Jessica Yellin on Our Anxiety Producing News Cycle

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Al Franken Podcast – Jessica Yellin on Our Anxiety-Producing News Cycle

Episode Title: Jessica Yellin on Our Anxiety-Producing News Cycle
Release Date: March 30, 2025
Host: Al Franken
Guest: Jessica Yellin, former CNN and ABC correspondent, founder of News Not Noise

---

1. Introduction and Guest Background

Al Franken opens the episode by introducing Jessica Yellin, highlighting her extensive 17-year tenure as a senior White House correspondent for CNN and ABC. Yellin transitioned from mainstream media to create News Not Noise, a platform aimed at delivering trustworthy news without the accompanying anxiety and irritation often associated with traditional news outlets.

Notable Quote:
“I was very idealistic about covering politics. It felt like a civic duty to do it.”
— Jessica Yellin [03:25]

---

2. The Creation of News Not Noise

Yellin discusses her motivation behind launching News Not Noise, emphasizing the prevalent audience dissatisfaction with mainstream media’s approach to news. She observes that traditional news often exacerbates anxiety by focusing on panic-inducing stories without providing actionable information, leading to public disengagement.

Notable Quote:
“People say, I can't stand everybody in the news. All you do is panic me, yell about everything that's going wrong... make me scared about the world.”
— Jessica Yellin [04:18]

She outlines the News Not Noise Promise, which commits to:

• Separating essential news from outrage-inducing content.
• Providing clear, contextual explanations.
• Featuring insights from experts instead of pundits.
• Avoiding the manipulation of listeners' emotional energy.

Notable Quote:
“We aspire to be your most trusted source of information about consequential issues of the day.”
— News Not Noise Promise [05:30]

---

3. Social Media and Modern News Consumption

Yellin delves into her strategy of utilizing Instagram as a primary platform for News Not Noise, targeting undecided and suburban women voters. She explains the platform's shift from social conflicts to a more relaxed environment focused on personal sharing, which she leveraged to present news in a calm and relatable manner.

Notable Quote:
“I built a following, just breaking it down, explaining what you're seeing today and talking like a regular person.”
— Jessica Yellin [08:44]

She also touches upon the impact of social media on personal experiences, citing research that suggests taking photos can reduce actual enjoyment of moments.

---

4. The Signal App Scandal (Signalgate)

The conversation shifts to a significant political scandal involving the misuse of the Signal app by administration officials. Yellin provides an in-depth analysis of the so-called Signalgate, where high-ranking officials, including Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor, facilitated insecure communications about sensitive military operations.

Key Points:

• Signalgate Overview: Officials used Signal, an ostensibly secure platform, to discuss the timing and specifics of bombing missions over Yemen.
• Security Breach: Yellin highlights the inherent risks, emphasizing that even encrypted platforms like Signal can be compromised.
• Policy Violations: The misuse of Signal bypassed standard secure communication protocols expected in national security operations.

Notable Quote:
“If our pilots were on Signal with us, wouldn't they say, hey, Director of National Intelligence Gabbard, maybe you shouldn't be risking my friggin' life...”
— Al Franken [03:32]

---

5. Media Integrity and Jeffrey Goldberg’s Role

Yellin commends Jeffrey Goldberg for his handling of the Signal app revelations. Goldberg maintained journalistic integrity by not revealing classified details prematurely and respecting the boundaries of his reporting.

Notable Quote:
“Goldberg handled himself with such integrity... he voluntarily removed himself from this chat at the time he realized it was real.”
— Jessica Yellin [15:14]

She praises mainstream media outlets like The Atlantic for their responsible reporting and critical analysis of the administration's actions.

---

6. Internal Administration Dynamics and Key Figures

The discussion delves into the internal conflicts within the Trump administration, particularly focusing on the power struggles and poor decision-making exemplified by figures like Stephen Miller and Pete Hegseth.

Key Points:

• Stephen Miller's Influence: Miller's confrontation during the Signal app scandal underscores his significant sway over the administration, potentially surpassing the Vice President.
• Pete Hegseth's Missteps: Hegseth’s careless communication strategies and subsequent backlash have damaged his credibility, earning him derogatory labels from the public.
• Bipartisan Response: Notably, Republican senators like Roger Wicker are advocating for an independent Pentagon investigation, marking a rare bipartisan acknowledgment of the scandal’s severity.

Notable Quote:
“This is a terrifying... we're dealing with a very serious double standard.”
— Jessica Yellin [22:12]

---

7. The Enemy Aliens Act and Deportation Controversy

Yellin brings attention to the Enemy Aliens Act of 1798, repurposed by the Trump administration to deport Venezuelan migrants associated with the Trende Aragua gang without due process. She describes the deplorable conditions in El Salvadorese prisons and the administration’s blatant disregard for judicial orders.

Key Points:

• Legal Overreach: The administration used outdated legislation to justify the forced removal and detention of Venezuelan migrants, leading to human rights abuses.
• Judicial Defiance: Despite court orders to halt the deportation flights, the administration proceeded, demonstrating contempt for the judiciary.
• Public Reaction: High-profile figures and the public are outraged by these actions, likening them to authoritarian practices.

Notable Quote:
“These are people who are sitting in a torture chamber right now with no due process. That's so un-American.”
— Jessica Yellin [28:57]

---

8. Autocratic Tendencies and Legal Repercussions

The conversation highlights the administration’s attempts to undermine the judiciary and manipulate legal frameworks to maintain power. Yellin discusses the broader implications of such actions, including the potential normalization of authoritarian practices and the erosion of democratic checks and balances.

Key Points:

• Judiciary Undermining: Proposals to eliminate or control federal courts highlight a strategic move to weaken institutional accountability.
• Law Firms' Retaliation: Notable law firms like Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie face punitive actions from the administration for opposing policies, leading to a chilling effect on legal defense and civil liberties.

Notable Quote:
“What we're looking at is an administration that is becoming so autocratic... this is horrifying.”
— Jessica Yellin [35:49]

---

9. Public Response and Democratic Actions

Yellin emphasizes the need for active public engagement and clear guidance from democratic leaders to combat the administration’s autocratic measures. She critiques the lack of comprehensive strategies from Democratic figures to mobilize and inform the public effectively.

Notable Quote:
“Regular people are asking, tell me what to do. I'll do something. And they're not getting any guidance other than call your members.”
— Jessica Yellin [33:16]

---

10. Conclusion and Final Thoughts

In wrapping up, Yellin reflects on the inherent challenges of maintaining calm amidst unsettling news but reiterates the importance of delivering information in a manner that empowers rather than depresses the audience. She acknowledges the weight of the discussed issues and the necessity for continued vigilance and action to preserve democratic integrity.

Notable Quote:
“I ended up exactly the way I felt and I always feel now. But that's because we were discussing what's actually happening, and it's hard to hear what's actually happening and be calm.”
— Jessica Yellin [37:00]

Al Franken thanks Yellin for her insightful contributions, highlighting the blend of humor and gravity that characterizes their discussion.

---

Overall Insights:

• Media Responsibility: The episode underscores the critical role of media in shaping public perception and the importance of responsible journalism.
• Political Accountability: It highlights the dangers of political leaders bypassing secure communication protocols and undermining democratic institutions.
• Public Empowerment: Emphasizes the necessity for informed and engaged citizens to uphold democratic values and counteract authoritarian tendencies.

Final Note:
Listeners are encouraged to seek out News Not Noise for a balanced and trustworthy news experience, as advocated by Jessica Yellin.

Transcript

[Al Franken]

Foreign. We got a great one today, you know, for a change. Jessica Yellen is my guest. You may remember Jessica from her 17 years as a correspondent on CNN and ABC. She was the senior White House correspondent for CNN, but left because she realized that her job was making people irritated, tense and anxious. So she went home to LA and started the News Not Noise platform on Substack and Instagram. Of course it is a little difficult these days to digest the news without getting a little tense and irritated. But at least with the News Not Noise, you get news you can trust about consequential events of the day in a way that doesn't try to make you alarmed or indignant. That's not to say that today's conversation isn't about this entirely fucked up administration. We discussed Signalgate. What do you think is hegseth history? How about Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor who signed Jeff Goldberg onto the Signal app? Ah, but there was no war planning discussed on the non secure platform as our planes readied themselves to fly over Yemen and blow some hooties to kingdom come. I think the whole lot of them should go, though. I'd take Stephen Miller alone, but these mooks, not one of them said, hmm, Signal. Shouldn't we nimrods use something a little more foolproof? I mean, is it secure enough to discuss the timing of bombing runs? Yeah, Marco, I think it is. I mean, if our pilots were on Signal with us, wouldn't they say, hey, Director of National Intelligence Gabbard, maybe you shouldn't be risking my friggin life so you don't have to inconvenience yourself to find a fight. Fucking skiff. Fuck you. How many geniuses does it take for one, just one of 19 national security Einsteins to say to himself or herself, maybe I should take my thumb out of my ass and say something. Well, the bombing runs were successful, but no thanks to the 19 Stooges. Well, we got a great one today. Oh wait, wait, the Residence is still up on Netflix. It's a hilarious whodunit with a great ensemble cast and I'm lucky enough to be part of it, so go check it out. Anyway, as I was saying, we have a great show today, you know, for a change. Jessica Yellen joins us.

[Jessica Yellen]

Thanks for joining me. I'm thrilled.

Thanks so much for having me. This is a treat.

Well, you know, I watched you when you were in TV. TV news. That was 17 years.

I was in that for 17 years and it feels like it was 100 years ago.

I understand that and I See here that you've won a Peabody. You've won an Emmy, but a Peabody, that's pretty amazing. What was that for?

That was cool. It was part of being the team on election night. I think it was. Was it the year Obama was reelected? And I was the chief correspondent covering President Obama at the time.

Right, right.

And we had a lot of team coverage. Breaking news.

Your chief White House correspondent.

That was the title I got all the way up to the top.

Yeah.

You know, it's what you want to do when you're in that field.

You want to leave on the top. So why did you leave?

You know, I had the experience that I was very idealistic about covering politics. The first day I was in the front row asking questions in the White House briefing. It felt like it was a civic duty to do it. Right.

It is.

It is. That is true. It's also a job. Right. And for me, after a while, I felt like there was. I was being called to do something different. Long story short is I was a political reporter, too. And so I spent a lot of time interviewing undecided voters. You might recall, in those days were referred to often as soccer moms or NASCAR moms. Overwhelmingly suburban.

Oh, well, nascar, not suburban. Well, exurban.

Exurban and suburban women. Right. And I'd show up to interview them, and they'd scream at me, and they'd say, I can't stand everybody in the news. All you do is panic me, yell about everything that's going wrong, and then go to commercial break. You give me no information. You make me scared about the world, and then don't tell me what to do about it. Someone once said to me, I'd rather watch the crime channel. At least there's a resolution at the end of every episode. And I started to realize that there's an audience that isn't being addressed by the way we do the news. They want news. But the way we were talking to them and the way we were approaching actually exaggerated their anxiety and left them feeling helpless, and it caused them to disengage. And again, I thought, this is part of the reason they're undecided voters. Like, if I could explain more, keep them calmer, maybe they'd be more engaged sooner and be more participants in our politics.

Hence, news not noise. Can you read the news not noise promise? Do you know it or can you. Do you have it or you want me to read it?

Here's the news not noise promise.

Okay?

We will help you separate the news you need from the outrage you can ignore. We'll explain the information that matters clearly and in context. We will define insider jargon and bring you insight from experts, not pundits. We will never demand your emotional energy to stir empty indignation. We aspire to be your most trusted source of information about consequential issues of the day. We will deliver this information in a way that leaves you feeling calm, confident, and empowered to act.

You know, when I hear the news, I feel panicked, hopeless, and depressed.

That's also a fair response, given the substance of the news. I mean, may I say, in my defense, when we started this, it was like 2018, and the level of hysteria and drama was somewhat less in the actual news. I mean, it's hard to keep people calm when the substance is what the substance of the news is.

Yeah, we'll talk about some of that substance today. But it just seems like the mainstream media is often about getting clicks, right?

I mean, it's so much about getting clicks. And part of what's behind that, everybody understands it's about ratings and profits and. And in their defense, you know, the audiences being fractured and polarized and all those things. For me, it wasn't only the clicks and the sensationalism. It was the commitment to conflict and negativity. And I think you get this because you're. You came from comedy and Hollywood, in a way, and I'm from la, so I was surrounded by Hollywood people my whole life, and I got into news, and people would say the only way to drive audience is. Is by panicking them with negativity and outrage and conflict.

They literally would just say that to you?

No, they'd say, amp up the drama. Like, okay, give us more stakes. Make us feel, you know, urgency, outrage.

I got you. I got you.

Fear. And Hollywood's built on empathy. You know, there's fear, but there's. You get audiences with empathy, too. So how do you work in that muscle and that valence, that tone in coverage? And part of it's just about taking the time to show the people behind the story or the people impacted by the story and just bringing a different set of eyes to how you tell the news.

One thing I don't know about much is social media. You know, I get the New York Times and watch.

In paper or on your phone?

On my phone and on my laptop.

You don't still get the paper?

No, I don't still get the paper.

Okay.

And I'm subscribed to it. Okay. And I subscribe to the Washington Post and I watch CNN and Msnbc But I don't go. I don't. You know, I watch sports and stuff like that and. But I don't get social media. What is social media? How is news.

What is this TikTok thing they speak of?

That's right. And I've seen you on. What is it? On Instagram, right?

Yes. So I started going back. I was in cnn. I did all the legacy media things. I thought we had to find a way to reach the audience differently because so many people who do care weren't engaged. And how do we reach them? When I started, it was 2018. And at that point, when I started on Instagram, at that point, Facebook was already in the Cambridge Analytica drama. It was already sort of tarred by all the scandals around some of that. And it was a place where, you know, there was a lot of fighting, political fighting. But Instagram was just this place where people shared pictures of their meal and vacation videos and, you know, maybe people would show off what they're shopping for. It was a sort of highly commercial but very gentle and nicer place. And it also skewed female. And like I said, I was trying to reach some of those undecided swing women voters.

The first time I saw someone in a restaurant take picture of their food, I didn't know what they were doing.

I still don't know what they're doing. I don't get it. Do you?

Sharing a great meal. They have a. I hope it's a great meal and they're sharing what they ate.

There is social science research I've read that says you literally take less enjoyment of the thing when you're photographing it first because it takes you out of the present experience.

Oh, that makes a lot of sense, actually. Well, I don't do it, so.

Right. Do you even have social media on your phone?

I don't.

Wow. You're probably a much happier, healthier person for it.

Well, I don't know, but I should know more about it.

I'll speed up my story. So basically, I decided I should try this thing on Instagram, which is this nicer environment. It was before they actually supported real videos. So I had to figure out how to make videos. But I. I back then decided to explain something that was happening in Washington in a video in less than three minutes, and people were not doing that then. It was not a thing. People were like, what is this? What. What is this woman doing? And I built a following, just breaking it down, explaining what you're seeing today and talking like a regular person. I Always tell my people that work with me. Don't use words like amid. You're never having a conversation with someone and you say amid. My podcast taping with Al Franken, the dog started to bark like, who says amid? So don't write it in a news story.

I actually have a dog here that I'm dog sitting for. My son whose family's on vacation is a cute dog.

What kind of dog?

He's a very handsome dog. He's old. He's like 12, but he's. He's in great shape.

We don't judge labs, you know. Oh, labs are the best.

Yeah, he's a yellow lab.

They're the best. They're just natural lovers. I love them. I love dogs. It's the one thing that makes people happy these days. When I have to report a lot of bad news, I just then throw up some dog videos afterwards and it really helps.

Well, let's talk about some. I don't know if it's bad news. The Jeffrey Goldberg piece about Signal just flabbergasted fiasco. There we go. They still are sort of trying. Well, there were no war plans. War plan is a term of art, evidently, that I learned. That's a term of art for a whole war plan that takes hundreds of pages to lay out. So they, we didn't reveal our. Our war plan, but they did talk about the timing of a bombing mission over. Over Yemen.

I've interviewed a number of people in the national security space who describe it to me this way. This. This is the baseline information that is always classified. This is by default, the stuff that classification is created for. We are about to launch a military action. Here are the specifics. We keep that top secret and classified so nobody gets it and nobody gets hurt. They're like, this is so obvious. Somebody also explained this to me as the most unnecessary scandal in history. Unnecessary because all the people in that chat, all the principals, are constantly surrounded 247 by functionaries who are basically carrying around secure communication devices on which they could have had this chat at any moment in a secure way.

Who, who is in Moscow?

It was Steve Witkoff, the President's emissary to peace deals in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Okay.

And reportedly with Putin at the time.

And he went on, he didn't have Putin in the room.

Well, I mean, they said. I mean, the timing seems quite suspect. I will tell folks, when I was at. I was at ABC and at CNN whenever we would go, because I covered the President in those roles as the White House correspondent, both Places when we go to China or Russia with the President. Me as like a junior reporter at the time, lowly little reporter in the White House press corps. I would have to turn in my devices or leave my devices at home. And the network would give me temporary burner devices that are used only for trips to Russia and China, because we know that our devices would be penetrated and surveilled and then they'd embed themselves in them and so we'd bring them home, turn them in, and they'd use it to clean them up. That's for somebody who's just like a network associate, you know, junior reporter. Imagine if you're the President's top negotiator and you're meeting with Putin. They're all over those devices.

So he's on the call. And on the call they're talking about when the bombing mission is starting, when our pilots are in the air, and what the timing of the attack is going to be.

I think they also named the type of jet that would be flying.

So, yeah, I guess that makes it easier to hit.

Yeah. And the ordinance so that they could plant. So in theory. And it was a chat, right? A text chat. And the way I think the Atlantic said, the first information from Secretary Hegseth announcing that we're about to make this bombing run, here is the jet that's going, here's the ordinance, here's where we're hitting. He said location in a very non specific way. He said the guy's girlfriend's house.

That actually is pretty specific. You know, the guy like, okay, we're gonna, we're gonna tell you exactly where this is.

The defenders of Trump are saying, well, they didn't give an address.

Well, I mean, they're on this signal app, which is not secure. The only other person on it probably was Jeffrey Goldberg. And I thought he handled it perfectly.

I mean, to me, yeah, so to me that was really one of the big takeaways is at a time the press is under such attack, Goldberg handled himself with such integrity. It's sort of a point of pride. And I feel so impressed and proud with the media for this and what they've, you know, shown on all the media's behalf.

We have an audio of Hegseth when he's first asked about this.

[Pete Hegseth]

You're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again to include the, I don't know, the hoaxes of Russia, Russia, Russia or the Fine. People on both sides hoax. Or suckers and losers hoax. So this is the guy that pedals in garbage. This is what he does.

[Jessica Yellen]

You know, when I say I don't get social media, I do. I do subscribe to the Atlantic.

Well, that's not social media. It's the opposite. It's in depth, informed, takes time. Yes.

Yeah. And so this is one of the great magazines. It's still a magazine, even though it does come out as a magazine, actually. Yeah, it's hilarious. And then do we have a second one of him?

Peter, why were those details shared on Signal? And how did you learn that a journalist was privy to the targets, the types of weapons used? I've heard.

[Pete Hegseth]

I've heard. I was characterized, not. Nobody was texting war plans. And that's all I have to say about that.

[Jessica Yellen]

Okay, again, war plans are considered. What are huge plans for a war.

Nobody sent an entire book of strategy, but one understands what the Atlantic is talking about. Two things to note. One, according to the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg received this detailed information 31 minutes before the first jet took off and two hours before the attack happened. So had this gotten to the wrong hands, somebody could have targeted those fighter jets and lives could have been lost. That's why this is so serious. Signal, while it's encrypted, end to end, can be fully penetrated. In fact, one of my best national security sources reached out to me today and said, I hope you're not using Signal anymore. I hope you know it's not good. Don't use it. It's penetrated. NPR reports that the Pentagon informed its own employees to stop using Signal. So we're dealing with a very serious double standard where, you know, what's not okay for regular federal employees is fine for the people who are the principals. And then to what Hegseth just said, I mean, you know, any like that is just standard crisis PR strategy. Attack the messenger. The problem is, as you alluded to, the Atlantic is one of the most serious journalism outlets in. In America. They've won multiple Pulitzer Prizes. Jeffrey Goldberg is one of the most acclaimed journalists in Washington, and he couldn't have handled himself with more discipline and honor by not revealing details early, by not running with the story, by voluntarily removing himself from this chat at the time he realized it was real. I mean, like, as a reporter, I gotta say, I would find it very hard to log out of that chat. I want to see what's coming next.

Well, he produced a transcript of it, right?

He did.

He only included some sensitive information after they lied about him.

Also, notably, he didn't reveal any of the information about, you know, what we just discussed, which bombers, which. Where they were attacking, when, which ordinance, like the stuff that might be classified. He did not publish that to begin with. There were two Atlantic pieces. In the first piece, he merely said, I was included in this chat, shared some of the discussion prior to the bombing, which was quite revealing of how the White House works, by the way, the advanced stuff.

Well, when they're talking about helping our NATO allies by, you know, the Hooties attack, shipping in the Red Sea, and our NATO allies use the Red Sea as we do, to, you know, for. For shipping. Right.

Yeah. And Vance is like, said. He said, I'm not sure the President understands how this bombing raid on the Houthis is helping Europe. And that's in contradiction to his policy in Europe. So there's two interesting things there. One, it alerts Europeans that all this, you know, can I say, shit talking, all this shit talking about Europe isn't just public performance by this administration. It's what they really believe and are saying behind closed doors. So that alerts our allies to move full steam ahead in developing their own defense capabilities apart from us. And secondly, very interesting that J.D. vance used the language I'm not sure the President understands. A, it reflects an attitude toward this president that he holds, and B, that he feels very comfortable saying that in front of this group of the President's most senior staff.

Wow. I had. I hadn't put that all together, but that's pretty devastating.

And then Stephen Miller's the one who claps back at him and is like, I heard the President give this order. We're a go. And so it kind of suggests that. Is Stephen Miller more powerful and influential than the Vice President inside? A lot of people believe he is. This seems to confirm that.

So the hoodies weren't in on the call. They. They weren't.

I mean, not as far as we know.

They. They would have been forewarned. And. But that. And the point of this isn't that nothing happened. Of course, the only. The one outside person was Jeffrey Goldberg. That's a mistake.

Someone reported that there was a junior person added as well who was not yet in his job. Like somebody who had been appointed to join someone's staff and had been added prior to actually getting security clearance. But that seems standard for these guys. The thing that I think is really noteworthy about all this is it's the fir. I mean, there's a lot that's noteworthy, but it's worth Also acknowledging this is the first scandal of Trump's second term, in which Republican senators or Republican members of Congress are, in some cases, breaking with the White House.

Roger Wicker is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, right?

Yep.

And he's gonna hold hearings on this.

They've made a bipartisan call now for the inspector general of the Pentagon to launch an independent investigation into what happened here.

And there are a lot of people calling for Hegseth's resignation. That's not going to happen, I don't think. Or do you think it could build to that?

I don't know. I think if anybody goes, it's Mike Waltz or Pete Hegseth. And so far, the President's getting Mike Waltz's back in a big way.

Waltz is the one that shared this with Goldberg or put him on.

He created the group. And I mean, his problem is, you know, he keeps saying, I, you know, the President's obviously concerned, like, how do you know this reporter? How is this guy's contact inside your phone? The President doesn't like leaks, and he really dislikes Jeffrey Goldberg in particular for a story he reported in the past in which he had a source telling him that the President called fallen soldiers suckers and losers. That's why they call it the, quote, suckers and losers hoax. And so hoax means confirmed, quote, well.

Enough just for everyone. Mike Waltz is the. A national security advisor, right?

Yes. And the. The big, you know, if you're playing this, who could go game. Mike Waltz is the national security advisor, as you know, isn't subject to Senate confirmation. So it would be functionally more efficient to fire Mike Waltz and replace him, because that wouldn't have to go through the Senate than to fire Pete Hegseth, because that does require confirmation. But Hegseth is the one who recklessly shared these details, and his strategy in handling this press drama has been terrible. This is very glib, and we all take these issues seriously. But I will just tell you, my audience has taken to calling him a DUI hire.

Okay? That's driving under the influence.

So, you know, he has this reputation and history of being, you know, philanderer and drinker. A drinker. And he's been very hot headed and, you know, like, not at all cool, calm and collected.

Well, thus his response and his response as we play.

Yeah, so we'll see. You know, and. And it's noteworthy that they've called for an investigation at the Pentagon, right? It's the Pentagon. They want to do this investigation. And it's a. It's bipartisan group of senators. And for the first time, multiple Republican members of Congress are on camera saying that this is serious, this is a problem and we can't just drop this.

[Al Franken]

We're gonna take a quick break.

[Jessica Yellen]

We'll be right back with Jessica Young. Let's move on because we talked a little yesterday and you wanted to talk about this Enemy aliens Act of 1798. That. What is this? This is an act that was in 1798 when were we at war with anybody?

Yeah, this was formed when we were in conflict with France, but it's only been used three times during wartime and the last time was in World War II. It was invoked to inter Japanese Americans in internment camps here.

So it's got a great reputation.

Right. And this is all related to the forced removal of Venezuelan migrants in the.

US who are part of the supposedly all of them part of Trende Aragua, which is a vicious gang.

This is the claim of the Trump administration, which has been fiercely contested by lawyers for some of these men. So basically, ICE grabbed and detained 200 men, about some 150 of them, using the Enemy Aliens Act, Trump. And I'll explain what that is in a moment. Put them on planes and shipped them to a prison in El Salvador that is known worldwide for its overcrowding. Not just human rights abuses, but actual torture that some are told, you will never leave here alive. If you do, you will not be able to walk. It's a chilling reality. These people did not have a court hearing. They did not face charges.

[Al Franken]

And the judge told the Trump administration to tell the pilots to turn those planes around if they had already left.

[Jessica Yellen]

So at the time that they were being put on these planes. And you can imagine the split screen, right, put on these planes getting ready to take off across the country. The Trump administration is in court in federal court in D.C. facing a lawsuit saying, don't let these planes leave. And a judge is sitting there and the judge says, if there are any planes, don't let them leave. And if they're in the air, you need to turn them around and bring them home.

Right.

And the Trump administration disregards that and takes flies these men to El Salvador in apparent defiance of the court. This is contended. And they're now in El Salvador in this prison. I just want to say one man, according to his lawyer, was a gay makeup artist. No record of any criminal activity.

I saw, I saw one of the photographers say that he saw this guy crying.

There's also a barber who's 26 years old who has no criminal record. There are at least five people that we know of who have zero criminal activity. They were literally selected because they had tattoos. Certain tattoos.

Right.

And the gang members are known for tattoos. And some of these guys had tattoos. And so ICE decides that makes them fair game for deportation. One person I learned of today who had a tattoo was in honor of his brother's autism, and it was an autism awareness tattoo. And these are people who are sitting in a torture chamber right now with no due process. So I'll go back and explain. Enemy Aliens act, we said it was from the 1790s. It says that if the US is in an active state of war, the president has the right to supersede certain laws and detain people who might be a threat to the country. The Trump administration contends that we are in the US Is in an active war with the gang, this Venezuelan gang you mentioned. And so anyone affiliated with the gang can be, you know, we can do what we want with them.

And the circuit court heard the appeal on this, and the circuit court decided for the lawyers for the men that deported.

Yeah. The circuit court said the Enemy Aliens act must remain not in use, and no more deportation flights may take place. While the lower court is deciding the rules here, what is allowed and what isn't allowed. And notably in the circuit court argument, one of the judges on the panel said even Nazis had more rights when they were deported than these Venezuelan men. Because after World War II, when we found Nazis living in the U.S. we would send them to be tried overseas, but they would get a hearing first, they'd go to court. They'd have a chance to make their case. That's how our system works. And I'll just add, we're not only doing that to these Venezuelan men. There are other people who are, you know, protesters, activists. You may not like their politics, but they're being swept up, detained, not charged, and held. That's so un American. And. And finally, you know, we've all heard that poem. First they came for the Communists. It's just not how we do things in America.

Yeah. Will this be appealed to the Supreme Court or. I mean. And will they get these guys back or get anybody back? That is the tragic thing here. And I think they have to get these guys back. Some of them.

I don't know how we do.

I don't know how you do that, but it's.

I agree. I mean, the US Is in a relationship with El Salvador for this prison, apparently, the Trump administration paid $6 million.

What did the dictator of El Salvador say oops. Did he say oopsie? Oopsie.

Right. So when we talked about how the planes flew these guys there, even though the judge had said, don't let the planes go and turn them around when they touch down there, the leader of El Salvador tweeted, oopsie. And then Marco Rubio retweeted it also. Kristi Noem, the head of dhs, did a, like, tour of the prison this week where she posed for video and photos wearing her elaborate hair extensions, big makeup, fake eyelashes, walking around, and then stood in front of this jail cell that had, like 400 men crowded into it behind her, where she used these human beings as a backdrop for this stay out of America, you immigrants message. It's just. It's just hard to believe this is America.

That would make a good poster for whom? I think for.

I'll get you one.

For our administration, for the way we do justice in this country, May I.

Add one thing, which is you asked if it'll get to the Supreme Court. The larger context here is that the Trump administration argues that federal judges should not even have the right to weigh in on these kinds of moves by the government. And they are trying to attack the judiciary and destroy our system of checks and balances.

I think the Speaker, Speaker Johnson, said that they can get rid of these district courts.

[Speaker Johnson]

We do have authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power, funding over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act. So stay tuned for that.

[Jessica Yellen]

It's breathtaking.

He said it wasn't a threat. It sure sounded like that. You know, I'm curious. May I ask you a question? What should the Democrats be doing? Like, why. Why isn't there more fight from Congress right now?

Well, I think AOC and Bernie have.

[Al Franken]

Been taking it on the road. I think 35,000 people turned out for.

[Jessica Yellen]

Them in Denver, and I think that's something, you know, but we don't have a lot of AOCs and Bernie's. But that's. That's the fight they're fighting, and people are responding.

Yeah. Well, this is the thing I hear more than anything else from regular people. Tell me what to do. I'll do something. What should we do? And they're not getting any guidance other than call your members, you know, I know.

Call your members or show up for rallies, I guess. I don't know. And what we're looking at is an administration that is becoming so autocratic I mean, this. These actions they're taking against law firms. That is really scary, don't you think?

Yeah, it's terrifying.

Why don't we say what this is? This is a number of law firms who had done work against Trump. This is all about retribution. They were prohibited coming into federal courts or something like that.

Yeah.

What were the names of Paul?

Paul Weiss. Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie.

Yeah.

And those were two of the law firms that took a lot of the cases when they were contesting the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Paul Weiss caved and Paul Weiss, basically. Yeah. The Trump administration.

Paul Weiss is Paul, comma, Weiss, comma, a whole bunch of other people. Paul was the last name.

Basically, the Trump administration was saying, because you took cases that we don't like that detect the president, we're going to bar you from entering federal courthouses, which means you're going to be unable to represent clients. In a lot of cases. These law firms were starting to lose clients, and effectively the Trump administration was trying to put them out of business, bankrupt them to silence lawyers and prevent them from taking any cases that would challenge the Trump administration. It goes to this attack on the judiciary and are system of checks and balances. Paul Weiss basically issued an apology and agreed to take a lot of Trump.

$40 million worth of pro bono cases for.

For Trump.

For Trump.

So it's chilling and it's, you know, kind of a piece different category, but with, like, Columbia University caving to Trump's demands so that they'd get federal funding that they needed. We're seeing this in different categories. But one thing I have heard in the legal space is that the fact that Paul Weiss caved has strengthened the backbone of other law firms not to do the same. Because their view is, if we can't prove to our clients that we can defend ourselves, how can we make the case that we're going to be effective defending them? I don't know that that'll be true with everyone, but I know of other law firms that are now preparing and getting ready to fight if they need.

To, and Perkins Coie is ready to fight, but other law firms have caved. This feels to me as much like authoritarianism or autocracy as anything I've heard.

I agree. It's terrifying. The one thing I can say is these things get normalized if we don't take note of them, call them for what they are, and we are not doing that like you are not doing that. I see this everywhere. So, you know, part of this is they're testing to see what they can get away with and how much is accepted and what the courts will allow. And we're in a testing period.

This isn't going to go to court. Right. Perkins Cooey is taking him to court.

Yeah. I don't know how this gets adjudicated. Like, I don't. I don't know. But, yes, I expect to see this followed up on it, and we'll ultimately see what the Supreme Court does.

Well, thank you for step first. This has been.

See, did I keep you calm? We started.

No, no, I. I ended up exactly the way I felt and I always feel now. But that's because we were discussing what's actually happening, and it's hard to hear what's actually happening and be calm. I know, but this is calmer than a lot of the stuff you hear, you know, and the way it's delivered. And thank you so much.

Thank you. I'm so grateful just for your time and for your voice in the world and for making us laugh for so many years. Thanks.

Oh, gee, thanks. Well, I hope you enjoyed listening.

[Al Franken]

That beautiful music is by Leo Kottke.

[Jessica Yellen]

The great Leo Kottke.

[Al Franken]

I want to thank Peter Ogburn for producing this podcast. We'll talk again next week.