← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
Texas v Illinois (feat. Steve Vladeck; David Janovsky)
01:24:22
Thursday, September 4th, 2025 Today, Donald tried to interrupt the Epstein survivors press conference with a military flyover but they persisted and announced they’re compiling a client lists of their own; the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was unlawful; key Republican senators kicked the can in response to Trump’s attempt to fire members of the Federal Reserve; Donald has a falling out with Prime Minister Modi of India over his refusal to nominate him for a Nobel and Trump’s lies about solving the India - Pakistan war; an appeals court rejects Trump’s bid to fire the FTC commissioner; Denver schools defy Trump’s transgender bathroom ban; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.
Loading summary
Transcript263 lines
- [00:00]
A
MSW Media. Hello and welcome to the Daily beans for Thursday, September 4, 2025. Today, Donald tried to interrupt the Epstein survivors press conference with a military flyover, but they persisted and announced that they're compiling a client list of their own. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rules that Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies act was unlawful. Key Republican senators kicked the can down the road in response to Trump's attempt to fire members of the Federal Reserve Board. Donald has a falling out with Prime Minister Modi of India over his refusal to nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump's lies about solving the India Pakistan war. An appeals court rejects Trump's bid to fire the FTC commissioner. And Denver schools defy Trump's transgender bathroom ban. I'm Allison Gill.
- [01:08]
B
And I'm Dana Goldberg.
- [01:13]
A
Hey, Dana. Happy Thursday, my friend.
- [01:15]
B
Happy Thursday to you. And people are continuing to fight back, and that makes me very happy.
- [01:22]
A
Yes, me too. Not only are we gonna talk about Denver schools, but we're gonna talk a little bit about the women at the Epstein survivor press conference today.
- [01:34]
B
And, my friend, I'm thinking about you. I was thinking about you all day. You know, you do this for work. You follow the news and follow the stories, and I have no doubt you listened to the press conference in totality, and it had to have affected you. I just wanna tell you that I love you and I'm proud of everything that you've done with your pain in this world, that you have turned it into such change and motivation and inspiration for others. So I think you're pretty incredible. But I just wanted to sort of wrap my arms around you if you're hurting today.
- [02:07]
A
Thank you. And I am a little.
- [02:09]
C
I feel a little tired.
- [02:11]
A
It's probably because of that. Yeah. But I remember listening to. There was a specific survivor who was speaking out, and I just wanted to, like, reach out and hug her because she felt like she was trying to convince herself that what happened to her wasn't her fault, you know?
- [02:27]
B
Yeah.
- [02:28]
A
Trying to explain, like, hey, I was just a kid. And I think she was talking about Epstein, you know, having. Paying her $200 for a massage and then calling her every day, day in and day out, and telling her that if she brought friends in that they would get $200. And she started to get choked up. And I. And I feel like she still feels responsible for something that is completely not her fault. And it was just amazing to watch these brave and persistent survivors in their press conference today, and they're pushing for the passage of Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Massie's discharge petition to release the Epstein files. Trump is doing everything he can to.
- [03:09]
B
Stop that, like an innocent person would.
- [03:11]
A
Totally normal. He's calling everyone in Congress and threatening them, saying that if they sign the discharge petition, it would be an act of hostility toward him. If he's innocent, how is signing a discharge petition to release defiles an act of hostility?
- [03:26]
B
Yeah.
- [03:26]
A
And once a press conference was announced, he scheduled a military flyover to happen right in the middle of their press conference. And we can hear that moment in this clip. Let's take a listen.
- [03:37]
D
I was horrified when I found out not only had Ghislaine Maxwell been transferred to what's called a, you know, a low security, it's. It really is like a. Like a holiday camp. And. And then afterwards, I got a notification from the Department of Justice telling me that this was going to happen when it had already happened. This woman abused children. I was abused by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell for over 10 years. Ghislaine Maxwell was present for some of my abuse at the hand of Jeffrey Epstein. She was present. She was complicit. She was enabling. And it is appalling and disgusting, and it's one of my worst nightmares that she not only be transferred, but at the possibility that's very much going around that she might be pardoned. This is not okay, guys. This is not okay.
- [04:44]
B
And I just want to add that I think it sends a very dangerous message to our country, to the young people in our country, that someone that we all know is aware of these crimes could be given a pass.
- [04:53]
E
And just for the last one, the.
- [04:54]
C
Last survivor, we've got people, the last.
- [04:58]
A
Survivor who just spoke.
- [04:59]
C
She said that Epstein would brag about her relationship with Donald Trump.
- [05:03]
A
Could you please elaborate about that? Shunted the microphones.
- [05:09]
D
Yeah, I did say that.
- [05:23]
B
My first trip to the Palm beach.
- [05:25]
A
Residence, I drove there from the airport with Ghislaine Maxwell.
- [05:30]
B
And.
- [05:33]
A
Jeffrey and Ghislaine were always very.
- [05:34]
D
Boastful about their friends.
- [05:37]
B
I mean, what a douche. I mean, it's just gross. I can't believe anyone still supports this guy. But the women that were there, they weren't intimidated. And, I mean, I don't mean to say. Why would they be. They've been through hell. They shared their stories. They talked about why they were so afraid to name the names. And people are like, why didn't they just say the names? Are you kidding me? These are some of the most rich and powerful men in the world. Who raped them? You think they're going to name that a press conference? They said that they risked being sued into poverty, but one of them said that they were working on their own client list to give to Congress so that they could release it. They said it's for the victims, by the victims, it'll be confidential, and we will give it to Congress.
- [06:16]
A
Yeah. And for the Trump administration to say this was a hoax. And again, something else I noticed is the reporters were like, oh, well, there were some combative and adversarial reporters there, screaming questions at them. Just reminding women on national television and people in general, I shouldn't just reserve this for women. Although it does happen to women on a much larger scale. To not report, to not talk about it, to not tell their story.
- [06:42]
B
Absolutely.
- [06:43]
A
You know, to try to cover it all up and make them feel small.
- [06:47]
B
Yeah, we do have. It was kind of powerful. We have this clip of her actually saying that they are compiling the list. So here, listen.
- [06:55]
A
And also I would like to announce here today, us Epstein survivors have been discussing creating our own list. We know the names. Many of us were abused by them. Now, together as survivors, we will confidentially compile the names we all know.
- [07:16]
B
Who.
- [07:17]
A
Are regularly in the Epstein world, and it will be done by survivors and for survivors, no one else is involved. Stay tuned for more details. Just so brave. So right. All my love and hats off to all of them for. For being able to do that. Not everyone can do that, you know.
- [07:38]
B
Yeah, absolutely.
- [07:40]
A
All right, some other news. The ultra conservative, ultra conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump's use of the Alien Enemies act to disappear migrants to El Salvador last March when he sent everyone to Seacoast Prison, it's actually unlawful. They clarified that that's a wartime statute and this is not an invasion or an incursion. And it makes me wonder if he's attacking Venezuela to provoke a war so he can use the Alien Enemies act as a wartime statute.
- [08:07]
B
I would not put anything past him to disappear people.
- [08:11]
A
Right. So that was a great ruling. I'm going to talk more about that later in the show with Steve Vladek. So I'm really happy that I'm going to be talking to him later. And I'm also going to be talking to the acting director of the Constitution Project, David Janofsky. And that's a really, really important conversation. And both of these interviews, we're going to discuss the differences and the nuances, legally speaking and authoritarian speaking about the differences between deploying the national guard to D.C. california and potentially Illinois. So we'll have that a little bit later in the show. And I also wanted to clarify and I'll do this a little bit later in the show, too. Yesterday we covered the Washington Post story about Mayor Muriel Bowser and her order for indefinite federal law enforcement in D.C. as it turns out, it was wildly misrepresented in the Washington Post, so much so that the Washington Post changed their headline from Bowser Welcomes Troops Indefinitely to Bowser to provide indefinite coordination with federal law enforcement. So as it turns out, she wasn't caving. She was establishing coordination to prevent future unilateral federal. So it felt like a weird story and it felt like there was something wrong with it. And Chris Geidner at Law Dork put together something explaining that. And I'm going to talk to, to a guest about that, David, later in the show. All right. So beyond that, we have a few stories that we have to cover. So let's hit the hot notes.
- [09:37]
C
Hot notes.
- [09:40]
A
All right, first up from democracy docket. In a major setback to Trump's attempt to purge independent agencies, the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals refused to block a lower court order reinstating Democratic Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter to the federal trade. The panel denied the government's request to suspend Slaughter's return to office. While the case continues, quote, the government has no likelihood of success on appeal given controlling and directly on point Supreme Court precedent. That's what the court said. They went on to say to grant a stay would be to defy the Supreme Court's decision that binds our judgments and that we will not do. And of course, the case they're citing is Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which established that presidents cannot fire members of multi member boards at will. They have to do it for cause. So the court said the case of Humphrey's executor still applies today. There are the conservatives on the Supreme Court that want to overturn it. But right now it's still in place.
- [10:34]
B
Okay, thanks so much, Ag. All right, this next story is from Politico. Key GOP senators largely shied away from criticizing Trump's move to fire Fed Gov. Lisa Cook as they return from their month long August recess on Tuesday, even as they stress the importance of of an independent central bank.
- [10:53]
A
I know these fucking guys. These fucking guys.
- [10:56]
B
I know Kennedy's the fucking worst. He said I believe in Fed independence. This is from Senator John Kennedy, as we know the Republican in Louisiana, he's a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee. Pressed by reporters about Cook's ouster. He said, it's in the courts. I don't know who's right, who's wrong.
- [11:12]
A
Oh, my God. You make the fucking laws.
- [11:15]
B
Yep. So the courts will make that determination as to whether or not he has that authority. This is from Senator Mike Rounds, a Republican in South Dakota. And Mike Brown said, but I think the independence of the Federal Reserve is absolutely critical. It's critical to the President's long term economic success because he needs that board to be seen as independent if we want to keep our US Treasuries in demand around the world. The Cook showdown. It comes as the Senate is gearing up to quickly advance Trump's nominee for a separate Fed board seat. That's Stephen Moran. He's set to appear before the banking panel today. Democrats are calling for the Moran nomination hearing to be postponed amid the dispute over Cook's ousting.
- [11:56]
A
Just reminds me of how he. Remember when Hallie was like, absolutely no cuts to Medicaid. No, I am not going to. Okay.
- [12:03]
B
Yeah.
- [12:04]
A
It's. It's critical that the Fed Reserve Board be independent. Am I going to do anything about it? No. Fucking okay. Sorry. Lots of swear words today. Next up from the Times, Prime Minister Modi of India was losing patience with President Trump. Welcome to the club, Prime Minister. Mr. Trump had been saying repeatedly, publicly, exuberantly, that he had solved the military conflict between India and Pakistan. No big no. No, I totally solved it. That peace in the Middle East, India, Pakistan, totally fine. I've totally solved it. So during a phone call on June 17, Trump brought it up again, saying how proud he was that he ended the military escalation. And he mentioned that Pakistan was going to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
- [12:54]
C
No.
- [12:57]
A
Dude, I love you.
- [12:58]
B
Narrator. Trump will not be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
- [13:02]
A
So Modi told Trump that the US Involvement had absolutely nothing to do with the ceasefire. It had been settled directly between India and Pakistan. We did it. Thank you. And Trump largely brushed off Modi's comments. But the disagreement and Modi's refusal to engage on the Nobel has played an outsized role in the souring relationship between the two leaders. Is it a souring relationship between the two or is it Trump just being a crybaby bitch?
- [13:29]
B
I would go with that one. The latter.
- [13:31]
A
Yeah. So he's fighting with a world leader because he won't nominate him for the Nobel or won't mention that Pakistan should also. I'd love if just one corporate media reporter would ask Trump to name the six wars he claims to have ended can you.
- [13:44]
B
I know just one.
- [13:45]
A
He's six. I ended six wars. I'm the peacetime president. I get I should have the Nobel Prize, but I'm going to change the Department of Defense to the War Department, and we're going to have Rocket City down in Hudsville. What the fuck? And just why doesn't anyone say, what six wars have you ended?
- [14:01]
B
I don't know why no one has asked that. It's bizarre.
- [14:05]
A
I guess it's just because it's a bunch of Tim Pool fuckfaces that are in the press room. Oh, yeah.
- [14:09]
B
Because no one else is allowed in there now.
- [14:11]
A
Yeah.
- [14:12]
B
Now I got some good news for everyone. We're gonna cleanse your palate with news from Erin Reed at Erin in the Morning, who we love.
- [14:18]
A
Love her.
- [14:19]
B
Yep. In recent months, the Trump administration has sought to strong arm schools and universities into enacting policies that discriminate against transgender students. While some prestigious institutions, like Brown, Columbia, Penn, they've capitulated to federal threats to order to preserve their funding, others have pushed back. Denver Public Schools is the latest to reject the administration's demands, with the superintendent declaring that the district, and I quote, will protect all their students from this hostile administration refusing to institute a transgender bathroom ban.
- [14:50]
A
And I gotta say, Dana, for Denver Public Schools versus Brown, Columbia, and Penn, that have millions of dollars and alumni, you know, they're. Whatever that university bank they have is called for Denver Public Schools, whose only funding comes from the federal government, like, for them to stand up. I love that Aaron covered this.
- [15:12]
B
Me too. There's a statement that was posted to Instagram. It's Dr. Alex Marrero. Alex, is the DPS superintendent speaking out. Says, I usually don't make videos like these, but it's absolutely necessary to send a very clear message to our entire community and in particular, our LGBTQ community. As you might have seen in the news, the federal government has decided to take a firm stance and have us roll back support to the LGBTQ community. And of course, we're not having it. We will continue to stand in solidarity as you engage this weekend and beyond. I just want to let you know that we got you and everything is going to be okay. That's a big statement. It's an official statement that was sent to DPS students in a separate written statement, accompanying video. By the way, the video that the words I just read. Dr. Marrero states forcefully that the district will not comply despite the funding threats. He said, we will fight in the courts, if we must, in the public square when Necessary. Always in partnership with those who believe that every student deserves to show up to the school ready to learn, free from fear. When students walk into our schools today, they will find what they should always open doors, open hearts, and classrooms focused on their success. We will not waver. We will not back down. Because equity is not optional. It's who we are. Fuck, yes.
- [16:31]
A
Such a good statement. I love this, Dr. Marrero.
- [16:33]
B
I know. By the way, you can read more about this entire story and others like this by subscribing for free to Aaron in the Morning on Substack. It's a fantastic substack. Go now. Yeah, right now.
- [16:44]
A
You can swing it. Become a paid subscriber, support her work. Absolutely. Fantastic. Great. Thank you for that. I really needed that boost today.
- [16:51]
B
I know. Aaron's the one that gave us that list of transgender Girl Scouts who were selling Girl Scout cookies during that. That time. That's Erin. So maybe responsible for a couple pounds on the hips, but doing the Lord's work. I'll tell you that right now. I have a friend of mine who listens to the podcast. Allison, I don't think I told you this. Bought 50 boxes of thin Mints and brought them on the Olivia cruise that I work on because she's one of the guests and just gave them to people, but they had to read Olivia because it's Olivia Cruz's. So she bought them from Olivia, the little transgender Girl Scout. But you ha. She made them read Olivia's bio and exactly what they were supporting before they got to take a box with them.
- [17:32]
A
It was beautiful.
- [17:33]
B
I know who you are, Dee. I love you. And you're incredible.
- [17:36]
A
That is some excellent, excellent, Good Trouble. I'm not sure why they call them finments. That's a misnomer.
- [17:42]
B
50 boxes.
- [17:43]
A
That's incredible. And that's just. That's the kind of Good Trouble I love. And you gotta read. You gotta read her bio before end. Olivia, just. The whole thing is fantastic. Dee, you're a hero. And speaking of good trouble, I got a little for you.
- [17:58]
B
What are you guys doing?
- [18:01]
A
All right. You're good trouble today. This just comes from, like, my heart, and it would really make my heart sing if everyone called their House representatives and told them to sign the discharge petition to release the Epstein files. Dana, only four Republicans in the House have signed it.
- [18:17]
F
I'm just gross.
- [18:19]
B
I mean, listen, I am shocked, and I hate to give them any credit for being at all human, because I hope it's just not some theatrics fucking Marjorie Taylor Greene. And Lauren Boebert came out were like, this has to be released. Two votes. Need two votes. Two votes. Two more Republican votes.
- [18:36]
A
Yeah, that's what we need. And every single Democrat. So give them a call, make sure they sign that discharge position. They're trying to do some other bullshit, like some non binding resolution they want to pass. Mm. And the word non binding kind of gives it away.
- [18:52]
B
Yeah.
- [18:54]
A
We really want you to release the files, but you don't have to. It's like Senate Republicans who are like, absolutely, you shouldn't be able to touch the Federal Reserve Board. But I'm not gonna help you. Like, just spineless. Up and down.
- [19:10]
B
Yeah.
- [19:12]
A
What a bunch of. Who are they breeding? Who fucks these people? Ugh.
- [19:17]
B
I don't even think about that. How dare you?
- [19:19]
A
I'm sorry. All right, everybody, that was your good trouble. We'll be right back. We've got a couple of great interviews. First up, Steve Vladek and then David Janofsky. And you're really going to want to listen to these interviews. So after that, we'll go through the good news. You can send your good news to us dailybeanspod.com and click on contact. So stick around. We'll be right back after these messages. Hey, everybody. Fall is often overlooked as planting season, but it's actually one of the best times to add new life to your yard. Cooler temperatures give plants a chance to put down roots before spring. That's why I use fastgrowingtrees.com no matter where you live, whether in a warm climate or a tropical region, you're already feeling some crisp air. The plant experts can help you select the right plants for your space. They carry everything. Fruit trees, flowering shrubs, privacy shrubs and trees, even indoor plants. And I love mine. The process is so simple. Instead of waste of time at, like a crowded nursery and coming home with, like just dirt all over my car, I can order these online and they're sent right to my door in just a couple of days. And they're alive. And thrive guarantee means the plants arrive happy, healthy, and ready to grow. When I ordered all the fruit trees for our guacamole garden, it was fantastic. They're amazing. They arrived in perfect condition. They are thriving as they guarantee that they would they. And the lemons and limes are already happening. Avocados take a little bit longer, but they're growing. And because they're grown here in the US they're already acclimated and they thrived immediately. So I saved hundreds compared to paying a landscaper. And the included care instructions gave me all the confidence I needed. With more than 6,000 plants available, fast Growing Trees has something for every yard and every homeowner. It's the easiest way I've found to transform my outdoor space without ever leaving home. So this fall they have the best deals for you and your yard up to half off select plants and other deals and listeners to this podcast get 15% off your first purchase purchase when you use the code DAILYBEANS at checkout. That's 15% off@fastgrowingtrees.com using the code DAILYBEANS at Checkout. Like I said, now is the perfect time to plant. Use Daily Beans to save today. Offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. Check out the link below or the link in the show Notes to support hey everybody.
- [21:29]
C
Welcome to the Breakdown and one first. My name is Allison Gill. I'm really happy today to be joined by Steve Vladek. And while we kind of give everybody a chance to hop on, I know everyone's probably hopping off of the Jeffrey Epstein Survivors press conference and hopping on to join us to talk about the looming invasion of Illinois. I just wanted to kind of give a brief overview. During a press conference yesterday, Illinois Governor J.B. pritzker said he had information that Greg Abbott is going to be sending the Texas National Guard to Chicago to Illinois. There's a military base, if anyone's ever been in the Navy. You're very familiar with Great Lakes. I went to basic training there back in the 90s in February. Don't do that if you're thinking of joining the military. And that apparently on information and belief, JB Pritzker said he thinks that GRE Abbott is deploying the Texas National Guard to Illinois. Now, Greg Abbott has denied that in an interview with a reporter from the paper called the Texas Statesman. And so we're going to talk a little bit about that. So when we say apparent deployment of the Texas National Guard, that's what that's about. And so how are you, Steve?
- [22:59]
A
It's great to see you, by the way.
- [23:01]
E
You too. How am I? I am tired. Yesterday, you know, yesterday we started with Judge Breyer's ruling in the California National Guard case in the morning, and we ended with the Fifth Circuit Alien Enemy act ruling at like 10:30pm and it was like, can't you all just like pick a time and, and just do all your decisions then, right.
- [23:20]
C
Or stagger them a little so that we may sleep.
- [23:24]
E
It's almost like the Tuesday after Labor Day is when everybody's like, oh, we've got to get our workout.
- [23:28]
C
Yeah. And before we jump into the difference between the National Guard deployment in California, national guard deployment in D.C. and this pot National Guard deployment in Illinois, that 5th Circuit ruling kind of blew me away. Now, granted, the three judge panel on the very conservative Fifth Circuit included, I think it was one, two conservative judges, a G.W. bush, a Trump, and then was the third, a Biden judge.
- [23:57]
E
Yep. So, I mean, Judge Southwick is about as moderate as you can get for the Republican appointees on the Fifth Circuit. So it was actually a surprisingly balanced panel for the Fifth Circuit. But, yeah, I think it was still a bit of a surprise.
- [24:09]
C
Yeah, I was pretty shocked. And this comes from. So everybody can kind of get an overview back. Way back in March, there was, you know, the additional initial attempt to deport people to El Salvador under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act. And there were a lot of preliminary injunctions, a lot of TROs. The Supreme Court said, you have to file habeas petitions in the jurisdictions where the folks are. You can't do a nationwide injunction because this belongs in habeas. And I have. I don't believe that, but that's what they said. And so then those original five plaintiffs, I believe those original five plaintiffs, two of them in Pennsylvania, three of them in Texas, filed their habeas petitions. And despite all of the temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, and even a couple, even, I think, a permanent injunction in the Western District of Texas, the actual lawfulness of the Alien Enemies act was still being litigated. And I think the Supreme Court kicked it back down to the 5th Circuit to say, tell us what you think. Was that when Judge Ho was like, I can't believe you're making me do this, or was that a different case?
- [25:24]
E
That was this case. This was the same case where Judge Ho complained about treating the district court like a Denny's. And it took Justice Kavanaugh pointing out that by law, district Courts are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But, you know, whoopsies.
- [25:37]
C
Yeah. And good thing they're open 24 7, because we, you know, we recently saw the rendition of Unaccompanied minors with Judge Sparkle Signanen, which has been reassigned to Judge Kelly because it was never actually assigned in the first place to prevent judge shopping.
- [25:57]
A
They do that.
- [25:58]
C
They assign them randomly. But I was absolutely. I didn't think the 5th Circuit was going to come back with, yeah, the Alien Enemies act is unlawful. But they did. And I'm assuming we'll see either an en banc or a Supreme Court. It'll get back up to the Supreme Court pretty quickly. But now that we've got a good chunk of people here, let's talk a little bit about Illinois. First of all, I just want to say thank you, Steve, for your one first substack, your work to make the Supreme Court accessible to us laypeople. I have learned pretty much like 90% of my Supreme Court stuff I learned from you make me sound smarter. And I know that there's a lot of folks out there who read your substack who are then able to take that information and speak knowledgeably about things that are going on, particularly with the Supreme Court. So thank you for your work on the 1/1 substack, because so much of what I get, you'll hear me on the Unjustified podcast and the Daily Beans, and I'm always like Steve Vladic says, Steve Laddock says. And you're definitely an authority in that area. So we appreciate it. So let's dive into Chicago again. As I said at the top, JB Pritzker said that he believes that Greg Abbott is deploying Texas National Guard to Illinois. Greg Abbott denies that, but talk for a minute about the differ what I know, having been in the military, between Title 10 and Title 32, which is federalized and unfederalized troops, because we can use the example of California as federalized troops, which elicited that decision about the fact that it violated the Posse Comitatus Act. But then there's unfederalized Title 32 troops, which would be Texas sending the National Guard to Illinois. So can you talk about those differences?
- [27:49]
E
Sure. So I think the way I think it's easiest to think about is there are federal regulars who are always in federal service. And so when we talk about the army, the Air Force, the Navy, the Marines, those are regulars. And then there's the National Guard. And if you're in a state National Guard, you're really wearing at least three hats. The first hat is known as state active duty, or sad. We need a better acronym. But in that capacity, all you're doing is state stuff. You are, you know, answerable to the governor of the state and the adjutant general of the state. You are doing whatever state law authorizes and whatever the governor orders. At the other end of the spectrum, Allison, as you know, is what we call title 10 status. That is when National Guard troops are federalized and when they're federalized, which is what President Trump did for about, I think was 4,000 California National Guard troops in California, then you are legally indistinguishable from federal regulars.
- [28:52]
G
Right.
- [28:52]
E
You are as if you were in the army or whatever. There's this intermediate category, and the intermediate category, as is so often the case in the law, is where all the hijinks are called Title 32 status. And when you're in Title 32 status, you are not technically federalized. You are still in your state capacity. You are still under the command and control of the governor and the Adjutant General of the state, but you are used for federal training or other federal missions at the request, not the command of the President or the Secretary of Defense. And so, you know, that middle hat is what's really interesting about the Illinois example, as distinct from California, where we had federalized National Guard, and as distinct from D.C. where President Trump used the D.C. national Guard, who he always controls, because it's D.C. right. So the, the novelty in Illinois is trying to apparently have other states send their National Guards into a state that doesn't want them without being federalized.
- [30:02]
A
Yeah.
- [30:02]
C
And I think it's also important to note that there are benefits differences between Title 10 and Title 32 as well. I worked at the VA, as you know, for over a decade, and in order to be considered veteran or have veteran status, you have to be title 10 for 24 consecutive months or 24 non consecutive. I mean, it's very complicated. So it also informs how you will and whether you will receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. So it's an important distinction. And talk a little bit about, you know, when we. Let's talk about Judge Breyer. Right. In California and the violation he found of the Posse Comitatus act, and that he was able to find that because These were Title 10 National Guard troops. And then after that, talk about what possible statute exists that authorizes Title 32, a state sending state National Guard into. Into another state. Because there's an article in the Constitution that seems to clearly prohibit.
- [31:06]
E
That seems to. Okay, so this is part of how all these pieces fit together, which is. So the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 is a federal statute that prohibits the domestic use of the military, of federal troops for ordinary law enforcement unless specifically authorized by Congress or the Constitution. What Judge Breyer found yesterday is that not all of what the federalized California Guard was doing, but some of what the federalized California Guard was doing in and around Los Angeles did in fact violate the Posse Comitatus act, that some of what the Federalized Guard was doing was ordinary law enforcement. And the statute President Trump had relied upon to federalize them, Judge Breyer held, did not, was not one of those exceptions to the Posse Comitatis Act. The reason why the title 32 piece is really important, Allison, is because when National Guard troops are in their Title 32 status, they're not federal, and so therefore they don't implicate the Posse Comitatus Act. What that means is if it's legal to have title 32 National Guard troops deployed, they can do ordinary law enforcement without running lethal Posse Comitatus. The statute at issue here is a statute. It's 32 USC section 502, subsection F2. It dates back to 2006 and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. And it was an effort by Congress to sort of do a good thing but not be clear enough about the limits. So the idea was to provide authority for the president to basically borrow, Right. State National Guards that were willing to be sent for things like border security, for things like, you know, sort of federal missions that no one finds especially controversial.
- [33:03]
G
Right.
- [33:03]
E
For hurricane relief contexts where using federal troops would raise legal issues that using borrowed National Guard would not. What Congress did not expressly provide for in 2006 is that both the sending state governor, which has to agree to this arrangement, and the receiving state governor have to consent. All the 2006 statute requires is the sending state's consent. This is the fight that we're now seeing in Illinois. Right. Shouldn't the Illinois governor have to also consent before you can have out of state, unfederalized National Guard troops sent into their state?
- [33:43]
C
Right. So do you think Trump here is trying to thread the needle by. Because over in California, he was. He was smacked down on certain uses, crowd control, riot control, law enforcement, actions of nationalized. A federalized National Guard, I should say. And so is he not. I mean, because it seems to me if he wants to send the National Guard to Illinois to do jobs that they're allowed to do, you know, in, like, under the Constitution and under certain, you know, Article four, which we'll talk about in a second, that he would just federalize them and use them for protecting federal property, like he's allowed to do, like Judge Breyer said he's allowed to do. But is it because he wants to use them for law enforcement? And do you think maybe that Judge Breyer decision had an impact on whether or not he federalized or hasn't federalized the Guard to send to Illinois because he can't use them for what he wants to use them for?
- [34:42]
E
So I have A hard time thinking that this administration will be dissuaded from acting in Illinois based on what one judge in California has said. But I think your broader point, Alison, is exactly right, which is this is looking for loopholes. This is, you know, the velociraptors in Jurassic park testing the fences, where, you know, the, the authority that I think would be the most obvious one would be to invoke the Insurrection act, which everyone agrees is an exception to the Pasta Comitatus act, but which would be a big deal politically and which would be challenged on the ground that the conditions weren't satisfied.
- [35:20]
C
And so to prove to the court.
- [35:23]
G
Right.
- [35:23]
E
So what I think we're seeing in what Governor Pritzker says is being contemplated for Illinois is an effort to figure out if there's some gray area right, in between what happened in California and a Full on Insurrection act invocation where the federal government could have its cake and eat it too, where it could bring out, you know, what are to most people on the street indistinguishable from federal troops, even though they're unfederalized National Guard and use them in ways that you couldn't use the army without provoking a different legal fight. But you know, as we're going to talk about, there are legal problems even with this.
- [36:03]
C
Right. And let's talk about those legal problems because I think there are two main things that you brought up in your one first post about Illinois v. Texas, and one of them is Article 4 of the Constitution. These things haven't been litigated. Correct? Because it hasn't been. The National Guard hasn't been used in this manner before.
- [36:23]
E
So it's been, it's been used under. I mean, I want to be clear, the statute has been used a fair number of times, but never in this context. Never where the receiving state governor was like, hell no. The closest we came, Alison, as you know, was during the George Floyd related protests in 2020 when this is how Trump had out of state National Guard troops sent to D.C. but you know, for better or for worse, D.C. is not a state. And as you mentioned, Article 4 of the Constitution. Right. Article 4, Section 4 has this specific requirement that the federal government be able slash required to protect states from what it calls domestic violence only upon application of the state government.
- [37:12]
G
Right.
- [37:13]
E
Meaning only if the state asks. And so, you know, even though it's never been litigated, I think there is a very good argument that Article 4 at least requires the consent of the receiving states and that the statute at issue here it's 32 USC 502 F2 should be interpreted to not authorize these kinds of deployments without the consent of the receiving state as well, because simply.
- [37:38]
C
What happens if a state uses its National Guard to invade another state?
- [37:42]
E
I mean, so this is. This is what, you know, when we peel away all these legal technicalities and we go back to first principles, you know, we don't spend a lot of time in civics talking about why we have a constitution, as opposed to just why we're independent. But like, a big part of why in 1787, the founders wrote a constitution, as opposed to just the Articles of Confederation that we had governing us.
- [38:06]
G
Right.
- [38:06]
E
For the first, you know, seven or eight years of our independence, is that there was real concern that you had the risk of state versus state conflict. And that state versus state conflict, Allison, would threaten the whole country, would threaten the security of the country. Part of why the Founders all agreed we had to have a Supreme Court was so that there would be a neutral arbiter of disputes between two states. A world in which the law would somehow allow for the governor of Texas to send his National Guard into Illinois over Illinois's objection.
- [38:41]
G
Right.
- [38:41]
E
Without being federalized. Just because the President said, oh, hey, I think it would be nice if you did, that is basically turning, like, the founding principle of the Constitution on its head, which is the states are not supposed to go to war with each other.
- [38:58]
C
Yeah, that in an. You know, ideally. So if. If Illinois decides to sue, they could sue for violations of Article 4, and they can also sue for something called the Emergency Management Assistant Assistance Compact. What is that?
- [39:15]
A
Emac?
- [39:16]
E
Yeah. So EMAC is an interstate compact. So these are agreements between one or more states. In this case, I think all of them. And this one was ratified by Congress in 1996. So it's federal law. And it basically pledges that states will help each other when they have emergencies. What's telling about EMAC is that it has specific provisions, talking about using one state's National Guard during emergency conditions in another state. But, Allison, it says upon, quote, mutual agreement of the states, unquote. And so, you know, whether or not you could sue for a standalone violation of EMAC or whether that just helps to explain why that Title 32 authority should not be interpreted to allow for a unilateral consent deployment in the space.
- [40:03]
G
Right.
- [40:04]
E
The answer is the same either way, which is Illinois should be able to walk into a court. And that's the interesting question. Which court and sue.
- [40:13]
G
Right.
- [40:13]
E
Some combination of the federal government And Texas, if this really goes the way that Governor Pritzker suggested on Tuesday it was going to go.
- [40:22]
C
And which court brings me to the question. I think you just said the Supreme Court was created to be a neutral arbiter of conflicts between the states. Their whole existence. Right. Is something as an idea called original jurisdiction. I guess what that sort of translates into is you had one job.
- [40:45]
E
Had one job.
- [40:46]
C
So this is what you're here for. This is your big day. This is your Super Bowl, Supreme Court, conflicts between the states, but it's also your super bowl, my friend, with all these decisions coming down. I mean, we talked about that before we hit the live button. But talk about original jurisdiction, because you mentioned in your article, in your one first piece, Illinois iv, Chicago, you mentioned that the courts aren't want to use it. They deign to or they just don't use it very often. They seem to have morphed into something else and given themselves a whole different job. We can talk about that on another time. But what is the if Illinois wants to sue and go directly to the Supreme Court to use their original jurisdiction, how does that work? Why is that a thing?
- [41:40]
E
So it's a thing because the sort of the idea at the time of the founding and it's been consistent in the relevant statutes going all the way back to 1789, is that when one state wants to sue another state, there's no lower court that would be fair.
- [41:56]
G
Right.
- [41:56]
E
Like Illinois versus Texas. Like Illinois would want to be in Illinois, Texas would want to be in Texas. Let's just go right to the Supreme Court. So insofar as Illinois wants to go right to the Supreme Court, its avenue to do so would be to sue Texas and. But not. Or.
- [42:13]
G
Right.
- [42:13]
E
The federal government.
- [42:14]
G
Right.
- [42:14]
E
That Texas would have to be on the other side of the case. I think there's a good argument pursuing Texas. I mean.
- [42:19]
G
Right.
- [42:19]
E
That you know, whatever else Trump is doing and to whatever extent he's responsible for this wouldn't matter if Abbott said no. And so, you know, the fact that Governor Abbott, according to Governor Pritzker is in on this would be a reason to sue Texas. Now, there are downsides, as you mentioned, the Supreme Court doesn't like to exercise its original jurisdiction. Here's about one of these cases every two years and they're usually about much less important stuff like allocating the water outflows from an upriver dam. But we have a recent example from 2022 where New York sued New Jersey and was able to get the Supreme Court to issue A preliminary injunction. So the court actually moved fairly quickly. One other piece of this, Alison, as you know, Justices Thomas and Alito are actually on record as thinking that the Supreme Court doesn't have any discretion to not hear these kinds of cases, that if one state sues another state, the court has to hear these cases. So even though I don't know that they'd be especially sympathetic to Illinois on the merits, that's probably two votes for taking this case at this juncture. It's not the only option. Illinois could sue Secretary Hegseth in federal district court, including, I think, almost certainly in Chicago.
- [43:37]
G
Right.
- [43:38]
E
Illinois could sue Governor Abbott as opposed to Texas and try to argue that he's the proper party in federal district court. But, you know, it seems to me that if the choice is Governor Pritzker deploying the Illinois National Guard to prevent the Texas National Guard from exiting the military base or having the courts work this out, forgive me for thinking we're all better off having the courts work this out than putting two national Guards, you know, within shooting distance of each other right now.
- [44:12]
C
Is it possible for Illinois to file multiple lawsuits in multiple venues? Can they do the original jurisdiction and sue Pegseth and like drop multiple lawsuits and see which one this is?
- [44:24]
E
Yes. And not either or.
- [44:26]
G
Yep.
- [44:26]
E
And so, you know, there, I think.
- [44:30]
G
Right.
- [44:30]
E
If Illinois were to try to do that, the federal government might try to intervene in the Supreme Court and say, well, hey, let's just get this over with here. But that's fine. I mean, you know, to me, if the legal analysis is as clear cut as I think it is.
- [44:45]
G
Right.
- [44:46]
E
If it really is not the law that one state's National Guard without being federalized, can be sent into another states without their consent, seems to me we're all better off having the Supreme Court confront that sooner rather than later. And, you know, I understand, I think, as well as anybody why folks have reason to be cynical of this Supreme Court at this moment. But it seems to me that this might be a case where actually, you know, forcing the court to move quickly would actually be a good thing. And, you know, I think would hopefully diffuse what to me is a very dangerous potential scenario on the ground in Chicago.
- [45:22]
C
Yeah, agreed. I'm thinking of another time a state sued a state. It was Texas v. Pennsylvania. And we all know what happened to that case. Does that sort of apply here and why that case got tossed out?
- [45:37]
E
Yeah. So just to nerd out for a second on the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. So, you know, I mentioned the Thomas Alito view that the court has to take all of these cases. Since the 1970s, a majority of the court has consistently taken the position that it doesn't. That even when the opposing parties are states where there's no other place for the case to go, that doesn't mean the court has to take up their case. And so you mentioned Texas versus Pennsylvania. This was the really preposterous lawsuit filed by ken Paxton in December 2020 that tried to get the Supreme Court to basically throw out the election results, not just in Pennsylvania, but in Michigan and Georgia. And I think Wisconsin was the fourth state. And the court denied leave to file. The court said, we're not going to take this up at all. You know, they could do that here, too. I will just say that there were procedural problems separate from how preposterous Paxton's suit was.
- [46:37]
G
Right.
- [46:38]
E
It was not the right kind of lawsuit for one state to sue another in the first place. This really would be right. I mean, sort of whether one state can send its National Guard into another state is the kind of state versus state dispute.
- [46:53]
G
Right.
- [46:53]
E
Whereas what Paxton was really complaining about was individual voters mad at four different state election officials, administration of their state election laws. So, you know, I, Alison, I, I would never guarantee that the Supreme Court would take up this case, but I think there would be a decent chance if things escalate.
- [47:11]
G
Right.
- [47:11]
E
If what Pritzker suggested at his press conference turns out to be what's really about to happen in Chicago, that one Illinois will try and to the Supreme Court might give them at least the full time of day and a little.
- [47:26]
C
Bit of fun history about Texas v. Pennsylvania. Trump himself intervened in that case as a candidate for president, which was used against him and his immunity argument, because they were saying the whole point rested whether or not he was a candidate or whether he was acting as president. And he kept arguing that he's the president and he can do whatever he wants. And Jack Smith in court was like, ah, yeah, but here you said you were a candidate for president when you intervened in Texas, Pennsylvania. We never got to the merits of that, but. And here we are. But I think that that's a little bit of interesting history. It just didn't have electional jurisdiction. And so to wrap up, what do you think Illinois is going to do here? Or what would you expect Illinois to do if, in fact the Texas National Guard is being sent? Because Greg Abbott is denying that it's being sent? I mean, that's pretty easy to prove or disprove, Right?
- [48:24]
E
So I think the first thing to do is to. Is to wait a beat.
- [48:27]
G
Right.
- [48:27]
E
And to sort of to see what develops on the ground. You know, to me, sending the Texas Guard to Great Lakes isn't necessarily itself a legal violation. Right. Because the, you know, Great Lakes is a federal enclave. And so, you know, putting troops on a federal base isn't yet violating Illinois sovereignty. But I do think that once it is clear that this is about to happen, Illinois goes to court. And I think the question is just which court and against whom? We've laid out some of the options. You know, there might be others, but. But I would think that Governor Pritzker and his team will have every reason to want to litigate this, not just in the court of public opinion, but actually in real courts, because I think they've got the legal arguments on their side, and frankly, I think they've got principle on their side. And part of why we have courts in this country is so that disputes are resolved without violence. This is, you know, as clear cut, plain vanilla an example of that potentially being where we are as. As you could think of.
- [49:34]
C
And if they do federalize them and send them there and have them protect federal buildings, do they still have a case arguing the necessity or the emergency that requires it? Which hasn't been. I don't think that's been litigated anywhere yet.
- [49:47]
E
It's a different lawsuit. It'll depend on which authority President Trump would rely upon to try to federalize. But that to me, is less crazy at that point.
- [49:57]
G
Right.
- [49:58]
E
Then this case looks like the case that Judge Breyer decided yesterday. Then we're talking about the statutory limits of federalization authorities.
- [50:07]
G
Right.
- [50:08]
E
Not the ability to send unfederalized National Guard troops from one state into another. And so I don't doubt that Illinois will still challenge that, but I think that the temperature would go down quite a bit if that's where this ends up.
- [50:20]
A
Yeah.
- [50:21]
C
I mean, that you almost have a colorable argument there, as seemingly they did when we look at the narrowing of Judge Breyer's decision. Right.
- [50:31]
E
I mean, even Breyer.
- [50:32]
G
Right.
- [50:32]
E
Even Breyer says, you know, a fair amount of what they did in California was perfectly legal.
- [50:38]
G
Right.
- [50:38]
E
Under the relevant authorities. And that could be true, too, in Illinois, if that's the route Trump goes down.
- [50:45]
G
Right.
- [50:45]
E
That's, I think, what we need to watch for in the next couple days. If this turns into a thing, what is the exact authority argument? And if it's title 32, I think we've laid out why that's deeply, deeply, deeply problematic.
- [50:58]
A
Yeah.
- [50:58]
C
So it Seems like the motivation is Trump could do this the right way, but he wants to push the envelope and see what he can get away with.
- [51:04]
F
The courts.
- [51:05]
E
Well, because I think the right way has its own problems, as Judge Breyer's ruling underscores. And so I think the question is, is there a wrong way? And hopefully the answer is no. But we don't have the precedent for that.
- [51:16]
C
We do not. All right, my friend, thank you so much, everybody. Hit the heart button there. It helps with the algorithm. And please, if you haven't subscribe to One first, you can also subscribe to my substack. You probably already do. It's Muller. She Wrote. But you can subscribe for free to both. And then if you have the means, you can always become a paid subscriber. We'd appreciate that, too, so that we can continue the work. And your work is so important. Again, I wouldn't understand half of this stuff if it was these amazing pieces that you write on one first. Appreciate your time.
- [51:48]
E
I appreciate yours, A.J. it's great to be with you and I. You know, it's always, always, always. I mean, one of these days, you and I will sit down for a conversation that's about something that's a lot less depressing than serious.
- [51:59]
C
I look forward to it, my friend. All right, everybody, we'll, you know, again, subscribe, and we'll see you soon. Thanks so much for watching.
- [52:06]
E
Bye, everybody.
- [52:08]
A
Hey, everybody. Welcome back. And thanks so much to Steve Vladek for that interview because it feeds right into this interview. We're gonna be talking to the acting director of the Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight about the national guard deployment to D.C. and some of the surrounding factors. Please welcome David Janofsky to the show. Hi, David.
- [52:30]
F
Thanks for having me.
- [52:31]
A
I'm really excited to speak to you today. Just finished a conversation with con law professor, Georgetown Steve Vladek, talking about mostly Chicago, focused on Illinois and the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and how there are a ton of legal troubles with trying to deploy one state's National Guard to another state. And so I think this dovetails perfectly with what I want to talk to you about, which is the deployment of national guard to D.C. and why calling for states to contribute to the current national guard presence in D.C. kind of blurs the lines between civilian policing and military force. So let's talk a little bit about that. What's going on in D.C. sure.
- [53:12]
F
So what we're seeing in D.C. is a combination of the District's own National Guard and Guard troops from, I believe it's four other states, though. It's an evolving situation. And they've been deployed ostensibly because of a crime emergency, performing a variety of duties. Though as we've seen, not all of them seem related to law enforcement, which in some ways is a good thing because I'm personally very troubled by soldiers performing law enforcement duties. On the other hand, calling in the National Guard from across the country to do landscape work seems like a questionable use of military resources.
- [53:55]
A
It seems like a very expensive way to pick up garbage in the capital since there are plenty of other folks whose job that is.
- [54:04]
F
Indeed.
- [54:05]
A
And there are folks in D.C. whose job it is to prevent crime. I think that might be a little stymied these days because of the continuing resolution that basically stole $1.1 billion out of the DC coffers, which tend to pay for law enforcement schools and things like that.
- [54:21]
C
Is this.
- [54:22]
A
I feel like that might have been kind of by design to strip them of that funding and then, you know, say, oh, we've got out of control crime. And using that as a pretext to send in the National Guard for what seems to me just to be sort of a show of force, kind of like how they did in Los Angeles.
- [54:40]
F
I think pretext is the right word to use there. Their stated justification is the so called crime conditions in the city. And I think there's been a lot of conversation about what the numbers actually are, how high, how low crime is in D.C. and in some ways I think even that is the wrong conversation. I think it's worth pointing out to show how thin an excuse the federal government used. But I think beyond that, this isn't really about crime. And if it is, I think it further underscores that the military is exactly the wrong entity to be turning to because we have a long and proud history in the United States of separating military and civilian law enforcement affairs in all but the most egregious circumstances. And whatever your thoughts on crime or the state of crime in the District, it's certainly not the most extraordinary circumstances.
- [55:35]
C
Right.
- [55:35]
A
And it seems like the reason or the justification doesn't match what is actually happening on the ground. And I think the last time that we saw this kind of deployment of other state National Guards to D.C. was after and during the 2020 George Floyd protest protests. And we weren't able to litigate that at that time either.
- [55:55]
F
That's exactly right. And Steve Vladeck may have actually covered this already in your segment, but the only other time that I'm aware of that out of state National Guards have been deployed to a jurisdiction without the invitation of whoever runs that jurisdiction was in 2020 in DC. And that's because the mayor of DC doesn't have the same type of control over DC's National Guard that the governor of any state would have over their own guard and sort of the territorial integrity of the place they run. So D.C. is particularly vulnerable to this.
- [56:34]
A
Right. And I've seen an ad campaign going up around bus stops around the city talking about the fact that a lot of the federal agents and ICE agents and CBP agents and other agency agents that have been borrowed from the FBI, the hsi, the dea, are all masked. Could you talk a little bit about how unmarked cars and masked agents kind of. I mean, it violates transparency and accountability.
- [57:02]
F
Well, that's exactly right. One of the reasons why we don't like to see the military getting mixed up in civilian law enforcement as we expect, and obviously this doesn't work terribly well in practice, but we expect a certain baseline level of accountability for civilian law enforcement. It is tied in some way to the community, and it is supposed to be more answerable to the officials there and by extension, to the public. And one way you do that is by knowing who is doing what. The baseline for holding someone accountable is knowing who you're holding accountable. And so to have masked agents is. It's hard to interpret it any other way than an attempt to evade basic accountability. And that's especially the case when the justification that these federal agencies are giving is that, oh, well, agents will be identified if they show their faces. And that's exactly the point.
- [58:04]
A
Yeah, judges, local law enforcement. I mean, plenty of unmasked law enforcement going around for the. You know, since the. Since the founding. But, yeah, this is particularly scary. And philosophically speaking, I've been quoting this for six or seven years now. One of my favorite shows, Battlestar Galactica, when William Adama says, the reason you separate the military and the police is because one fights the enemy of the state and the other serves to protect the people. And when the military become both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. And I think D.C. is responding to that. I mean, we see the sandwich guy, Banksy, Art going up all over the city and the free DC protests, and the residents are disturbed by what they're seeing on the ground in dc, even though they've been relegated to picking up trash and laying down mulch, it's still that show of force. It's still that authoritarian factor.
- [59:02]
F
That's exactly right. Starting a decade ago, a Lot of groups and a lot of national conversation was turned to the problem of the police looking a lot more like the military, wearing military style uniforms, carrying and using military equipment, oftentimes genuine surplus bought for pennies on the dollar from the Department of Defense, military equipment. And I think that on its own is a big enough problem when you have the police thinking that they're the military for exactly the same reason. You say that it furthers the us versus them mentality. And so obviously, when you have military involvement and the implied threat of more military involvement.
- [59:43]
G
Right.
- [59:44]
F
We can chuckle, I suppose, at the landscaping duties of it all. But the fact of the matter is there are armed troops in the city and they're doing one thing today, but I think it sends a very clear message that they could do another thing tomorrow.
- [59:59]
C
Yeah, and that's just it.
- [60:00]
A
They've authorized them to carry arms, they're wearing full military regalia. And we hear Donald Trump and his administration comparing what's going on on the ground in these crime ridden shithole cities, that it's like Afghanistan and nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, that's all clearly propaganda. And I wanted to ask you about Muriel Bowser's executive order. The Washington Post spun it, I think, in a very negative light. I was reading something written by Chris Geidner, who writes for Law Dork, and even the Washington Post changed its headline from, you know, Muriel Bowser welcomes our federal overlords indefinitely to she put out an executive order to require coordination with local law enforcement indefinitely. And so talk a little bit about this executive order, because it seems to me that putting an order out there for coordination with local law enforcement seems to have been the purpose, not necessarily allowing this to extend beyond 30 days or welcoming it in any way. What are your thoughts?
- [61:05]
F
Well, setting aside sort of the political spot that Mayor Bowser's in D.C. one of the many ways D.C. is unique is that there always has been a large federal law enforcement presence, and those agencies always have worked closely with the Metropolitan Police in one way or another. So coordination in and of itself and coordination to the extent allowable by D.C. law, which I believe is what the order says on its face. I think this could obviously go any number of ways. But that didn't strike me as a massive departure, though I confess I haven't had an opportunity to dig into to the DC Side of it as much as I would have liked to.
- [61:55]
A
Yeah, because it's, I mean, that's normal coordination between now Trump tried to circumvent that and Say that he wanted to take direct control of the Metropolitan Police Department, which is the local law enforcement agency there in D.C. and there was a pushback and Pam Bondi had to rewrite her order and say, okay, we'll coordinate with the head of the Metropolitan Police Department, which is how it's always been. And like you said, there are what, like 18 federal police agencies that are in D.C. from park police to Capitol Police to. I mean, there's tons of feds. Now granted they're not wearing masks and driving unmarked vehicles and carrying long guns, but that coordination has always been there. And I think this might have just been sort of an effort to cement that for as long as the federal law enforcement is there.
- [62:44]
B
Yeah.
- [62:45]
F
I think it's important to note, regardless of really anything I can think of, that Mayor bowser does. That 30 day clock is still ticking. Part of the problem is that Mayor Bowser or anyone else in D.C. doesn't at the municipal level, doesn't have say over what the feds do. So this certainly doesn't mean that they don't have to go to Congress or that if they keep maintaining the status quo far beyond what the statute allows, that it's not a problem anymore just because the Mayor said they would coordinate, whatever that means in practice.
- [63:25]
A
Yeah, no. I think it's more like if for some reason Congress or the courts allow this to go past 30 days, we need to maintain coordination with local law enforcement that doesn't disappear. And she is between a rock and a hard place in a lot of instances. DC has been since DC because it's taxed, it doesn't have representation, it doesn't act like a state, which is why Illinois, for example, if the Guard is deployed there, they have a lot more options to sue than DC does. Same with California. California that was federalized National Guard. So the Posse Comitatis act comes in to play in Chicago. In Illinois, if it's the Texas National Guard, then you have emac and the Article 4 of the Constitution that comes into play. So I mean, we're dealing with something that's a very different entity, all standalone entity in D.C. and I think that that's working through the legal processes is not something that we can compare apples to apples to any other Guard deployment, whether it's federal or state, federalized or unfederalized. It's not going to be an apples to apples comparison. It's its own thing and has to be discussed separately.
- [64:34]
F
I think that's exactly right, especially when we're talking about the legal framework. The One place where I do think what happens in D.C. should directly concern us all is just in chipping away at these both guardrails and sort of our public comfort level. I think there is a danger if we see images of troops on the streets in one city and we're not thinking about, well, the Home Rule act versus the Insurrection act versus the Posse Comitatus Act. And we just kind of get used to that imagery and that sense that, oh, the president said there's crime, and so now there are soldiers there, and that happens. That is really dangerous, even in the places where it is strictly legal. And as you say, in D.C. it is more legal than elsewhere, though I'm hesitant to say that everything is really within the bounds of what should be happening.
- [65:33]
A
Yeah. And the whole point here is to push the boundaries of law and test unlitigated things. Whether you're talking about illinois and Article 4 and EMAC. And original jurisdiction was the Supreme Court, whether you're talking about MacArthur park and what Judge Breyer decided in California and what happens in D.C. because Trump could just, under a proper article, send the National Guard, federalize it, send it to Illinois and have them do the things that they're supposed to be allowed to do, which means stay out of local law enforcement. But that's not what. That's not his goal. His goal is, I think, to test the boundaries, the legal boundaries, and I think he's going to be continuing to do that in D.C. so tell everybody what they can do to push back on this and how they can maybe get information from the Constitution Project, the Project on Government Oversight, and how people listening to this can help.
- [66:27]
F
Yeah, I mean, I think the most important thing to realize is that, one, this isn't normal, Two, that we don't have to accept it as a new normal. In D.C. there's been a lot of people expressing their opposition. I think there's going to be a rally this weekend showing that people aren't on board with what's going on. Congress has a role to play here. We're talking about all these laws. Those come from Congress, and Congress should. We're still waiting for the day when it does stand up for both itself as an institution saying, hey, we get to set the rules here, but also provide some accountability.
- [67:09]
B
So vote.
- [67:10]
A
Is what you're saying we need to flip the House and try to get. Try to flip the Senate so that we can get a Congress that will actually stand up to this?
- [67:18]
F
Well, I'm at a nonpartisan organization, but understood.
- [67:23]
A
I think we can leave it at Congress does have a role to play.
- [67:26]
F
Yeah, Congress has a role to play. And I think letting members of Congress know even before an election that this matters to people, it's not going to hurt.
- [67:37]
A
Right, right. And I think that's where the rallies and the protests and talking to your representatives comes in.
- [67:43]
F
Exactly.
- [67:44]
A
So I appreciate your time today. Tell everyone where they can find and follow you and your work.
- [67:49]
F
Sure. So there are a couple projects in the name of my organization, but our website's easy to remember. It's Pogo P O G O. O R G. And we are constantly writing, trying to put all this into context and send people information that they can use to make sense of this and empower them.
- [68:11]
A
Awesome. David Janofsky, I appreciate your time today and helping us break this down and understand it in lay people's terms. We really appreciate you. Thanks.
- [68:19]
F
It's been a pleasure.
- [68:20]
A
All right, everybody, stick around. We'll be right back with the good news. Everybody, welcome back. It's time for the good news.
- [68:25]
C
Who likes good news?
- [68:27]
A
Everyone.
- [68:28]
E
Then good news, everyone.
- [68:43]
A
Good news. And if you have any little good news story or big good news story that's happened to you, anytime, Whether it was 10 minutes ago or 10 years ago, send it into us. We need to have that good news boost. We need to microdose hope. I know. Everybody loves the good news segment as folks that stick around for it. Right. They get the news and then we hear so often. Dana, people are like, I used to not listen to good news and now I do. And I'm so glad.
- [69:04]
B
I mean, it's a palate cleanser. After all of this bullshit we're living through, I don't understand how anyone skipped this. Also, you get to know about all of the incredible community we have here.
- [69:14]
A
Yeah. After me putting pictures in your head of Republicans reproducing, you gotta get some good news.
- [69:20]
B
That was definitely your fault.
- [69:21]
A
It was. And I brought it up again just because I wanted to be an extra little bit of a dick about it. But we need your good news. And if you can be a shout out, even maybe like to a loved one or a nonprofit you want to share with everyone or maybe, I don't know, some great community organizing. Like maybe you had a postcard writing party for Prop 50. We'd love to see pictures and hear about that. If you have a shout out to a government program that's helped you or a loved one self, shout out. We love that. Anything you're making and creating, maybe to keep your mind off of the shit show that's going on. People like to crochet or knit or make. There was one listener who's making homemade paper and then doing watercolor art.
- [70:00]
B
So beautiful. We have so many incredible artists that listen to the beans, actually.
- [70:04]
A
Absolutely. And with fair season, I bet everyone's like submitting all their stuff to the state fair. So I want to see that stuff that you're doing and you can send it all to us by and get your stuff read on the air by attaching your POD pet tariff, which is a photo of your pet. If you don't have a pet adoptable pet in your area, if you don't have that, any animal photo will do. We also love family photos, baby photos, your happy place, maybe your garden. My, my guacamole garden is looking awesome. Maybe I'll share a photo of that. And also just, you know, be wary. Somebod wrote us today, Dana, and said if you're sharing pictures of your kids, you might consider putting emojis and happy faces over their faces. So that, I mean, we, we only share these with patrons. But, you know, just for a little.
- [70:48]
B
Extra safety, I think it's, Yeah, I don't see the problem with it meaning doing it or not. I think definitely it's up to the parents. But it's not a bad idea if you're like, you know what? I didn't think about that. Let's keep a little one safe. A lot of people are like, I'm not, you know, I'm not including a pick just to, you know, keep everyone safe. But he. Maybe someone forgot emojis. Emojis are protective.
- [71:09]
A
Yeah. Or flex that muscle in your brain where you have to describe a photo.
- [71:13]
C
Without having people see it.
- [71:15]
A
Anyway, send all your good news to us dailybeanspot.com, click on Contact. And just a quick heads up to Supercaster subscribers because we still keep getting emails. There's something keeping Supercast from sending emails out with the new episodes. We're really sorry. We're not sure how long it's going to last. It's a Supercast issue. Good news, though. You can still see the pod pics. If you log into Supercast and click on the episode, just go to dailybeans.supercast.com Subscriber click on the episode title to see the show notes and the POD pics. If you're a paid subscriber, then you might want to bookmark that link to make sure you always have access to the POD pics and our happy hour invites as well. So just Wanted to give that little bit of a update from our producers because there's a lot of emails coming in from a lot of supercasters who aren't able to see all the amazing pod pet tariffs.
- [72:02]
B
All right, let's get it started. This is Amy. A little more on the Starlink. Okay, no pronouns given. Thank you for this. Hello, Queens of the beans. Systems engineer here. On Tuesday's pod, you opine that perhaps Starlink satellites are responsible for jamming the GPS signals on von der Leyen's plane. Well, I wouldn't put it past Elon to have it involved. Starlink satellites are not able to jam GPS signals. GPS satellites use a very different frequency than Starlink satellites use. But I do know not to interrupt the submission that Elon is trying to make it look like GPS systems don't know what the fuck they're doing so he can put Starlink in some of these things. But, Amy, you're right. Let's continue. For my POD pet tax, I'm posting photos of our cats. The one with two cats are Tabitha, who's the tabby, and Midnight. Guess which is which. I can tell even, and I'm not.
- [72:52]
A
Even a cat person.
- [72:54]
B
This is one of the last photos of them together as Midnight crossed over the Rainbow Bridge this past spring. Tabby was like a cat mother to her, and we adopted them as a pair from a foster home. Tabby was terribly lonely, so we adopted Sassafras the Calico this summer. And she is indeed sassy. She plays fetch like a dog, carries toys across the house to us to play with her, and meows for petting attention. She has warmed our hearts and makes us laugh every day. Thank you for all you do. Listening to you each morning makes getting through this ridiculous timeline so much easier.
- [73:26]
A
Oh, look at these beautiful babies.
- [73:29]
B
So very sweet.
- [73:30]
A
Very adorable, Amy. Thank you, systems engineer.
- [73:33]
C
Rad.
- [73:35]
A
Appreciate that. Correction. Next up from Anonymous. No pronouns. Hi, Alison and Dana. I've been listening to you guys since the kitchen table days. I love your lively breakdown of the day's news with swearing. How can we not swear with all that's going on? I usually have you guys on while I'm getting in my daily walk, and I love to hear everyone's good news at the end of the pod. After hearing all the evil that this administration is doing, I've been so incensed with everything Trump has done since he took office and have been looking for ways to resist. I've been attending protests in front of our local courthouse where ICE detainees are kept. It's a moneymaker for them. So gross. I've protested in front of the local offices of Todd Young, one of our MAGA senators, and have been going to the no Kings and Labor Day protests. My own good trouble has been hanging banners on nearby overpasses in the dark of night. I buy old sheets from thrift stores and use a 2 inch foam paint roller to write my message using leftover paint. And then I hang them from the overpass railings with zip ties. They don't stay up very long, but I get the great satisfaction knowing folks going to work during rush hour see my messages. I've now hung eight banners and I've had help from my husband and a willing friend in these early morning resistance activities when they're around. This is a pic of my latest banner hung on the morning the Epstein Survivors press conference. Here's me in DC at the end of August protesting in front of the White House. I was there for a Team justice get together. We missed you, Alison. And got into some good trouble while there. I've also included my pet pod tax of me flipping the bird to the Trump Tower in Chicago. I'm assuming the Team justice get together was one of the Glenn Kirschner get togethers. I love those. And this is great. Thank you. Anonymous Kitchen Table Days by the way, if you're a new listener and you aren't familiar with the phrase kitchen table days, when I originally started the Military row podcast in 2017, I set up a shitty microphone at my kitchen table and that's how we recorded the podcast. You can hear the fridge in the background. The sound is horrible. We call them the kitchen table days. But that's, that's what that's a reference to. Look at this. Great resist at the White House. And here's one of the overpass banners. Trump is in the Epstein files. Release it all. And then a wonderful bird watching photo flipping off Trump Tower in Chicago. Thank you so much.
- [75:54]
B
Anonymous that is a strong double bird right there. I love to see it. All right, this next one's from Jeannie Pronouns. She and her love you both wake up humming the Daily Beans tune and then immediately open YouTube and listen to get my news with swearing. All news should include swearing at this fucking point in life. XO and a bird. Watch him pick at the White House right now.
- [76:16]
A
Awesome. Love it. All right, next up from Tim Pronouns he and Him. My wife too has been guilty of assault with a deli weapon. It was 10 years ago and she came to pick me and some fellow commercial guides up after we completed a commercial Grand Canyon rafting trip. We finished loading equipment, grabbed our lunch sandwiches, and hit the road back to Flagstaff. I was driving and as we approached Mead View, I noticed an AMC Pacer on the side of the highway. A kind of pudgy kid appeared from the even pudgier Pacer. That kid proceeded to walk into the highway right in front of us. I slammed on the brakes, smoke poured from the tires and we were just able to stop before doing great damage to the youngster. My wife in the passenger seat was flabbergasted. She yelled at the kid, you, you, you dummy. As she launched that deli sandwich at lightning speed into the little bugger's chest. He stood there giving us a dumb look as if he had no idea what the problem was as we took off in the hot midday desert. There were no police, no arrests. Thankfully, the video of the hero sandwich in D.C. set us into a fit of laughter as we both remembered that long ago scene together. Thanks for keeping us laughing along with the fascist fuckery. My awesome shop Apex predator is my pod pet tax. She adopted us about a year ago. She's very spoiled.
- [77:39]
B
Oh, she's beautiful though.
- [77:41]
A
Look at the shop apex predator. Tim, thank you. And I love that drive from the Grand Canyon to Flex Story all right.
- [77:48]
B
This is from Anonymous no pronouns given. Hi beans Queens Let legume rain I wanted to share what's been happening to signs near my neighborhood in Denver. People have been taking no King stickers and drawing of a clown with a line through it and putting them on no parking signs so they read no.
- [78:06]
A
King anytime instead of no parking anytime.
- [78:09]
B
I think it's awful nice of the city to offer to tow away the pumpkin spice pallet Palpatine if he shows up and his he says ankles but one cankles refused to move and if he waits long enough the city will send one of those big power sweepers to clean him up on the second Thursday of the month and only from April to November. But we aim to serve. My pet tariff is 5 year old Gabby, the brown dog who I think used to be a hunting dog because she will point at squirrels found chilling in the Oklahoma panhandle. She's winking to let you know everything will be okay. And 10 year old Luna, a big old white dog rescued from a hoarding situation shown in the car on the ride home. Guess the breed brew in this crew if you must, but to me mutts are the best and we would love to do that except we don't have pictures for this one so maybe we can get some pictures of these pups tomorrow.
- [79:04]
A
Yeah, we'll see if it was us problem or maybe they just didn't attach right to the email but would love to see them. Thank you for that. I love it. So it's the typical no Kings logo with the crown with the circle in line through it and you put it up on the park part of parking and it says no King anytime. I love it it all right, this is our last submission. This comes to us from Dave M. Pronouns he and him Good morning AG and DG I think we can all agree that swearing is necessary to cope with every fresh hell this regime deals us on a daily basis. So thank you for affirming we are all justified in our cascade of profanity. When reading each day's news, I want to let you and your listeners know what's happening up here in Boston. My friend Joyce L. Is a powerhouse of a community organizer and has been pivotal in getting candidates elected on the local and national stage. She has a gathering at her house on the first Saturday of the month where we all drink coffee from opposition party mugs and talk about what this regime is perpetrating against its citizens on every front and what's happening locally to combat and push back. On any first Saturday, the room can be filled with judges, union leaders, lawyers, creatives of all kinds and other subversives. The conversations are lively and the sense of community that is felt is uplifting and the room is filled with positivity. Joyce and one of the members of the group, James Sullivan, who wrote a 2019 book called which side are you on? 20th century American history and 100 protest songs, have put together a monthly music series of protest music. They assembled a very talented band, the Paid Protesters, and invited six singers each month to perform two songs, each a cover of any protest song they choose. Many are choosing a song from James's book and one of their own songs. This is so cool. James will introduce each artist and ask them to say what the songs they will perform have been chosen. It's called which side? A Protest Music paying homage to the teach ins on the college campuses of the 60s. But this series is meant to bring it out into the public and inform and inspire a wider audience. It's been incredibly joyous with an overwhelming sense of community and positivity. You have to find your joy wherever you can these days, right? And there is an infinite amount with each performance. How great does that sound? The good news is that the website a website was created for this series It's Whichside Boston. Not only has it great info and videos and pics from past performances, but a tab to join the movement which provides a template on how to get a series going in your town or city. The hope is that others will be inspired to start their own teach outs and that it'll sweep the nation. My pop pet tax is an effin bird. These are my spirit animals and they can always call out the bullshit with swearing. If you're not familiar with effin birds, get to know them and you will love them. Sending daily love to you beans queens. I love effin birds. This one. When will this shit show ever end? Amazing. And then there's a coffee opposition party. Look, they have an Illuminati pyramid.
- [82:11]
B
I love this.
- [82:12]
A
It's not the Leguminati, but it's Illuminati. Love it. Thank you so much for that, Dave. That's a great submission and thanks to all of you for your wonderful good news submissions. We got one day left to get through the week.
- [82:25]
B
Oh boy.
- [82:25]
A
We do it together. So send us your good news DailyBeansPod.com, click on Contact. Thanks to my guests today for the interview. Really appreciate them coming and helping explain some of this stuff in lay people's terms to us. Do you have any final thoughts, my friend?
- [82:40]
B
I do. Just if anyone's with us because we were talking about protest music, I want to introduce you to someone that goes by Milk. M I L C K music. Okay, you can get to their Instagram. It's I L C K music. Protest songs. She basically exploded because she had a protest song during the women's march. The first time Trump got in. That was went totally viral. And now she and other musicians are writing some of the most soul. I don't even know how to tell you how it vibrates in my chest. Powerful music about protesting this. So check their music out on Instagram or just Google Milk music. M I L C K. And that's just. Trust me on this. Go listen. Her voice is absolutely incredible. So that's my final thought for today day.
- [83:31]
A
Awesome. Amazing. Thank you for that. I will check that out. M I L C K. I think I remember that song from the first women's march. All right, everybody, we'll be back in your ears. Tomorrow it'll be Fugal Sang Fridays. I know you can't wait. Neither can I. Until then, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, take care of your mental health and take care of your family. I've been ag, I've been DG and them's the Beans. The Daily Beans is written and executive produced by Allison Gill with additional research and reporting by Dana Goldberg. Sound design and editing is by Desiree McFarlane with art and web design by Joelle Reader with Moxie Design Studios. Music for the Daily Beans is written and performed by they Might Be Giants and the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creator owned podcasts dedicated to news, politics and justice. For more information Please visit msw media.com msw media.