with those same types of
folks with you know, with filming and other things. This
(15:47):
is a made for TV movie that they are producing
to try to make a point. You know, I thought
we could have a you know, reasonable conversation, but you know,
it's hard to have a rational conversation with irrational people.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
You know.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
Then Secretary now goes back and has a you know,
meeting at the White House just yesterday talking about you know,
Antifa and the way they talk about it. I don't
know what they're talking about. It doesn't any expert on
anything in this country is just perplexed by what they're
trying to say about what is happening in our major cities.
And so I just come back to what are the
(16:21):
facts on the ground. What does it mean to keep
our community safe. We have a president and an administration
that doesn't care about the safety of Americans. Look, you
take an oath to the Constitution at the President of
the United States, as we do as governors. Our job
is to stand up and protect everybody in our state,
and his job is to protect everybody in our country.
(16:42):
But what I heard from the Secretary was we have
the right and with that with impunity, to be as
aggressive with military policing tactics that we want to use,
and we don't care if it upsets people, and we
don't care if it creates more tension and more problems
for your city. They literally don't care.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
And I want to get to the more problems and
more tension and what lies underneath this and ask you
both in a moment, what you believe this is really
all about, if it's not about the issue of crime.
But I'm old enough to remember, I think you both
are as well. There was a governor by the name
of Nome, Christy Nome, who just last year was on
(17:23):
Fox News outraged, outraged by the very notion that then
President Joe Biden would consider, rumored as it was at
the time, consider to federalize her National Guard, she said
as governor of her home state. She said, that would
be a clear constitutional violation and we would have quote
(17:44):
unquote a war, she said, on our hands. Did that
come up in your conversation? Was a maya coopa? Was
there an expression of complete recognition of her hypocrisy?
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Well, that would have had me phone off the chair. No,
we did not see that. We didn't see any kind
of like, hey, I see where you're coming. From I
used to be a governor. It was the sense that
just you know, you should be trusting your governors, you
should be trusting the people who were there. And as
a former governor, she should know better. Every state is
under threat now, every state, and we got to remember
(18:18):
that we don't want our guards people, we don't want
active military in our streets. These are United States of America.
That is not who we are.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Yeah, and just to underscore that, I mean, a few
months ago, of course, we saw four thousand federalized Guard,
and we saw seven hundred active duty Marines. We saw
active duty marines or in send overseas that were sent
to the second largest city on American streets. And we
still have hundreds of federalized guards. Two hundred ten are
still in your state doing absolutely nothing. Those fourteen that
(18:48):
were sent to quote unquote train the Guard in JB's
state and the rest sitting in the armories here doing
again nothing in Los Angeles. So it begs the question, JB,
what the hell is this all about? I mean, what
do you think at the core is really going on here?
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Well, I just want to go back for just a
moment to say, another governor that's signed on to that
same letter to President Biden, and who spoke out against
the deployment and federalization troops was Greg Abbott in Texas.
So an, FYI, you signed on, and I signed on,
(19:26):
and all of the governors across the country signed on
to that same notion that really there should be extremely
limited circumstances where the federal government is federalizing, and obviously
for foreign warriors for protecting the homeland from outside, that is.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
Something that we all believe in. But anyway, I just
wanted to highlight that Greg Abbott in just in case, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
Two people that don't know it's Texas. Greg Abbot sent
against the objections of Governor Pritzker, sent the Texas National
Guard into Chicago. Remind us, Governor, how many National Guard
from Texas were sent up to your state.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Two hundred national Guard arrived yesterday. They are gathered at
a federal facility. I have not allowed them to stay
at our state facilities, and they have not yet deployed
onto the streets of Chicago. I might add, because of
the they were waiting at the judge's behesse for her decision,
and we still are awaiting the end of the delivery
(20:33):
of her decision, but which I'll give you before the
end if I can. But here's what I think it's
all about, and I think you have to add in.
So I think we all understand they're deploying troops into
major American cities and right now all blue cities, Democratic
(20:53):
controlled cities in blue democratic controlled states. You can include Washington,
d c. In that as well, So why those places?
And then add to this, so it's ice cbp ICE,
which just is getting about one hundred billion dollars to
(21:13):
beef up front. That's about ten times what it was
under President Biden in the Big Beautiful Bill. So they're
obviously doing something here that has never been done before.
Then add to that, all fifty states had our voter
rolls called up by the DOJ subpoena. We had to
(21:37):
deliver our voter roles. Why they didn't tell us why,
but they have, you know, hinted that, well, there might
be fraud. They're going to look through our voter rolls.
Very private information in addition to people's names and addresses,
other private information that are included in those voter files.
We've rejected. We haven't sent those that in Ian. We've
(22:01):
only given them what's publicly available. But here's what's important
about this. I believe that what they're going to do
is use the voter rolls that they have to try
to make a claim next year at election time in November,
if they're losing the election, that there is fraud in
the elections in whatever states they want to claim that,
(22:24):
and that therefore those elections either should be disregarded or
that they should be able.
Speaker 4 (22:31):
To count the ballots themselves.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
So why do I think that Because in twenty twenty,
when they were saying stop the steal, when they were
rioting at January sixth at the Capitol, Michael Flynn was
calling for the president to confiscate the ballot boxes and
determine the results of the election himself. And then you know,
(22:58):
this is I just, you know, want to get everybody.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist type. I'm just somebody who
has watched enough about Donald Trump to know that he
believes in this idea that there's massive fraud that could
take place, or at least he believes enough that he
could convince a lot of people of it, and he
(23:18):
believes in militarizing our city. He's been talking about taking
over Chicago with the military for more than a decade,
like before he was president the first time. So this
is what I think he's got in mind. At posting
people at polling places in twenty twenty six wouldn't surprise
me at all to deter people from voting.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
It would scare a lot of people I know from
the polling places.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
But why would he do it again, scare them away,
claim that he's protecting the voting, and then of course
declare fraud wherever it is that he believes he isn't.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
Winning as governor. Let me just reinforce that. And those
are sobering words, and I don't want to I hope
people are absorbing what you just said, and also how
you said it in the context of even being situationally
aware that you did say it, meaning you're not prone
to conspiracy theories, the idea. It may sound absurd to some,
but I'll just underscore that. Look, I think there's a
(24:16):
direct thread that comes from the call he made to
Greg Abbott about finding five seats that he's quote unquote
entitled to because he knows, all things being equal, he's
going to lose the midterm elections and de Facto's presidency ends.
It's sure there'll be fire and fury, but they'll finally
be congressional oversight, there'll be some accountability, and that's why
(24:37):
he is trying to rig the next election. Obviously, when
you nationalize or federalize the guard and you put these
guard all across the country, increasingly we're seeing that, as
you suggest, growing city by city. But you add to
that what you said, which is now the ability to
hire an additional with that one hundred billion dollars, ten
thousand members of ICE, the largest domestic police force anywhere
(25:02):
in the world, that my words, seemingly are increasingly swearing
an oath of office, not to the constitution, but by
some activity and actions that we've seen, first Dan here
to the president himself, i e. What he did at
the Democracy Center when we kicked off our proposition fifty
and he sent ICE and he sent border patrol to
(25:23):
scare people from participating our event. This is a preview
of things to come at voting booths and palling places
all across the country. Long way away of saying I
could not agree governor with you more, this is about
something much more insidious than just control. In the short run.
This is about power in the long run.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
As a president who believes in the absolute power that
he thinks he has, he told a woundful of hundreds
of military generals that it's an okay idea to put
our military troops, federalizing the National Guard into our cities
for practice. Can't allow this to be normalized because the
(26:06):
authoritarianism is going to creep up on us. We have
to know that this is wrong. This is not who
we are as Americans. We have checks and balances, we
have the courts, the states have rights, governors have a
role to play. This is not how our democracy should operate.
Regardless of what even if that theory, which I think
(26:27):
sounds like a really strong one, isn't true, we should
all agree that when you just get comfortable with troops
in your cities, bad things are going to happen.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
And not only a bad things going to happen. They
were anticipated in this context. The founding Fathers created a framework. Obviously,
you know, three co equal branches of government, popular sovereignty,
the rule of law, and that fundamental system of checks
and balances is not in balance right now because you
have a supine speaker. Johnson and Congress that are nowhere
(27:01):
to be found. And so I want to go to
this issue of rule of law because both of you,
not both of you, all of us have been the
beneficiary of federal judges, some appointed by Trump himself, as
Tina you rightfully noted referenced, that have all adjudicated in
favor of this overreach. So how confident are you, JB. Tina?
(27:26):
Are you in the rule of law? How confident are
you in the courts?
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Well, let me say that I've been pleased to see
the decisions so far in these cases, and I'll give
you an update before we were finished, because I did.
Speaker 4 (27:43):
Just get an update. But I'll just tell you I'm not.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Very confident about what the Supreme Court will do these
are as. You know, a plurality of judges that were
appointed by Donald Trump himself. So I'm concerned about what
will happen at that level. But we have to rely
on our courts.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
At the moment.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
That really is the only place that we can go
for justice. I'm not going to break the law here.
I don't do what Donald Trump does. He threatens to
jail you, Gavin and me. This is a guy who's
been convicted of thirty four felonies. So I find that ironic,
but mostly.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
By the way jv. You and I are going to
count on Tina to get us out of jail.
Speaker 4 (28:29):
Tina, I got you back, I will get you out.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
I will come. I will be there for you.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Cake with a file inside would be helpful, Thank you.
But you know, look, I think we have to rely
on our courts and believe in the law and the
Constitution of the United States. It is working so far
with regard to this federalization of troops, and in a
number of other instances. I don't agree with some of
(28:56):
the court rulings so far in other cases around the
Supreme Court, of course. But again, what we're focused on,
I mean, the three of us, is making sure that
we're able to get justice somewhere, because we're not able
to get it from a Congress that isn't doing any oversight.
We're definitely not able to get it from a president who,
(29:17):
in my mind, is suffering from dementia, and you know,
you don't know from one day to the next what
he's going to decide or what power he's going to
invoke that's never been invoked before, and how the people
around him. Tom Holman, Christy Homan, I mean Christy nom
Greg Bovino at CBB, how they're going to carry out
(29:38):
things that he may not even know about, because it
does appear that he doesn't do any reading or studying
or even questioning. So I'm concerned about all that, But
again I'm focused on I think we can get justice
in the courts. And Tina's example of the Trump appointed
judge rulings, as she did, you know, is I think
(30:01):
a good son.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
You know, it's interesting. I don't want to fall prey
to the president's state of mind, but not lost on me,
just in terms of the way you framed it and
how much Donald Trump cares about truth building, trust, facts
and is interested in lifelong learning. He was asked today
(30:22):
about Habeas Corpus and asked said, who who Habeas who?
In relationship to what's happening in your backyard, Dina, President
the United States.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
And remember, this is why we fought the American Revolution. Right,
we fought for the rule of law. We fought for
being protected by an entity that had power over us.
That is what the American Revolution was about. Right that
our country is based on a rule of law for
a reason, you know, so I have faith in my
attorney in general, he's doing a great job. I think
individual federal judges they know what the law is, they're
(30:53):
going to stand up for the Constitution. I do get nervous,
you know, there's a lot of nervous all day long.
But when we go up to the Supreme Court, if
that's where this is headed, that is concerning.
Speaker 3 (31:03):
Are you both concerned about the President's willingness to openly
discuss the Insurrection Act Because one of the things that
we have been blessed by here in the state of
California are a number of lower court decisions, including Justice
(31:23):
Bryer on the question of posse committatis, and the issue
of posse coommititatis, for those that don't know, is not
a complicated one. It's fundamentally about not allowing the federal
military to be used for domestic policing, period, full stop,
unless the President invokes the Insurrection Act. So there's a scenario,
(31:46):
is there not where even if the courts adjudicate in
favor of what we believe are these fundamental constitution of principle,
the president himself can simply invoke the Insurrection Act. Is
that plausible outcome? Here. From your perspective, either of.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
You, I think it's it's I think it's possible. I
will say that again, rule of law. You know, there's
a reason it's called the Insurrection Act. It's about an insurrection,
a foreign invasion, right where you've got to defend against collapse.
And that's not occurring in Portland. It's not occurring in Chicago,
(32:24):
it wasn't occurring in LA and certainly not Washington, DC.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
And I am I mean, I think that could happen.
But here's the scarier part.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
He doesn't need to invoke the Insurrection Act. He's already
militarized the Customs and Border Patrol and ICE and as
you just repeated, you know, one hundred billion dollars to
hire new ICE agents. And I want to add one thing.
This is very strange to me.
Speaker 4 (32:55):
You know, the.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Customs and Border Patrol is not supposed to be a
util in fact, by law, not allowed to be utilized
anywhere other than within one hundred miles of the border.
I'm here in Chicago.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Did they move on?
Speaker 2 (33:11):
I mean, I mean, there might be people who'd like
to move Illinois right now. But but but you know,
Canada is very far away from Chicago. They're claiming that
Lake Michigan is the border, and so Oak Street Beach
in Chicago is the border apparently. So this is another
issue where they're using civilian law enforcement right and even
(33:38):
taking people out of FBI and DEA and ATF and
moving them over to ICE for ICE duties and CBP.
It was CBP that was marching around in uniforms with
automatic weapons in downtown Chicago. That was CBP customers and
Border Patrol, not ICE. So I'm just saying, you don't
need the military to do what he wants to do
(34:00):
militarize the cities. So that's I think even more frightening.
I mean, we could maybe hold him back on the
Insurrection Act, but he doesn't need it.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
What we talk about the courts, what about the court
of public opinion? Where's where the people? I mean, are
you distilled? I've been. We've been just overwhelmed by this
overwhelming opposition to what's going on in our streets and sidewalks.
People are angry, they're outraged. It's not about red versus blue,
(34:34):
It's about red, white and blue. People are seeing this
country that we fought for two hundred and forty nine
years about to enjoy the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary
the best of Roman Republic and Greek democracy, and we're
seeing this remarkable moment of vandalism where the people of
Oregon we're are the people of Illinois.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
The vast majority of Oregonians are mad. They don't agree
with this. The group that is most impactful when I
hear the stories, it's our veterans, folks who've served in
the National Guard, people who have been veterans of the
active military. They know that this is wrong and they
are appalled by it, and so I think they speak
(35:15):
forcefully for people across my state that this shouldn't be happening.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
Well, we have peaceful protesters, of course, around the ICE
facility in Broadview, Illinois. That's just outside Chicago, it's not
in the city. About two blocks of protesters, you know,
lining the sidewalks. It's not an enormous number, but you know,
more than one hundred people each day, and they're upset.
Speaker 4 (35:40):
I think what I take.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
As an indicator of something important that's happening, though, is
there are a lot of protests that are occurring that
are not necessarily just at the ICE facility, but that
are about what's happening to the country. And yes, of
course there's going to be the No King's Rally on
October eighteen, which I think will be another indicator. But
you know what's happening in the neighborhoods when ICE is
(36:05):
coming in with their unmarked vehicles and wearing masks and
you know, attacking people's homes is their neighbors are coming
out and yelling at the Ice of it, and people
are angry.
Speaker 4 (36:19):
Just like Tina said, people see it and they're like,
what is happening? What kind of a country do we
live in?
Speaker 2 (36:25):
And I mean US citizens, people who are documented, and yeah,
people who are undocumented, but by the way, have never
broken a law in the United States. They've never done
anything wrong. They're paying tax, is going to work. I mean,
we should deal with comprehensive immigration reform.
Speaker 4 (36:40):
We all agree, but.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
I'm just saying, like, you know, they said they were
coming after the worst of the worst.
Speaker 4 (36:45):
That's not what they're doing. And they come into our neighborhoods.
Here's what gives me hope.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
You see people coming out of their homes onto the sidewalks,
yelling and pulling out their phones to video film everything.
I've asked them to do that because it becomes evidence.
It also becomes I think inspiring for people across the
country to say.
Speaker 4 (37:06):
This is wrong. We've got to do something about this.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
And then I think we've all got to remind people
that in the end, how we're going to solve for
this is people have to show up and vote against
it in twenty twenty six in November.
Speaker 3 (37:19):
That's right, And I want to applaud the work both
of you have done on Know Your Rights Campaign, on
providing legal support for those families that have illegally been
torn apart because of some of these activities. And I
also appreciate the clarity to which you both have communicated
that none of us are are count and seeing violent criminals,
(37:41):
and we're not shielding violent criminal acts actors in any way,
shape or form. That's not what this is about. But JB,
we open with you, can we close with you? Just
you said that I don't know how you're multitasking here,
but you broke some news with us on the t
r O.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
We're uprising our multitasking.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
What was anything further?
Speaker 2 (38:04):
You want to illuminate terms of the chip they implanted
in my brain, you know, that's giving me the info.
They the judge seems to have enjoined the federalization, so
we expect to see that in.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
The oral decision.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
That's that's uh going to be delivered tomorrow morning. So
I think we'll we'll know the kind of the final
full ruling by then. But I feel, you know, reasonably
confident based upon what she was saying. My team is
handing me a note even as we speak. Yeah, just
to remind I think all of us that this this
(38:44):
is first of all, it's a big victory for us
to you know, hold back the federalization of our National Guard.
These people don't, by the way, they don't want to
be called up I mean, just like in California. They
don't want to be called up standing against their own
citizens who they've been protecting, who they rest q on
a regular basis when there's a real disaster.
Speaker 4 (39:03):
They don't want to do that. And I don't think
the Illinois National Guard wants.
Speaker 2 (39:07):
You, and I don't think the Texas National or the
California want to come to Illinois to do that. They
may not be from here, but you know, they know
that what they're doing isn't what they signed up to do.
So I'm very pleased with so far with what we
know about the judges ruling, and I feel, you know,
reasonably confident when we get to read it. Finally, tomorrow morning,
we're going to see a full tro and no troops
(39:30):
on the ground in Chicago, but we'll have to see.
Speaker 3 (39:33):
I appreciate that update. And also just you know, not
just simmar how we opened as well. You know, these
for us, the National Guard. These are the folks that
are out there during the fire, in the middle of
the fire, and during our recovery, and they were heroes.
I mean, the biggest problem we had. We had thousands
of National Guard. They were there protecting the residents of
(39:54):
Los Angeles, and the biggest problem they had were a
number of people coming up to get selfies with them,
giving them food, water, and they were overwhelmed. And these
are our neighbors. These are nurses and doctors, these are
firefighters and law enforcement officers that are quite literally being
taken now off the street and been asked to mask up.
And I think it's so important that we underscore what
(40:15):
you just said, JB, that that we're not at war
with them, quite the contrary, and that's what's so abusive
about what the President of the United States has done.
But I want to just say this in closing. I
want to thank you both for what you've done, the
moral clarity to which you both have met this moment,
how effectively you've communicated, how effectively you've galvanized the public
(40:39):
to understand what's at stake. Thank you for the partnership
in terms of the comparing contrast and the sharing of
information with our legal teams and with our staff. It
distills from me a sense of well being. You know,
it's old adage. You want to go fast, go alone,
you want to go far, go together, And this is
(41:01):
a time for us to partner, and it's a time
for us to I think, really raise the red flag
of alarm about what's really going on in this country
and what we're up against.
Speaker 2 (41:13):
Well, thank you Gavin, and thank you Tina. Both of
you have spoken with as we're going through what we're
going through in Chicago, and I think we've all each
advised each other about ideas that we have. And you
talk about speaking with moral clarity. Gavin, I can't thank
you enough for you having done that since early before
(41:35):
the you know, the invasion of La by those troops
and I and you keep it up, and Tina, I know,
you know, I just I know all of this has
been jarring for the people of Oregon, but you have
been such a beacon for them.
Speaker 4 (41:51):
And I've watched you.
Speaker 2 (41:53):
As things are happening here in Chicago and thought, you know, oh,
I got to take that idea. That's a great idea
the way you've expressed yourself. So thank you for all
of your advice along the way.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Thanks JB, Thank you Gavin. You know, we stick together.
We'll get through this. But it's been an honor working
with you. We're going to keep hanging out together because
we got to keep fighting. This is this is going
to be a brawl. So let's let's let's keep together
and appreciate you.
Speaker 3 (42:16):
Both well, appreciate it's a rare opportunity for us to
get together in this public manner. I think it's really important. Again,
grateful for both of you taking the time, particularly with
the preciousness that is time at this moment. Thank you guys.
Speaker 1 (42:31):
Thanks
Host
Gavin Newsom
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.