D (3:44)

This is nuts. This is fucking. Yeah, and you're right in the middle of this shit. What the is going on, dude? This is insane.

E (3:54)

Have you ever gone out to these sort of things before?

C (3:56)

Never.

D (3:56)

Never. I've never protested in my life. My brother, My brother's here. He does it all the time. I've never, I got, Dude, I, like I said, I'm far enough away, but close enough, and I'm sitting my cushy house and look at and get mad and I, yeah, they're just trying to scare people and, you know, but, but, but why shoot people?

E (4:14)

My.

D (4:15)

No, you know what really pisses me off is the fact that they detain people, cuff them, and then still beat the out of them. They tell you it's immigrants, only immigrants. It's anybody. I, I have friends that got detained and all they were doing was driving home from work.

C (4:30)

What the. Sounds like you don't fit the definition of the.

D (4:34)

I'm not paid to be here. Like everybody says, what the is that? I gotta work in the goddamn morning just like everybody else. I'M just here trying to stand up for community. Dude, we're all human beings here. I don't give a shit who you are, where you came from, what color you are. It doesn't fucking matter. This is wrong.

A (4:51)

That guy in 2028, I mean, more.

C (4:55)

Democrats should sound like that starting his campaign.

A (4:59)

We get him, can we get him on the horn? Let's draft him. Yeah. He doesn't sound like your typical paid leftist agitator, huh? Dan? What, what's your, what's your reaction been to watching this unfold Wednesday night and, and just over the last few days.

C (5:13)

It seems insane to say this, but when you watch what's happening in Minneapolis right now, it is clear that the President United States dispatched a mass paramilitary force loyal to him to invade an occupy an American city for basically no reason at all. Just because he could and because he wanted to send a message and that that is what is happening. And it is horrific. I mean, I just saw right before we did this, you just tweeted a video of dad talking about how ICE threw tear gas into his car with six kids and then wouldn't let him call an ambulance or get access to healthcare.

A (5:46)

His six month old, his six month old, he had a two year old. A six month old. The six month old couldn't breathe. And you know if you watch the video, it says he's like, I wasn't even at the protest, I was just trying to drive somewhere. Of course all the fucking people on Twitter, all the right wing assholes are like, oh, he shouldn't have put his kids in a dangerous situation. It's like not everything. There's not a fucking excuse for everything, you assholes. The guy literally lives in Minneapolis and was driving home because that's where he lives. And his six month old couldn't get a fucking ambulance because there weren't enough officials to help them with an ambulance because there were so many trying to fucking terrorize the people in Minneapolis.

C (6:27)

I mean, there are thousands of masked ICE agents roaming the cities of Minneapolis, right? And after everything we saw with National Guard troops in dc, Portland, Chicago, Memphis, Louisiana, elsewhere, it's easy to sort of become numb to what's happening here. But this is deeply, deeply dangerous. And if you can't look at these videos, look at what's happening there, read the local reporting about what's happening on the ground and not realize that we are at a very dangerous crossroads in this country, then I honestly don't know what you're doing or what you're looking at. Right? If you can, we'll see all of this and decide that now is not the time to speak up or this is not the issue that is best for us and that we should just wait for our chance to talk about affordability or healthcare, tax cuts or something. Then honestly, you shouldn't be in politics, right? You are missing a moment because this is what is happening, this is what matters and this is what is dominating discussion in America right now.

A (7:19)

And I understand that when your world is peaceful and doesn't look like Minneapolis or even when, look, when this was happening in Los Angeles, I remember the rest of the country's like, what's Los Angeles like right now? And sure enough, it was like a few city blocks right in downtown la. And you know, that's been the case in a few other cities. Chicago was very bad. It was most of Chicago, obviously, D.C. was, you know, we had occupied D.C. for a while, but because I think Minneapolis is smaller and because there are so many more federal agents there than there have been any other place. It like, you know, I know people on the ground in, in Minneapolis and people are afraid to leave their homes. Kids who are in school have had like so many of their family members taken. They, it's, they said it feels like a war zone. Like it's, it's not, it's not just that the clips we're seeing are isolated incidents or certain neighborhoods or anything like that. It is, the whole city feels like this. And it would be, it would be nice if most Americans sort of stood up and spoke out for our neighbors in Minnesota right now, in Minneapolis, because they're going through a really hard time and they must feel very lonely, I'm sure, because the rest, you know, partly everyone's distracted with everything else in the news and everyone else is like, going about living their lives like, oh, it's Trump. Another crazy Trump thing. But this is really fucking scary. Trump and his goons have already decided that the ICE agent who killed Renee Goode should be praised, not investigated, and that the person who really deserves to be investigated is Good's widow, Rebecca. These decisions reportedly led to the resignations of six federal prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota, including the Trump appointed prosecutor who had been running the administration's fraud investigation in that state. Thought that was supposed to be the most important agenda item, the big, the big Somali fraud investigation. So the attorney that was running that resigned because he wouldn't investigate this woman's widow, Pam Bondi, who seems eager to rebut the Wall Street Journal's Reporting this week that Trump's been complaining about her being, quote, weak and ineffective. Went on Fox to yell about this.

C (9:36)

The breaking news tonight. I fired them all. They're fired from the office. And we learned these people had been out there interviewing at liberal law firms prior to this. But I'll tell you what, from a personnel level, that'd be an HR nightmare. So people better look into them. This is so embarrassing. You didn't dump me, I dumped you.

A (9:56)

I know. And she says earlier too, she's like, and they resigned, you know, but then I fired them. It's like, what? You did what? You're a fucking idiot. You are all fucking idiots.

C (10:09)

I mean, not for nothing, letting him resign is probably better for you because of severance packages and the like. But so firing them just. She is clearly someone who's in so far overhead and beginning to feel the pressure because of the Wall Street Journal story that said that Trump has been complaining about her all over the place, as he should. I mean, she almost single handedly created the Epstein files PR crisis for them for the last year and is clearly terrible at her job.

A (10:33)

It is quite telling that the cabinet secretaries in charge of the most powerful agencies, the justice department, DHS and DoD are the biggest fucking idiots.

C (10:48)

And who are the not idiots, Sean?

A (10:50)

Well, but those are, they're, they're, they're special idiots. I mean, in front of these agencies. And I think it's because they're not really in charge. Stephen Miller's in charge of those three agencies, you know, from all the reporting. And they're just there because they were good on tv, which they're not.

C (11:08)

No, I would say, let's say that you got that one wrong.

A (11:10)

Mr. Trump, Trump, Trump thinks they look good on TV. You know, they have, that's, they have the look that Trump likes. Right. Which is fox. FOX host, FOX pundit. Yes, everyone has been rightfully focused on, on ICE and dhs. I do feel like the resignations over DOJ choosing to investigate Goode's widow instead of her killer is as big of a deal, if not bigger. Just how this has been handled legally to me speaks volumes because it's, it just goes to show that like the administration, the government is basically saying we decide what the law is, even when it comes to murdering Americans.

C (11:50)

I think if you just go out to people just like not political people, not people at protest, not people listening to the show, just like regular people. And you just said the following. A ICE agent shot a unarmed woman in the face three times, killing her in broad Daylight on video. The agency responsible for investigating them is not investigating the shooter. They are investigating the widow of the woman who was shot. People would think that is fucking nuts because it is.

A (12:17)

Who had to stand there and watch her wife die. I just like. And they have a six year old who has just dealt with the loss of his mother. Now I don't know if you saw the. CNN did a whole story on Renee Goode's actual connections to these ICE watch groups. And sure enough, basically Renee Goode was on the board of her son's elementary school. And the board linked to documents encouraging parents to monitor ICE and directing them to training. And they had a bunch of lawyers look at all the documents and all of them are, you know, civil disobedience, non violent tactics. It's like a, it's an elementary school. It's like hey, thanks to the parents for watching out for our neighbors. And you know there's like a school bulletin board and you know they're thanking on the bulletin board Renee Goode and Rebecca good for, you know they brought pots for us to paint and we're gonna sell them at the plant sale in the spring. They look beautiful. And they interview the PE teacher at the school who had taught the six year old good son in class. And he was like, you know, whenever they would drop him off they would say goodbye several times before they could leave and then they would drive around the front of the school so they had a window where he could see them and then they would wave and they were just awesome parents. And it's just like the, the vitriol that has been directed towards first of all a woman who's now dead, her wife who is very much alive and now this six year old who just a couple weeks ago was having trouble saying goodbye to both of his parents when he went to school and now has lost one of them and now they all have to deal with this. The PE teacher also said that like the names of the, of teachers and staff members at the school have been posted on social media and they're all getting death threats. Like I just don't look, I don't understand like where the humanity is right now.

C (14:46)

There's none, there's absolutely none. And this is not a bunch of angry or click hungry right wing media influencers. This is the federal government. This is the President of the United States. This is the Vice President United States is the Attorney General of the United States. Yeah, you know in like when we used to work for Obama and David Axelrod used to say that we saw the pastoral role of the president when the nation is hurt that it's the job of the president, whether they like it or not. It's not in the Constitution, but what people expect is the president to speak to them. Whether it's Obama after Newtown, Reagan after challenger Bill Clinton after the Oklahoma City bombing, or even George W. Bush with the bullhorn after 9 11. And here you have a moment. This is something that has captured the nation's attention, right? You have a dead woman killed on video in a video that huge swath of American people have seen. And the response is not let the investigation play out. The response is not sympathy for her family, for the widow, for the son. It is to smear her without evidence for the purposes of advancing your broken political narrative.

A (16:05)

It is.

C (16:06)

And no one at any point just takes a moment to think or say or appear even conflicted for a second about doing this.

A (16:16)

Just like the idea that you would only be out there protesting or opposing ICE because you are some left wing ideologue or crazy activist and not because you're scared and your neighbors are scared and you want to protect people who haven't done anything wrong.

C (16:35)

You know, this didn't get enough attention, I don't think. But after this was over, when, after the shooting, when Kirsten, did the press avail with the sign that said one of ours, all of yours?

A (16:47)

Yeah, I had missed that.

C (16:48)

Yeah. The idea being if you. It's like an old war saying, if you kill one of ours, we'll kill all of yours. And in the Rs and yours, right? This is the country, these are the people you serve, whether they voted for you or not, whether they protest you or not. And to think of it like it is just a simple fact that the federal government of the United States, from the president on down to the people enforcing his orders in these communities, believe that anyone who disagrees with this president, who didn't vote for this president, who has a different view of this country, is the enemy.

A (17:22)

And like I know everyone debates the historical comparisons and can you call it fascism, authoritarianism, or this or that? I don't fucking care what you call it. Just look at what has happened over the last couple weeks. That's what it is. You can call it whatever you want, you can label it whatever you want. But like this is happening and what you're seeing on tv, what you're seeing from these officials, this is our government right now. And if you don't think that, like this effect trickles down to the rest of the population, this like dehumanization of people and someone dies and then you start attacking them and like, you know, you can say, oh, do you need a nice speech from the president that makes everyone feel better? Cause does it actually fix anything? Yeah, but what they've done, if you don't think that, like, that numbs us and dulls people to violence and to people losing their lives, then like, I don't know what to tell you, you know, And I really worry about that long term because that's going to be a harder thing to build back. Pod Save America is brought to you by stamps.com it's staggering that to this very day, many small business owners are still making post office runs or are stuck with expensive postage meter leases. It's 2026, not 1926. Mail and ship when you want, how you want. With stamps.com with stamps.com you can send from your computer or phone 24. 7. No long lines, no low supplies, all open anytime. Print postage on demand and get up to 90% off carrier rates like FedEx, UPS and USPS. Schedule carrier pickups right from your door and get carrier compliant labels every time. No errors, no rejected mail, no wasted trips. It's perfect for your business. Send certified mail, get document tracking to confirm delivery and analytics to make sure you know exactly what you sent and spent. For almost 30 years, millions of customers have relied on stamps.com to make mailing and shipping faster. And so simple. We've used stamps.com here forever. Back when we were just a tiny business, didn't have a lot of time to be walking out of the post office. Used stamps.com and I've used it ever since. Right now you can try stamps.com risk free for 60 days. Go to stamps.com and use code PSA to get 60 days. Risk free. 60 days gives you plenty of time to see exactly how much time and money you're saving on every shipment. That's stamps.com, code PSA stamps.com code PSA.

B (19:38)

Podcast of America is brought to you by uplift desk. You got two uplift desk users here at microphones right now. Me love it.

A (19:44)

John.

B (19:45)

All have men are in our office. It's really nice to be able to sit and work at a normal desk, but then stand up when you feel like it.

A (19:52)

You just press the button. Just press the button, the desk goes up and the desk goes down.

B (19:55)

Super simple.

A (19:56)

Go up, you can go all the way down, you go halfway.

B (19:58)

Sitting all day can suck sometimes. Okay, you know, if you get hunched over, your back hurts. It's not good. Movement equals mindset the new Uplift V3 standing desk transforms your desk into a productivity engine. The V3 combines the best of Uplift V2 and V2 Commercial into one stronger, smarter frame. Redesigned feet and steel reinforcements make this the most stable standing desk yet. Assembles in minutes. No stress, no mess. The new Flex Mount Cable Manager comes with every desk to keep cords hidden and tidy. They upgraded everything speed, stability, ergonomics and design with the most extensive range of desktop styles and accessories in the industry. Transform your workspace and unlock your full potential with the new Uplift V3 standing desk. Go to upliftdesk.com PSA and use our code PSA to get four free accessories, free same day shipping, free returns and an industry leading 15 year warranty that covers your entire desk plus an extra discount off your entire order that's upliftd. E-S-K.com PSA for this exclusive offer. It's only available through our link.

A (21:02)

One piece of good news here is that most Americans don't support any of this by a pretty healthy margin. There have now been polls out from the Economist, YouGov, Quinnipiac, CNN, our friends Data for Progress, our friends at Blue Rose Research. Basically they all have very similar findings. A majority of Americans don't believe that the shooting was justified. They don't think Good was a domestic terrorist, they don't think. They don't approve of what ICE is doing, and they do support most Democratic proposals to rein in ice. And they believe all these things by around it's like around a 20 point margin, depends on the question, but it's pretty significant. We did something on YouTube about this Wednesday, but we're also seeing some prominent Trump voters like Joe Rogan and Tim Dillon heavily criticizing Trump over this, with Rogan comparing ICE to the Gestapo. What was your takeaway from all the polling and any surprises? Anything stand out to you?

C (21:57)

I think so much of the time that we spend on this show in our political life is talking about things that only people who listen to this show or listen to the right wing equivalent of this show know about or care about. This is not one of those moments. In the Economist poll they asked people if they'd seen the video or heard about the video. 89% of people polled had either seen the video or heard the heard about the video and 69% of them had seen the video. In the Quiddep poll, 75% had seen the video. That is impossible to imagine in this media environment. You have large swaths of people checking out of politics and checking out of news. We have this hyper fragment media environment and this is a mono cultural moment. And there are so few of those. And so this is breaking through in huge ways. The second, I think, really important takeaway from here is that the Trump administration's attempt to gaslight the American people about what happened and who Renee Nicole Goode is has failed miserably. You have majorities say that she was justified, majorities who say that she is not a domestic terrorist, majorities who say that criminal charges should be pressed against the officer like they have failed. And I think that's just important to note and remember is that for all of the media firepower that Trump has and all of his messaging skills, all this idea that he can make people disbelieve what their eyes are showing them, that has not happened in this case. And then there's just like one, I think, very important poll result buried in here is that in the CNN poll, a majority of Americans believe that ISIS presence is making US Cities less safe. And that, I think is fundamentally important because the core premise of Trumpism, the core rationale for all of this, is that Trump is going to keep you safe. And if people now believe that ICE is not making them safe, but making them less safe, the entire political project around immigration unravels.

A (23:58)

And it's like, of course they're not.

C (24:01)

I'm glad to see it. It's obvious, but it's, but it's like it's actually.

A (24:04)

And look, ICE has been in, I don't know, half a dozen cities in a significant way since this started. And that number is also, I think, notable in that, like, there's a lot of people who haven't seen a lot of people who live places in this country who haven't seen ICE at all. Or maybe they've seen an agent here or there. Right. But they have not seen what people are seeing in Minneapolis or Chicago. And for those people, you know what I'm saying, Like, for those people to still think, like, yeah, from what I'm seeing and hearing, it's not really making people safer. That is significant. So now the question is, what can Democrats do about any of this and what will they do? The next government funding deadline is just a few weeks away, and there is a debate among Democrats about how much leverage they have, if any, to force changes at ice. And DHS. Joe Perdicon the Bulwark spoke to a bunch of Senate Democrats who all said they're outraged at what's happening and they don't want to increase funding for ice, but stopped short of saying it was a red line for them. I talked to Senator Gallego about this. He basically said that they are still in the midst of trying to figure out whether a shutdown or a partial shutdown aimed at DHS would actually have an impact on ICE's operations. And I saw that, you know, Angus King just said to Semaphore that during the last shutdown, ICE still operated at full speed because they got all that money from Trump's tax cut legislation, from the big bill. And so the challenge is, if you shut down just DHS and ICE can still operate, then do you really want to be in a situation where you've shut down dhs, which means TSA in the airports, TSA can't operate and FEMA can operate, but somehow ICE is still out there up and running and.

C (26:00)

Well, FEMA and TSA could operate, but they would not under this president.

A (26:04)

Right, exactly. Because basically, yeah, the point is the President and Noem and Miller have such latitude, even in a shutdown or maybe even especially in a shutdown, to do whatever the fuck they want with the money and the personnel that they have. But I don't know, what do you think about the politics here?

C (26:19)

So I think there are more options than simply green light an increase in funding for DHS and for ICE in particular, and shut down dhs. So just. Can I nerd out just for one second, please explain, people, what is happening here. So the last time we had, when the shutdown happened, it was over a continuing resolution, a bill to just keep the government funded at the same levels of the previously agreed upon budget for an extent, for a certain period of time. That's not what's happening here. So after the shutdown, Congress got really horny for the appropriations process again and they started passing bills. And so you can. The way. And the way you fund the government as you do these continued resolutions, you do what's called, you pass all the bills individually, which is how this used to work back in the day. You know, you pass, pass the bill for the Defense Department, you pass the one that's for Commerce, justice and State or whatever it is, pass the House, pass the Senate president signs it, you do them all. You have to get them all done by the time the government funding runs out, which is usually at the end of September. The next option is, what happens more often these days is they just pass an omnibus bill, which is just. They take the entire federal budget, they put it into one gigantic bill, and Pass it. The problem with that is no one ever reads it. It's all, we always find out afterwards. There's all this shit in there that no one knew about. It's, it's a bad way of doing business. But you at least, you know there's at least a bipartisan negotiation between the House and the Senate leadership to the gets. We get some things, they get some other things, et cetera. The other way is just one they're doing here something called, they pass minibuses, which are bills that contain a handful of the appropriations bills. And so they have passed a couple minibuses now. So more than half the government, not in terms of agencies, not in terms of funding, have been, are funded for next year. They passed. The President's either signed them or he's going to sign them. The problems are on DHS and in these things. Like they're, there's, they're like they're really doing the thing where the House, the Democrats, province get together, the appropriators are sitting there, they're figuring out like we're gonna give you guys a little more funding here. You give us this much here. We have a bipartisan agreement, we get it out the door, Trump signs it, DHS is the problem. All the rest of them will pass. Fine. And so you could. What I don't want Democrats to do, I do not think Democrats should do, is be so committed to this bipartisan process that they vote for a year long DHS appropriations bill that contains no reforms, no efforts to curtail ice, that increases funding for ice. I do not think they can do that. I think that is morally important. I think it's politically bad because you can't rightfully scream, as we were asking people to do, to talk like that guy at the beginning of the podcast about what ICE is doing and then pass their bill like you cannot do that. What you can do is, I should.

A (28:55)

Say that it does. From all the reporting, it does not seem like there's many Democrats on board for that option.

C (29:02)

There's there in the House it seems like Hakeem Jeffries and others are not for that. In the Senate they're being much more coy. Although Patty Murray, since that Joe Portico and piece has come out and suggested that she would not be for that. But like we cannot be for that. I don't think, I don't think that's going to be an issue. You could theoretically just keep DHS funded at its current levels.

A (29:26)

I think the important CR basically, yeah.

C (29:28)

Just a CR for DHS and for the year. And so they get nothing new. Now a lot of their funding and the funding for ICE comes from the.

A (29:35)

One big beautiful bill that's the real problem.

C (29:37)

Yeah, it's mandatory funding. So you can't really. You're not affecting that. I think the important point here that everyone should be aware of is shutting down. DHS would do nothing, would do absolutely nothing to stop ICE from doing what it's doing right now.

A (29:52)

Yes. And that is the very hard truth.

C (29:55)

Yeah.

A (29:56)

I wish it weren't so. But like, look, we have been through this. We've been through this shutdown stuff before and it's. I want, I always want Democrats to fight. When Democrats have the power to fight. When they have the power to fight with results and they do not use that power. Fuck them. And we should all scream when they do not have the power to fight or their fight is not going to produce the results that we want. I don't know. It's like, I don't, you know, like, sure, they can shut it down. And it's not even. Like I'm worried about the politics of shutting down dhs. I'm really not. I'm more worried about like, well, it's a Pyrrhic victory if suddenly we're shutting down a department. But the one, the one thing in the department, ice, that we, we actually want to shut down, that's still going. While everything else gets not even a Pyrrhic victory.

C (30:48)

It's just not a victory at all.

A (30:50)

Well, it's when you'd be like, what they fought. You know, it's like, what did they fight? What did they get? So that's unsatisfying. Here's something else that'll be unsatisfying. The other question. Democrats are so excited for this. I know. The other question Democrats are once again grappling with here in 2026 is whether it's wise to call for abolishing ICE, which is something that Democrats wouldn't be able to do until 2029 at the earliest if there's a Democratic president. The Searchlight Institute, which is a startup Democratic group, is circulating a memo about why this would be a mistake. On the other hand, you have a lot of people feeling like what's happening is so clear cut that we have to rid ourselves of ICE entirely. And that group naturally includes fellow ideological travelers AOC and Bill Crystal. I saw Bill's tweet, Ball of Shites. I was like, whoa, all right. What do you think? What are your thoughts on all this?

C (31:44)

You alerted me to this debate. I was blissfully unaware of it until we had a meeting yesterday, and now I'm.

A (31:51)

Nothing gets by this.

C (31:52)

Yeah, I know.

B (31:52)

Now I am deep, deep in these eyes.

C (31:55)

Yeah, I feel sorry for you and your cortex. I can't figure out if this is debate around a real problem or not. Like, are there a bunch of Democrats who want to actually run on abolishing ice? Like, I'm pretty skeptical that that is the case, but even still, let's. I think it's worth having the debate because I think it does get at something bigger. And so I would stipulate at the beginning of this that Democrats should have no fear of aggressively criticizing ice. Trump's immigration policies, Trump's deportation policies, the policies themselves, the enforcement of them. Trump is not Trump right now. His immigration approval is very far underwater. ICE has become the face of Trump's immigration policy. As our friend Peter Hamby pointed out in puck, Ice's approval rating is down 30 points since last year. It's now 14 points underwater. That is a phenomenal slide. So we should have no fear about being critical of ice. There is polling. What sort of sparked this conversation is that in the YouGov poll, it shows a slight plurality, essentially a dead heat for abolish ice, which is a relatively dramatic shift since the last time they asked this question in 2019. I've seen other internal polling that shows that while it is more popular once in 2019, it's still underwater and more so with swing voters.

E (33:21)

Same.

A (33:21)

And I've seen some public polling that bears that out as well.

C (33:24)

Yeah, but I think the question I would have about abolish isis, like, let's play it out logically. Not the slogan, not the idea, not like as a thing you're gonna say on a debate stage in a 2028 debate to applause or post on how does it work? So you are the newly elected Democratic president. We are fortunate enough that we have a trifecta. Right. One of our first things we're going to do is we're going to get Congress to pass a bill to abolish the. Abolish ice, to end that department, make it go away. That is something that I believe would require 60 votes. So, therefore, is, unless we have the election to end all elections in 2020, that is not going to happen. And so are you taking on. What are you running on something that you cannot do, that is not available to you? Why is it not a better idea to run on aggressive, transformative reform of ICE that includes accountability for the people in charge and the agents who have done the things we have seen to get them out of there, hold them accountable for it. Deep investigation of everything that went wrong to fundamentally change how it operates. In this Blue Rose Research poll that's been making the rounds, they test a bunch of ideas proposed by Chris Murphy, including requiring warrants, masks, sending Border Patrol back to the border, which is a crazy idea, getting them out of cities. Those all poll quite well. Why not do those things? Is it not a better idea substantively, if not even politically, to run on making ICE work, making it like, fundamental reform, so that it is unrecog, that the ICE serving under the next Democratic president is unrecognizable compared to the ICE.

A (35:14)

Serving under Trump, which I think it will be, no matter what. I mean, here's the exercise I went through. I was like, put the polling and the politics aside for a second. It's like, what do I want to hear from 2028 presidential candidates, one of whom will hopefully be in a position to decide what happens to ice. And I will say to the first point that you made, I think that the next president, hopefully the next Democratic president, is going to have very wide latitude to do whatever they would like with ice, both because the president always has pretty broad latitude in terms of immigration, with what to do at an agency. And after the Trump presidency and what the Supreme Court has decided is legal under the Trump presidency, it turns out you can do quite a bit with departments and agencies in terms of cutting their funding, firing people, getting rid of them, all that kind of stuff. But I would want the next Democratic president to say, like, day one, they will end ICE's reign of terror. A lot of the stuff you just said, like, no more militarized occupations, no more invasions, no more mass raids, no more arrests without a warrant, no more denial of due process. I would fire every agent hired by Trump, fired all of them, and I would fire every agent that violated either the law or DHS's own use of force policy or other policies. And then, like you said, have them hold them accountable to whatever extent possible within the law. Use part of ICE's budget. You know, now we're moving, moving money around in the federal government. That's what Trump's doing. Move part of ISIS budget to go fund people's healthcare and then leave behind a small deportation force whose job is basically limited to detaining noncitizens who have a criminal record or pose a genuine threat to their communities. Because I do think you like, again, I noticed some of the people who are for abolish ice, were like, well, it's not fair to say that if you want to abolish ice, you're not for immigration enforcement. It's like, okay, that's fine. But if the slogan is Abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, I don't think it necessarily helps to have a slogan that is going to raise more questions with people that you then have to explain. Because I think the benefit of a slogan when it's a good slogan, is that it's obvious what it is, and you don't have to answer a lot of questions about it. And I do think you do need immigration enforcement in this country. Like, I just. It's.

C (37:50)

Of course you do. You absolutely do.

A (37:52)

Right? And, like, now, in an ideal world now, we could talk about, like, immigration reform writ large. Because I think the other challenge here is whatever you do with ice, like, that's just one. That's the issue we're dealing with right now. There's so many other problems in immigration that you have to solve, and some of them really do are going to require legislation. But in an ideal world, you would have most of the federal agents, whether Customs and Border Patrol or ice, near the border, and you would try to stop people from crossing illegally before they get here. Right? That is not the world we live in. We live in a world now where there are millions of people who are here who are undocumented. They are in the interior of the country. And if there is someone with a criminal record, if there's someone who poses a threat to the community, if there's someone who's dangerous, then you can't just have Border Patrol. You actually need, and you can have law enforcement, but you also need, like, federal law enforcement to deal with this in some way. Whether you call it ice, whether you call it whatever the fuck you want to call it, you just. You just need that. And so figuring out what that deportation force looks like and completely reforming ice, or you can name it whatever the fuck you want.

C (38:57)

Change the name. I'm fine. Apparently, we just changed the name of.

A (39:00)

That legislation anyway, so, like, I'm open to whatever. Right. I do think that, like, having a debate in 2026 about what the DHS org chart will look like in 2029, it makes less sense to do now when, to me, the most important thing is to figure out how to stop ICE from terrorizing our cities right now. And I think the most important thing for 2028 and the race we're gonna have in 2028 is to lay out a vision of humane immigration enforcement and what that would look like.

C (39:30)

The thing I would add to this is I believe to my core that after all of this, the next Democratic president is going to have a, the best shot we've had in a very long time to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

A (39:43)

I know, I was thinking about this the other day because I think you could, I think you could do it by, if you have the Senate, you could get rid of the filibuster and do it.

C (39:50)

Yes, you could do it. And I think that there may, you may even be able to find some Republicans for it. Like you just, just. We are living in a world of absolute chaos. And I mean, this is the brutal irony of what Trump and Stephen Miller have done, is that by winning on an anti immigrant platform, by governing in an anti immigrant way, they have made Americans overwhelmingly more pro immigration. The number of Americans who say immigration is a good thing for our country is at a 25 year high in the Gallup polling, a dramatic shift since 2024. 2024 is this horrendous singular blip where opinions on immigration or basically during the Biden administration when the exact opposite way that they had been for a very long time and now back there, American people understand and the polling shows that immigration is good for our country. Polling also shows that they believe that the people who have been here for a long time, who have been working and paying taxes in their community, should be given a path to citizenship. And that was true 15 years ago, and it's true again. And so I say that only to say like that if we want to stop all of this, if we want to really on the change, prevent the next Trump from doing something like this down the line. The way you do it is you pass comprehensive immigration reform. And so you have to work backwards from what's the best way to do that and how would an abolish ICE or whatever your ICE reform plans fit in that? And that is not to say that you have to be pro ICE to try to get like some sort of path to citizenship, border security deal, just like, where are you? That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not making that case. I think like ICE needs to be better, smaller, renamed, all the above, reformed. But just the way to think about it is let's start with how do we fix the overall problem and then go backwards from that.

A (41:45)

Yeah, and look, there's a lot of big questions you have to answer that I don't think are easy. Like, I don't want to make it sound like it's going to be very easy, even if Democrats have power to do it. But you got to decide, like, what's the border going to look like? How are you going to handle deportations? How are you going to handle a path to citizenship? How are you going to decide who's a recent arrival and who's not? In some ways, because we have punted the problem so far down the road for so long, it was easier. It would have been easier to do it. I mean, it would have been easier to do it when George W. Bush thought about doing it.

C (42:14)

Yeah.

A (42:14)

And then when we thought about doing it. And it's getting harder and harder because back then, it was mostly immigrants from Mexico who were here undocumented and were gonna get a path to citizenship. And, you know, in the Biden administration, there was an influx of immigrants and asylum seekers from Central America, South America, and all over the world. And so you do have a lot more recent arrivals who came in the Biden years. And you're gonna have to figure out, like, who gets to stay and who doesn't and make sure that you, like, account for all of those people and then also figure out what our asylum laws are going forward. I mean, there's like a. You know, I'm not complete immigration policy expert here, but, like, there's a lot of thorny questions here, but I do think that the goal should be a humane immigration system where we are welcoming to immigrants, but we also make sure that, that people follow the law, they'll follow our laws, and that we and that we have like an orderly immigration system that finally works. Pod Save America is brought to you by Magic Spoon. Magic Spoon is basically the grown up version of your favorite childhood cereals. Same fun taste, none of the sugar bomb, high protein, zero sugar cereal that still hits that nostalgic Saturday morning note. Each serving packs 13 grams of protein, 5 grams of net carbs, and 0 grams of sugar. So it actually keeps you fueled any time of day. Breakfast, late night, snack, post workout, whenever they've got a bunch of classic flavors like fruity frosted hot chocolate, cinnamon toast and more hot chocolate. Sounds kind of.

B (43:47)

I haven't had that either.

A (43:48)

New flavors launching in January. Classic marshmallow and s'. Mores. The ultimate campfire inspired cereal. Were looking for that. Also, you should try Magic Spoon treats. They're crispy, air protein packed snack bars with 12 grams of protein. Great for tossing in your bag, keeping in the car, or grabbing between meetings. Those flavors include marshmallow, chocolate, peanut butter, dark chocolate, and more. There's also magic spoon granola. 13 grams of protein, 0 added sugar. Perfect for yogurt bowls or quick handful snacking. Comes in a dark chocolate, almond, honey, almond, peanut butter and additional flavors making me hungry. All of Magic Spoon's products are easy anytime breakfast snack, pre workout, post workout or midnight snack. Look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or at your nearest grocery store or get $5 off your next order at magicspoon.com crooked that's magicspoon.com crooked for $5 off.

B (44:40)

Positive America is brought to you by bombas.com I bet a lot of you have 2026 resolutions. Stuff like hitting the gym, reading more whatever, learning how to sing, learning language. But this year there's a new one at the top of my list. Get comfy. That's where Bombas comes in. They're bringing serious comfort to all my everyday go tos. The all new Bombas sports socks are engineered with sport specific comfort for running, golf, hiking, skiing, snowboarding and all sport. I actually just bought a bunch of these new Bombas socks because I don't.

A (45:08)

Know, you had holes in the other ones.

B (45:09)

They had holding the other ones the elastics up working and I got the no shows and they really work well for like workout because they they got some sticky thing on the back so they don't fall down. That's the worst when you have like running socks and they fall down, they bunch under your foot. This never happens with Bombas.

A (45:24)

You get the blisters. You don't want those.

B (45:25)

You don't want any of that. The Bombas are the best. I tossed out a bunch of my old ones and I bought like five or six new Bombas for those every day around the house resolutions. Bombas also has you covered with the comfiest footwear imaginable. They got Sunday slippers that feel like you're walking on clouds. They got slides made with Super Co. Lightweight EVA the Friday sandalwood. And they have a new squishy Saturday suede slip on shoe for the comfort on the go. For every item you purchase, an essential clothing item is donated to someone facing housing and security. One purchased, one donated. With over 150 million donations and counting. Head over to bombas.com crooked and use code crooked for 20% off your first purchase. That's B O M B-A-S.com crooked code crooked at checkout.

A (46:10)

All right, so now we got the Justice Department which is when they're not busy investigating the widow of a woman the government shot in the head. They're Also hard at work investigating the Fed chair, Democratic members of Congress, and now raiding the homes of journalists. On Wednesday, the FBI showed up at Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanzen's house and seized her work computer, her personal computer, her phone, and her smartwatch. The warrant they obtained was issued as part of an investigation into a government contractor who may have leaked sensitive or classified information about Venezuela. Even though Natanzen isn't the target of the investigation, the raid and the seizures are really shocking because, one, it's not a crime to publish classified information, and two, usually DOJ will try to get the information it wants through subpoenas, or at least they will try to do that first. Trump's DOJ is also now investigating the Democratic members of Congress who filmed a video where they merely told Americans serving in the military that they don't have to follow illegal orders. They have all been contacted by ace DC Prosecutor Jeanine Pirro or her prosecutors, who's also investigating Fed Chair Jerome Powell, at least until outraged fellow Republicans talk her out of it. On one hand, this is just, you know, one terrifying abuse of power after another. On the other, it does seem like the Trump administration's very sloppy attempts to threaten and intimidate the president's perceived enemies keep backfiring. Like, I don't know that they have gained much from the attempt at the Comey prosecution. Tish James. Like, politically, they're not necessarily helping them. They really haven't borne fruit in court. And so I'm sure it satisfies Donald Trump and makes him happy, but I don't know. What do you think about this?

C (47:53)

Back in Trump 1.0, I used to describe the Trump presidency as the plot of House of Cards with the cast of Veep. And that is exactly what's going on here. We are blessed by the idiocy of our enemies and people like Jeanine Pierro doing this because they're just so bad at it. And it's funny that they're so bad at it, and we're fortunate they're so bad at it. But then there's the alternative reality that we are in. We haven't even hit the one year mark of this presidency, and at some point they might get better people doing these jobs. And Jeanine Pirro makes her triumphant return to the five. And so they put someone else who's better at that job in there. And then that's where this gets worrisome.

A (48:32)

Yeah, it does. She tags out for Greg Gutfeld.

C (48:35)

I guess the question is, who replaces her?

A (48:38)

No. And look, going after the senators and the members of Congress for that video is just fucking nuts to me. The Kelly thing was nuts. The Mark Kelly thing, what Hegseth tried to do, the Jerome Powell thing is clearly backfiring. I mean, the fact that even Pirro is already trying to walk it back by being like, actually, we just called him for questions about the renovation and then he didn't get back to us. And so what, we had to, like, threaten an investigation and subpoenas? Come on. But you can tell that none of them think that the Fed chair especially was a good idea. The Post reporter thing is terrifying. And, like, we have to see how this plays out in court and they have to, like, unseal the warrant to see, like, how they got the warrant and everything. But, like, raiding on a reporter's house is fucking nuts.

C (49:23)

Yeah.

A (49:24)

Let's talk about the latest in Trump's efforts to acquire Greenland through bribery or force. After meeting with J.D. vance and Marco Rubio on Wednesday, the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland told reporters that a, quote, fundamental disagreement remains between the parties, but said they agreed to form a, quote, high level working group to review the problem. The problem being that the leader of the world's most powerful nation is off his fucking rocker and is willing to blow up our most important alliance because he thinks the map would look cooler if he owned Greenland. That's where we are. Because of that, France, Germany, the uk, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands have now sent troops to Greenland to conduct military exercises and show support for the Danes. This is like reading. This is so fucking nuts. It is. It's hard not to laugh, but it's also horrifying at the same time, which I guess is like most of the Trump administration, but it is. Trump remains undeterred and said that if Russia or China occupied Greenland, there's, quote, not a thing that Denmark could do about it. But that quote, there's everything we can do. You found that out last week with Venezuela. They're going to fucking send Delta Force in to what? To capture the Danish Prime Minister. What are they doing?

C (50:43)

I mean, it's so stupid, because if China or Russia invaded Greenland as members of NATO, we would fight back.

A (50:53)

Yeah. It would trigger an Article 5 response. That's the whole point of a fight.

C (50:55)

I just think it's so funny that they were going to have to have, like. There's like, probably a working group trying to figure out how Article 5 applies if a NATO member invades a NATO member.

A (51:03)

There's also just the opportunity cost of everyone having to, like, spend their time and energy on this fucking senile old man's deranged plans for the world when, like, another deranged old man is at war with Ukraine and, like, threatening Eastern Europe. And now all the NATO countries are like, spending time in meetings and sending troops to fucking Greenland because Trump thinks it looks cool on the Mercator projection.

C (51:35)

Of all the things we've dealt with over the many years we've been forced to talk about and think about Trump, I've struggled to find something that was this dumb and this consequential as the federal government plan to invade or buy Greenland. Did you see the estimate that this working group put out that it would cost $800 billion to buy Greenland, which.

A (51:58)

Is like, also, what are we. We're just gonna pay. We're gonna pay $800 billion. That's what the United States is gonna do.

C (52:06)

We're just gonna give it to Denmark? Are we gonna give it to the people of Greenland? I mean, it's just. And then. Let's just like play this out.

A (52:14)

The federal government is unwilling to pay a third of that to stop people's health insurance premiums from rising for 20 million Americans or to start.

C (52:25)

Or a fraction of that to feed children in Africa or prevent babies from getting HIV or give people clean drinking water, any of those things. But we have the money.

A (52:33)

Buy Greenland because it looks cool on a map.

C (52:36)

A place that we already have a base and could have as many bases as we wanted, but we must own it for reasons that truly make zero sense.

A (52:47)

So fucking stupid. And like, I don't know. I don't have a lot of faith in the. The high level working group.

C (52:55)

Oh, you such a cynic.

A (52:58)

Finding a way forward here. Like, what. What way forward is there? It's not for sale. They've said that a million times. And so we're gonna. That's what we're gonna invade.

C (53:09)

I think they're just trying. I think the high level working group is trying to run out the clock on Trump's short attention Spanish.

A (53:16)

Yeah, that's the other thing. It's like. And Gallego said this too. It's like when a Democrat becomes president, we're just gonna give it back. You know, that's gonna be the first thing.

C (53:27)

What a group of litmus tests. We're gonna have destroy the ballroom, change the Department of War back to the Department of Defense, get all that weird stenciling off the White House.

A (53:37)

Yeah, the fucking. Now we've got a rose garden sign up. It looks. It looks like you're at a Fucking Chili's. Like, what?

C (53:45)

It's, it's for him to know where he is at all times. He's an old doddering man who gets confused. So they're like, they're like labeling his clothes like, these are your socks, these are your underwear. This is the Rose Garden.

A (53:57)

In other hemispheric Conquest news, Trump met with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Machado on Thursday at the White House, where she presented him with her Nobel Peace Prize.

C (54:07)

Did he accept it? I could not get to that. I could not find that in the reporting before this.

A (54:11)

No one, no one seems to. To know yet. Do you think he. I see everyone with this question. Do you think he's the kind of person that's like, no, no, no, you keep it. You keep it.

C (54:20)

Yeah, I would assume. I was just looking for confirmation before I asserted it, but it's just so pitiful. It's so embarrassing that she is like, here, take this trinket so you can feel better about yourself. And that may improve our chances for a good policy outcome.

A (54:37)

Because now that you have deposed the authoritarian leader of my country, I would like to return and become that leader because I won the Peace Prize and the election. But instead, you have the authoritarian leaders number two in command there and don't seem eager to get rid of her at all because you have called her a terrific person, because I guess she's giving you all the oil that you need.

C (55:03)

I think in hindsight now, I do not believe that Trump deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, but in hindsight, was probably a mistake not to give it to him. I mean, think of what's happened since they did not give it to him.

A (55:12)

You think, you think Greenland wouldn't be happening if he had the Peace Prize?

C (55:15)

I mean, we have bombed. We have invaded Venezuela, we've bombed Nigeria, we've invaded Minneapolis. Like, he's, he's really. We are threatening Cuba, we're threatening Colombia. We are looking at bombing Iran. By the time you read, listen this podcast, Iran could be bombed. We don't know.

A (55:31)

Good news on the oil, though. Semaphore broke the news that the US has brokered its first sale of Venezuelan oil, apparently worth around $500 million, which is being held in bank accounts controlled by the US Government with the main one located in Qatar. Why. Why are we stashing oil revenues in Qatari banks?

C (55:52)

We have a bank account in Qatar now.

A (55:54)

We do. Do we think it's the US Government's really?

C (55:58)

It's very, very.

A (56:00)

And. But don't worry, we're going to get More oil. Because all those oil companies that are a little worried about going back into Venezuela because, you know, it's still basically a dictatorship and quite politically unstable. And Trump, you know, he wants to keep his. He doesn't want to send. He wants to have boots on the ground in the form of American military. So now we're going to pay private military contractors to go to Venezuela and guard the oil. And one of them could be Erik Prince.

C (56:28)

I mean, one of them is almost certainly Erik Prince.

A (56:30)

Yes. And they're all bid. The White House put out an rfp, and they're all gonna start bidding because, boy, is there gonna be some money to be made from the US Government. So our tax dollars are gonna go to pay military contractors to guard oil interests for. For the oil companies, to lure the oil companies into Venezuela so Donald Trump can sell the oil and stick it and give it to put it in his Qatari bank account. What the fuck is going on?

C (57:01)

I mean, Donald Trump seems to be gonna get rich on this. The oil company's gonna get rich on this. The military contractors are gonna rich on this.

A (57:06)

Contractors. Yeah. I guess it is a win. Big win for the hemisphere. And just in case our other neighbors in the Western hemisphere haven't gotten the message yet, the New York Times reported on Thursday that the Trump administration is, quote, unquote, intensifying pressure. We know what that means. On the Mexican government to let either US Special Forces or CIA officers conduct joint operations on fentanyl labs in the country. So Mexico's next. That's cool. Over in the Middle east, which is not yet part of the Don Row doctrine, Trump seems to have decided for now to hold off on taking military action against Iran in response to the regime's brutal crackdown on protests. Trump. Trump claimed on Wednesday that he'd heard from, quote, very important sources that, quote, the killing in Iran is stopping. It's stopped. It's stopping. And there's no plan for executions or an execution or execution. So I've been told that on good authority. Well said, sir. Well said.

C (58:02)

This is all because he gave an insane answer, an even more insane answer in the totally ridiculous and totally embarrassing interview with Tony Decopol on cbs where he learned in real time about the hanging of protesters and then declared that that was his new red line and that it would be a very. I can't remember his words, but they were very strange and ominous. And it's like, how many. I'm not arguing for Trump to do anything here. It's not really. Not hoping for a bunch of bombing or anything. But it's like, how many red lines is he going to draw and step right over and do nothing with.

A (58:39)

And you can't tell. You know, it's like he. They say he hasn't taken military options off the table. One of our aircraft carriers is headed toward the region. But it's like, you know, he does have a pattern of. Right. When he says, oh, maybe I'm not going to bomb after all. Then he. Then he sneaks in and bombs. You know, he kind of likes to do that. That's a.

C (58:54)

This is the important part of my notes where I said insert caveat, which is it feels like there's a very real chance that between now and when this podcast, between when we record this podcast on Thursday afternoon, when you listen to it on Friday, that something may have happened, because that's basically what happened with the Iran bombings, is that he said he's not going to do it. He set a timeline and then, boom, they did it. So it could happen at any moment here.

A (59:13)

Yeah. I'm sure whatever the action is, it's going to be focused on saving the lives of the protesters.

C (59:17)

That is what he carries, as we can see, all across this country. He is a man who deeply respects civil disobedience and protecting protesters, human rights and democracy.

A (59:26)

Top of the list, right after the oil. All right, one last thing before we get to my interview with Ruben Gallego, podcaster. Just wildly successful podcaster Katie Miller, rocketing to the top of the charts. She had as her guest this week none other than Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Who spilled some secrets about how his boss keeps functioning at such a high level. Let's listen. Who has the most unhinged eating habits?

F (59:55)

The President. He eats really bad food, which is McDonald's, and, you know, candy and Diet Coke, but he drinks a Diet Coke at all times. He has a constitution of a deity. I don't know how he's alive. If you travel with him, you get this idea that he's just pumping himself full of poison all day long and you don't know how he's walking around, much less being the most energetic person any of us have ever met. Dr. Oz looked at his medical records and said he's got the highest testosterone level that he's ever seen for an individual over 70 years old.

A (60:39)

I don't even know where to begin with that. I do think it might be the best news I heard all week that the Health and Human Services secretary can't believe that the president's still alive. And then he is pumping him, believes he is pumping himself full of poison all the time.

C (60:57)

Yeah, I guess if we're looking for silver linings in this dark cloud, I guess that's one of them.

A (61:03)

Let's see, let's see. Is it something about, does he have the body of a deity? Is that the constitution of a deity? Is that what he said? Could it be that? Or could he just be lying to everyone about how healthy he actually is? What is the truth there? I can't tell.

C (61:20)

Do you think he really has the highest level of testosterone of any man over 70 that Dr. Oz has ever seen?

A (61:24)

Yeah. Yeah. Oh, and also he has an 8 inch dick. That's what he said right in the medical records.

C (61:30)

At least we got a pod title. That's good.

A (61:33)

It's just so funny to volunteer. Like, oh, what is this diet? Like, also really, really high testosterone. What a weird fucking thing these people are. So.

C (61:44)

I know most people are listening to this and not watching it, but I do recommend the video because in it there are all these very strange cutaways to Katie Miller silently laughing.

A (61:53)

Yeah, I know.

C (61:54)

Just like losing your shit. And then, like, he does call. When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Calls her calls Trump. The most energetic person she's ever seen. Her, like, is an arched eyebrow as if, like, what are you talking about? This is a man who fell asleep in a oval office meeting 24 hours ago.

A (62:11)

Tip top shape. Tip top shape. Anyway, you know what? Keep it in that candy. Keep it in that McDonald's. We're behind you 100%. Keep it in.

C (62:17)

You're back on the hamburger from heaven move.

A (62:21)

I just, I think that's. I might be responsible for his high tea.

C (62:25)

It's all that makes sense.

A (62:26)

It's not one of those low T betas like us, you know, us libs.

C (62:31)

Yeah.

A (62:32)

All right, when we get back from the break, you'll hear my conversation with Ruben Gallego about Greenland voting for DHS funding and so much more. But two reminders before we get to that. Crooked media's newest book, hated by all the Right People, Tucker Carlson and the Unraveling of the Conservative Mind, is releasing on January 27th. It's by one of our favorite political journalists, New York Times Magazine writer Jason Zengerly. And it is a fascinating, really entertaining look at Tucker's political evolution and how his rise traces the rise of the MAGA movement. Tommy's gonna interview Jason on Tuesday's Pod Save America, so make sure to check that out. And as I said, hated by all the right People comes out January 27th, but you can get a discount right now when you pre order a copy of Hated by All the right people. Head to cricket.combooks to get that discount and check out Jason's book signing tour dates. Also, there are still tickets available for our shows in New Zealand and Australia. The hopefully Just Visiting tour takes us to Auckland on February 11 and then three cities in Australia, Melbourne on the 13th, Brisbane on the 14th and Sydney on the 16th. For more details and to grab tickets, head to cricket.com events when we come back. Ruben Gallego. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. The new year doesn't require a new you, maybe just a less burdened you. Therapy can help more easily identify what weighs you down by offering an unbiased perspective to better understand your relationships, motivations and emotions. Therapy's great. A lot going on in the world right now? Sure, there's a lot going on in your lives. You might not think you need therapy, but talking to someone always helps. Betterhelp therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the US BetterHelp does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences and their 12 plus years of experience and industry leading match fulfillment rate means they typically get it right the first time. If you aren't happy with your match, switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored recommendations. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is one of the world's largest online therapy platforms and Having served over 5 million people globally and it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session. Based on over 1.7 million client reviews, BetterHelp makes it easy to get matched online with a qualified therapist. Sign up and get 10% off@betterhelp.com PSA that's betterhelp.com PSA.

G (64:56)

The start of a new year is a natural moment to set new goals and shake up old habits. But doing so can also feel a little daunting. If you've ever reached the end of January feeling a bit cynical or discouraged about the hopes and resolutions that had seemed achievable just a few weeks earlier, the Hidden Brain Podcast is here to help all. This month we'll bring you the latest installment of Our popular your 2.0 series. The focus will be on the self doubt and anxiety that many of us grapple with when charting a new path. Whether you're struggling with self criticism, a lack of patience or Finding the courage to make a big change. We've got your back. That's U 2.0 from Hidden Brain all through the month of January. Join us.

A (65:58)

Senator Gallego, welcome back to Pod Save America.

E (66:00)

Thanks for having me.

A (66:02)

Politically, the new year has been off to an absurd and infuriating start. What's pissing you off most right now?

E (66:08)

The fact that it's. That it's such a start. I mean, as any normal human, nobody wants chaos. And this president is all about chaos. He creates the chaos. Whether it's starting a war in Venezuela, these massive suppression of our cities by those ICE agents, or the buildup, or some type of pressure campaign that we have going on for Greenland, none of this makes sense. It all actually hurts Americans in the end. And of course that pisses me off that we should be trying to help people right now, cuz Americans are really hurting right now.

A (66:47)

Trump's once again threatening to invoke the Insurrection act, this time in Minnesota. DHS has already deployed a small army to Minneapolis. They're continuing to terrorize the people who live there, citizens and non citizens alike. JD Vance tweeted the new line from the administration, which is that in cities that aren't sanctuary cities, the deportation process is orderly and normal. But in Minneapolis and a few other sanctuary cities, local jurisdictions and a few left wing agitators have decided to wage war on all immigration officers. What do you think of that?

E (67:18)

That's total bullshit. What's happening right now is that they're using overt force, you know, these men with masks to go, and they're violating people's rights, they're racially profiling, they're going up to gas stations and if you're not white, they're coming, asking you if you're, if you're a citizen, having to prove that you're a citizen. Even some people that do have proper identification, not accepting them, they're using, you know, these tactics that, you know, we didn't even use in Iraq in urban areas to basically suppress and make the people feel like they're under attack or they're taken over. That's why you see videos of people reacting very harshly against these guys when they go into restaurants, when they go into stores, when they're all masked up, gunned up and acting like they're stormtroopers because the American public does not like that. They don't like, have this feeling like someone's coming after them or the government's here with their boot on the back of your neck. They don't do that. In red states because they want to avoid the politics, but they do this type of overt suppression in blue states so they could get the political feels they get from it. They want to be able to say they stuck it to the libs and they also want to create the environment for them to actually invoke the Insurrection Act. And let's be clear, the shit they're doing. And I was in Cities of 50 to 100,000 Cities of Iraqis in Iraq surrounded by insurgents. And we Marines, well trained Marines, did not act the way that they're doing, the way they're treating other fellow Americans right now. It's disgusting.

A (68:50)

Government funding's going to run out at the end of the month. There's been rumbling about Democrats withholding support for dhs, at least until there's changes to ice. Do you think there's any chance that any of your Republican colleagues would support any kind of ICE reforms?

E (69:05)

No, absolutely not. This is the one thing that, from what I see, they understand that this is the red line. You can't cross Trump on. You could maybe go a little against him on this issue, that issue. This is the world where if you do this, Steven Miller and his online bullies will come after you. So they're not willing to do it. Now, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't use whatever levels that we can. Levers that we can to stop them. And, you know, I'm trying to figure out what that is. What is the best way to like, rein in this craziness? Is it just denying them the funding? If that's, if that's the best way to do it, I'm gonna do that. If it's, you know, giving them some funding but putting tons of constraints on them, then I'll do that. But we need to figure out how to rein these monsters in, because it is bad, bad.

A (69:48)

If there's a shutdown or a partial shutdown just because, like, DHS isn't funding, I mean, does that impact what ICE is doing right now? Does that really deny them the ability to continue what they're doing right now in Minneapolis?

E (70:02)

So that's what we're trying to find out. And like, and I think a lot of us that are sick of what we're seeing, of what we've seen so far, and need to understand that this is not normal. We need to use every level of power to, to rein them in. That's what we want to explore. If it, if we can rein them in through appropriations, then we'll do that. If not, I Have. I don't see why we would continue to be funding this craziness. And look, they're gonna be able to get the money anyway because they passed a big ugly bill a couple years ago. But it doesn't necessarily mean that I have to make this easier for them. And so whatever is the best way for us to stop these guys from acting the way that they are. Abusing US Citizens, racially profiling in our communities, physically harming Americans. We're gonna look, we're gonna try to find a way.

A (70:47)

Do you get a sense from your Democratic colleagues then that this is still a very live issue on whether or not you'll all join hands to fund the government?

E (70:56)

Talking to my Democratic colleagues, it sounds like a lot of them are aligned with me and a couple other people that we need to use this opportunity to rein them in, to constrain them to do anything. Because right now they're just, it's lawless what they're doing. They're not acting like a police force. They're acting like a goon squad for this president. And they're not even effectively doing their jobs. I have friends of mine that I've known forever that are lifelong ICE agents and HSI agents. They're getting pulled off their very important cases, going after drug smugglers, they're going after money laundering, going after child exploitation cases. Because now they're forced to go look for people that maybe they're in the country illegally but have no other criminal record. And we're using a lot of time, money, manpower to go after them for a political effect, not for actual real security effect for everyday Americans.

A (71:50)

This has resurfaced an old debate among Democrats over whether to call for abolishing ice. I'm just gonna ask, if you were in charge of dhs, what would immigration enforcement look like?

E (72:04)

Well, if I was in charge of dhs, it would look like a very professional operation. Number one, you wouldn't be able to deport anybody without a warrant. And what we've seen right now is that without that safeguard, these guys feel they could go and grab anyone anywhere. And they're making mistakes. The reason the warrants are important is because a lot of times it creates the right conduct of how they go and grab and export some of these people. We would right size the amount of people. There are way too many ICE agents. If you have so many ICE agents, that means they're just going to go after innocent people and or even feel the necessity to go after Americans. I would get rid of the quotas that they have to be fed, filling because that encourages them again to just keep going out there and finding anybody. I would work with the President and the Senate to pass comprehensive immigration reform so we could focus on the real criminals and not the people that are just working here that we could legalize and have them have a job and stay with their families. And I would take off the masks. You have to be accountable. You have to be accountable to U.S. citizens. Police officers in almost every city every day interact with the public and they do it in a professional manner and this is why they don't wear a mask. ICE agents, they feel that they could get away with where they want because they're covered, they're covering their faces. And this president has basically guaranteed them he's going to give them all pardon no matter what they do. It's not what should fly that way in the future.

A (73:34)

The argument you hear from some folks who want to abolish ICE is, you know, ICE is relatively new agency anyway. It's only been around for a couple decades. And can't we go back to, you know, pre ICE when there was still immigration enforcement but you didn't have ice. What do you think we. What do you think about that?

E (73:53)

Well, I mean at that point it's still ice. It's just by a different name. The problem we have to avoid and actually don't necessarily disagree with that viewpoint either. I think the problem we have to avoid is like the everyday person is not as well read in when it comes to immigration policies. Right. So if you say a bot shy to somebody they're going to like, I don't, I don't know what that means. Everyone knows and understands we're always going to have to have a deportation force. Do we have to have one? That is how ICE is currently acting right now. Lawless, without warrants, without justification. No, we don't have to have it that way. We can have something that we saw akin Even before 9 11, that is a professionalized force that goes after criminals, goes after people that shouldn't be in the country, that does it in a manner that isn't abrasive to everyday civil liberties and Americans in general. But the confusion is around the language and I think the general rule, especially as someone who has had to engage by the way, in immigration and border policies for the last 16 years in Arizona, is if you're explaining, you're losing. And so let's be clear. What we know Americans want. Americans want a secure border. Americans want criminals in this country to be deported. They don't want the mom, the dad, with us Citizen kids. The people that have been here, that have community roots, that haven't had any major crimes, they don't want them deported. And let's create a force that reflects that instead of what it is right now. Because what it is right now, it's not at all about immigration enforcement. It is about suppressing and trying to intimidate Americans. In blue cities.

A (75:27)

You met with the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland on Wednesday. Same day they met with J.D. vance and Marco Rubio. Were they just like, what the fuck is wrong with your president? Like, were they freaked out? What was the. What was the mood there?

E (75:38)

Honestly, they were more, you know, they were more politically stable and than I would have been. It is clear from the conversation that I was having with them that Marco Rubio and J.D. vance are trying to create an actual reason why we need to take Greenland. Because the actual reason we want to take Greenland is a stupid, idiotic idea of the President because he just wants to have that big island on the map, being part of the United States. So talking to the foreign minister, they have been very clear, like, if you want to build more bases, US Bases in Greenland, you are welcome to build more bases in Greenland. You want to stage more men in Greenland, you're welcome to do that. We will cut off all commercial trade with China. We'll cut commercial trade with Russia, which they already have. Tell us what you want, we will do it. You know, there's no need for any of this. And the ostensible reason why J.D. vance Ribo came out, well, that may be the case right now, but 10 years from now, you could be in a totally different situation. So there is no logical reason for them to be engaging this. It's actually harmful. Right? Right now you have people trying to figure out how to balance against us versus us being able to work with them to balance power against China, against Russia. You know, we need the buying power of NATO as well as of European Union to be able to really overcome the buying power of China. And we're going to make ourselves weaker in the long run if we go into a stupid war over Greenland, which in the end would not be successful. What happens when the next president comes? I guarantee you it's a democrat. We're going to give it right back. And even if you try to, I don't know, bring it in, you have to have a treaty process to that. And again, you have a lot of people against that. And this is monumentally unpopular right now. People don't want any wars, let alone a war with Denmark or NATO, especially right now when there are so many other problems happening in this country.

A (77:29)

You introduced a bill this morning saying that any action in Greenland would require congressional authorization. Your Republican colleagues in the Senate folded to Trump's pressure on the Venezuela War Powers Resolution. Do you have any more hope when it comes to the, the Greenland resolution?

E (77:47)

I do, and for a couple reasons. Number one, this is a violation of a treaty that that was, you know, NATO came into as a treaty in the late 40s, early 50s, voted by the Senate. There's also generations of relationships across the pond with, you know, NATO leaders that a lot of these senators would lose respect, not among necessarily their citizens, but or Arizonans or, sorry, Americans, but across these people that they consider friends, parliamentarians in other states, generals from other countries. And I think they also understand the existential situation that would come if we end up getting into a stupid war for Greenland. It would be the dumbest, dumbest move, strategic move that this country has done probably since its birthday. It would end up destroying an alliance that has stabilized at least the Western Hemisphere. It would end up causing economic problems, slowing down our economy and potentially making China the rising and permanent economic power. And these senators would all have to pay for it because guess what? Donald Trump is gone in three years. These senators have to run again and they will end up feeling and having to deal with a fallout of a very stupid war over Greenland.

A (79:09)

You also released a big housing affordability plan this week centered around making it easier to build more homes, making homeownership more affordable. Yeah, very abundance coded. Which reminded me this week also your Senate colleague Elizabeth Warren, she gave a big speech where she said abundance has become a rallying cry for wealthy donors and other corporate Dems who are putting big time muscle behind making Democrats more favorable to big business. She made the argument that economic populism is much more popular with voters than an abundance message. I know that you've previously said there is no need to choose between populism and abundance, but what did you make of her comments?

E (79:47)

I mean, I get it. I think there is no need to choose. You can do both. And I think most Americans really do not care the color of the cat when it catches the mouse. Like, you know, you have to have the opportunity to build fast and you have to make some of the incentives to build fast. But you also do have to make sure that the big conglomerates that are controlling maybe timber, the mortgage industry or anything like that, aren't becoming so powerful that it becomes uncompetitive, non competitive for smaller businesses or even for the consumer. I think you got to do both. So like, you know, I'm agnostic when it comes to this stuff. Like, you know, I don't take sides. You know, it's just like a gang fight. And I'm, I'm an innocent civilian. All I care about is results. And let me tell you, Americans, when you talk to them aren't going to tell me like, Ruben, I really hate the fact that you built that house, but you didn't do it in a populous way or the opposite. Reuben, I'm very disappointed that you used your abundance agenda to bring down my mortgage costs. That's ridiculous. That's not how normal people are. No one thinks that way except for a couple people and a couple zip codes around the whole country. Let's focus on results. And if you have to break up the banks to do it, then do it. If you have to make sure that we're introducing, you know, or you know, cutting it on regulations to do it, then we do that. But like this whole argument is a bunch of elites talking to a bunch of elites and it's not going to make a bit of a difference.

A (81:07)

Yeah, I'm an elite and it breaks my brain. Senator Gallego, thank you as always for joining Pod Save America. I know you got a meeting to rush to, but thanks for coming on.

D (81:17)

Thanks, Matt.

A (81:23)

That's our show for today. Thanks to Ruben Gallego for coming on. Alex will be back in the feed on Sunday with a conversation with Strict Scrutiny's Leah Littman about legal avenues for pushing back on ice. Check it out.

C (81:34)

Bye, everyone.

A (81:39)

If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad free and get access to exclusive podcasts, go to cricket.com friends to subscribe on Supercast Substack, YouTube or Apple Podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review that helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Crooked. Pod Save America is a crooked media production. Our producers are David Toledo, Emma Ilick Frank and Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farah Safari. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reed Churlin is our executive editor. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Kanter is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle, Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Matt de Groat is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Hayley Jones, Ben Hefcote, Mia Kelman, Kiril Pelaviev, David Toles and Ryan young. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America, eas.

E (82:41)

Are you curious about the hidden side of everything? Then I have a podcast for you. I'm Stephen Dubner, host of Freakonomics Radio. Each week, we hear from some of the most fascinating scholars and thinkers as we tackle big topics like how whales became the face of environmental activism, how to succeed at failing, and whether public transportation should be free. Go ahead, listen to Freakonomics Radio wherever you get your podcasts.