3537 - FEMA's Texas Flood Failure; SCOTUS OKs Trump's Mass Layoffs w/ Wesley Cheek, Chris Geidner

Summary

Summary of "The Majority Report with Sam Seder" Episode 3537

Release Date: July 14, 2025

Guests: Wesley Cheek (Sociologist, Assistant Professor at Massachusetts Maritime Academy) and Chris Geidner (Award-Winning Journalist, Publisher of Law Dork Substack)

---

1. Introduction

Host Sam Seder opens Episode 3537 of "The Majority Report" by outlining the day’s key topics:

• FEMA's response to the Texas floods
• Supreme Court's approval of Trump's mass layoffs
• The ongoing MAGA saga involving Jeffrey Epstein's files
• Departures from the Department of Justice's litigation unit defending Trump policies
• Trump’s signals of a major weapons surge to Ukraine and new import taxes on the EU and Mexico
• A fatal ICE cannabis farm raid in California
• Pam Bondi's termination of her personal ethics chief

---

2. FEMA’s Response to Texas Floods

Guest: Wesley Cheek

Wesley Cheek provides an in-depth analysis of FEMA's handling of the recent Texas floods, highlighting significant failures in disaster response and preparation.

• Leadership Issues: Cheek criticizes FEMA’s current administrator, David Richardson, noting his lack of experience in emergency management. He states, "[Richardson] has zero experience in emergency management... leads FEMA with no clear understanding of the responsibilities" (28:26).

• Regional Management Failures: Cheek points out the absence of regional administrators for critical areas like the U.S. Gulf Coast, stating, "Regions 6 and 4 currently did not have regional administrators. You can go on the FEMA website. No, nobody's home, nobody's running the office" (28:40).

• Impact on Disaster Response: Cheek emphasizes the socio-economic dimensions of disasters, arguing that FEMA's inefficiencies disproportionately affect socially vulnerable populations. He remarks, "Poverty is the number one predictor of being affected adversely by a disaster" (23:57).

• Quotes from Maxwell Frost: Representative Maxwell Frost shares his disturbing observations from a visit to an ICE detention facility, describing conditions akin to a "concentration camp." Frost states, "I saw 32 people per cage... People were yelling, help me, help me...[and] the food we saw is not enough food" (09:33).

---

3. ICE Detention Facilities and Conditions

Discussion Points:

• Alligator Alcatraz: The podcast delves into the deplorable conditions at the Alligator Alcatraz detention center in Florida. Frost describes the facility as overcrowded and inhumane, with inadequate access to water and food.

• Fatal Raid in California: The episode covers a tragic incident during an ICE raid on a cannabis farm in California, where a 57-year-old worker died while attempting to escape. Cheek notes, "He was sending money, working and sending money to his daughter and wife who were still in Mexico" (14:00).

• Symbolic Actions: Pam Bondi discusses the moral implications of using FEMA funds for detention facilities, arguing that emergency management agencies should prioritize helping vulnerable populations over participating in oppressive systems. She states, "Our job is to help vulnerable people... If you're saying, no, I'm going to participate in fascism, pick another job" (34:50).

---

4. Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Policies

Guest: Chris Geidner

Chris Geidner addresses recent legal battles against Trump administration policies, focusing on court rulings that inhibit mass layoffs and immigration enforcement tactics.

• SCOTUS Ruling on Mass Layoffs: The Supreme Court approved Trump's directive for mass layoffs within federal agencies. Geidner explains, "Shadow docket rulings... essentially resolving the case without full merits consideration" (66:33).

• Impact on Federal Agencies: Seder and Geidner discuss how the ruling enables rapid reductions in workforce, severely affecting agencies' ability to function effectively. Geidner highlights, "You’re going to have people out the front door before you even get to court" (73:17).

• Department of Justice Litigation Unit Exodus: Since Trump's election, two-thirds of the DOJ's litigation attorneys have left, weakening the government's ability to defend its policies in court. Cheek emphasizes, "These are the people who know the ins and outs... they're leaving, making it harder to execute the administration’s plans" (79:42).

• Class Action Suits on Immigration Policies: The discussion covers the Supreme Court's temporary injunction on birthright citizenship changes, allowing class action lawsuits to challenge the administration's policies. Seder notes, "The administration is going to appeal these things, and we are most likely going to be back at the Supreme Court sometime over the summer" (74:52).

---

5. Birthright Citizenship and Supreme Court Ruling

Legal Developments:

• Supreme Court's Temporary Injunction: Justice Barrett, in her opinion, avoided a direct constitutionality assessment of the executive order altering birthright citizenship. She ruled against universal injunctions, limiting relief to individual cases rather than nationwide.

• Class Action Certification: Judge LaPlant certified a class action protecting all individuals who would be affected by the executive order, ensuring broader legal protection. Seder explains, "The Supreme Court's order was just on this question of... we can't have these universal injunctions" (74:52).

• Potential for Future Litigation: With the looming deadline of July 27 for policy enforcement, there is anticipation of further Supreme Court involvement and additional class action suits. Geidner anticipates, "We're going to see... the administration is going to appeal these things, and we are most likely going to be back at the Supreme Court" (78:48).

---

6. Conclusion

Sam Seder wraps up the episode by reiterating the severity of the Trump administration's policies and their implications on federal agencies' efficiency and legal challenges. The departure of experienced DOJ attorneys further diminishes the government's capacity to defend controversial policies, posing significant hurdles to opposition efforts.

Notable Quotes:

• Wesley Cheek: "If you're more likely to get kicked out of your house, you're less likely to have a place to shelter" (28:26).

• Maxwell Frost: "People were yelling, help me, help me...[and] the food we saw is not enough food" (09:33).

• Pam Bondi: "Our job is to help vulnerable people... If you're saying, no, I'm going to participate in fascism, pick another job" (34:50).

• Chris Geidner: "You’re going to have people out the front door before you even get to court" (73:17).

---

This episode of "The Majority Report" provides a critical examination of the Trump administration's handling of disaster response, legal challenges, and immigration policies, highlighting systemic issues within federal agencies and the judiciary's role in curbing executive overreach.

Transcript

[Sam Seder]

You are listening to a free version of Majority Report with Sam Steder.

[Emma Vigland]

To support the show and get another.

[Sam Seder]

15 minutes of daily program, go to majority SM please.

[Wesley Cheek]

The majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Monday, July 14, 2025. My name is Sam Seder. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Wesley Cheek, sociologist, assistant professor at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy on the disaster that is fema. Also on the program today, Chris Geidner, award winning journalist, publisher of the law dork. Substack on where we stand on some of the biggest rulings inhibiting the Trump administration. Also on the program today, MAGA boils over the Epstein files betrayal. It's Bongino versus Bondi in a despicable cage match. Meanwhile, two thirds of the Department of Justice unit tasked with defending Trump's policies in court have quit. Trump signals major weapons surge to Ukraine. And Trump also announces a 30% import tax on the EU and Mexico. Again, farm worker died in the wake of that ICE cannabis farm raid. Pam Bondi fired her personal ethics chief. Oh yeah, symbolic and actually material.

[Chris Geidner]

I might hire him.

[Wesley Cheek]

Former Israeli prime minister blast Israel's plans for the Gazan ghetto as a rerun of concentration camps. This as Israel kills 40 Palestinians overnight in Gaza. Andrew Cuomo to confirm an independent run as billionaires burn their money. Senate vote on public media grants has to happen this week. If it does, it will be a foreshadowing of a much larger possible rescission bill. All this and more on today's majority report. Welcome ladies and gentlemen.

[Emma Vigland]

It is fun day Monday.

[Wesley Cheek]

Fun day Monday. Thanks for being with us. The beginning of what promises to be a fun week. Okay. All right.

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah, I'm not making such promises.

[Wesley Cheek]

Jeffrey Epstein, the, the, that part's fun. That part is fun. Actually, the by the end of the week, the rescission, there is a time stamp on the end of the week of the Senate to vote. There is a provision in the anti rescission law from 1974 where the President can rescind funds that have been earmarked by Congress with a 45 day notice in which Congress has to take up a bill once the President gives them that notice. That 45 days is running out at the end of this week. Which is why you're hearing a lot more talk about this. The first bill to be tested is one which would take a couple million dollars away. Excuse me. Billion dollars away from public broadcasting in the country and then billions more across a couple of programs. But we will track that. I imagine we're going to hear more about it in the next day or two as the Senate, you know, returns home from the weekend, I guess. And of course we will get to the latest in the MAGA saga of Jeffrey Epstein, who apparently was a financier. And this guy's been talked about for years. The people have been talking about him for years. And Dan Bongino supposedly rumored that he would fire a go quit this weekend.

[Sam Seder]

It is.

[Wesley Cheek]

Regardless of what you think of the Epstein controversy or conspiracy theories, it's pretty funny to watch them all get upset about it. Now I think if you think that this is going to fundamentally sever the relationship between Donald Trump and, and his fan base, I don't know, 35% of the country who, who really wouldn't care if he shot somebody on Fifth Avenue. I think you need your head examined. But it is a distraction. And again, this administration's engaged in so much destructive stuff. Anything that is a distraction, really anything is, has a material benefit to people.

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah. And it is just from our perspective, fun to let the bozos that Trump put in charge kind of tear each other apart to. Because Trump is forcing, really, it's like the trio of Cash Patel, Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi to all take the heat for the COVID up that he ordered. And now he's just pitting them against one another because it's just weird. Trump not the most loyal guy. There's been some track record of this and perhaps, I don't know, the people that just got hired could have checked in on that prior to this.

[Chris Geidner]

It's nice to see him blow his propaganda assets credibility so mercilessly early in the administration.

[Wesley Cheek]

Yep. I mean the best case scenario for this would be Pam Bondi losing her job. And so if there's, you know, anything we can do to help, that we will. That's a good project to work on. And at the end of the day I'm not terribly exercised about a guy who is now dead and his co conspirator who is in jail, although I believe she has an arraignment or something. There's some case involving here and I'll look into this more that is happening. There's a filing due by Bondi I think today in that Ghislaine Maxwell case. So I guess we will check on that. But in the meantime, increasingly we're hearing more reports out of Florida on this alligator Alcatraz. The Miami Herald has been Doing some, some great work on this and I recommend their reporting. It is a just a, this is just a. This is a concentration camp and it is, I mean, in dismal, dismal shape. According to the Miami Herald, hundreds at all Alligator Alcatraz have no criminal charges. This is supposedly a detention facility that both Florida state and federal officials have characterized as the place where quote, vicious and deranged psychopaths are sent before they get deported. There are 250 people there who have only immigration violations but no criminal convictions or, or pending charges in the U.S. the data is based on a list of more than 700 people who are being held under tents and in chain link cells at Florida's pop up detention center in the Everglades or appear slated for transfer there. Hundreds of them have only pending charges. The records don't disclose the nature of those alleged allegations. So this is just, I mean it's a horror show. And fortunately, three Democratic congressional members visited, including Representative Maxwell Frost. Here is his description. After coming out of that facility.

[Maxwell Frost]

They opened the door. There was about six security guards standing there, kind of pushing us back, but we could see in and we could hear everybody. And when those doors opened, you know, what I saw made my heart sink. I saw 32 people per cage, about six cages. In the one tent. I saw a lot of people, young men who looked like me and people who were my age. People were yelling, help me, help me. I heard in the back someone say, I'm a U.S. citizen. And as we were walking away, they started chanting, leave it that, leave it that freedom. And looking into these cages, you could see, of course it was warm and hot within the tent. People were sweating. People, people. Some people had taken off their, their, their, their, the top of their clothing because it was just so hot. Some of them were drenched in sweat. The food we saw is not enough food. They're being fed essentially a small sandwich and a bag of chips. And not just that, but the conditions outside, of course, it's blazing hot. And the fact that the cage comes from the toilet, number one, not everyone's gonna be able to drink as much water as they'd like to because of that inconvenience. But also it's gross and it's disgusting. And this is where people are being helped.

[Emma Vigland]

You couldn't hear that last part.

[Maxwell Frost]

This was, opened the door. There was about six.

[Emma Vigland]

This was a zoom call he did with the press after he, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and I think another Democrat whose name escapes me right now, was there. You couldn't Hear that part? But he was describing how the drinking water comes from the toilet. And he'd said that on other shows before. So they, they didn't really want to show him, according to his other accounts, the full facilities, including the medical facility where he suspects some of the patients who are in worse shape are kind of sectioned off. And that's how sometimes some of these detention facilities function. But the, they gave ICE and the, and, or maybe it's not even ice. I think this is run by a third party.

[Wesley Cheek]

It's run by the state supposedly.

[Emma Vigland]

Right. So they, they gave them advance notice for days. And Frost and Debbie Wasserman Schultz were saying, well, this was the best case scenario because they had all this opportunity to prepare for us to come. And we're seeing now Nadia Velasquez, I think in New York City is showing up unannounced to an ICE facility right now. Because right now as, at least as of an hour ago. Because if that's the, if that's the best it looks, I mean we're talking a torture chamber in a concentration camp. And we're hearing accounts that they're borrowing tactics from the concentration camp seekot in El Salvador, including keeping the blaring fluorescent lights on 24 hours a day and housing dozens of people in small cages all together. But you also see that they're placing it in the Everglades purposefully because the heat is so torturous that I mean it's a matter of time, it seems like before someone dies in these conditions.

[Chris Geidner]

People have died in ICE detention, I think half of who maybe like a dozen or so and half reportedly and half of whom in Florida. And Thomas Kennedy, who a great reporter based in Florida, tweeted out this just to kind of show how this is working. Texas based company gave $10,000 to Florida's Republican Party days before getting state contracts to help with transportation at a state run detention facility for migrants in the Evergreens. And Kennedy has also pointed out a lot of these trucking companies will duct tape over their company's logo as they're helping to set this stuff up.

[Emma Vigland]

You're proud about this? Yeah.

[Wesley Cheek]

Should also just a reminder, in that raid on that farm up in California, one person died. He was trying to escape. I think it was a 57 year old man who's been in the country for about, I think it was 20 years, had been working at that farm.

[Emma Vigland]

For 10 years, had been working at.

[Wesley Cheek]

The farm for 10 and was no danger to anybody.

[Chris Geidner]

I mean, fellow broke his neck in the panic.

[Wesley Cheek]

Yep.

[Emma Vigland]

He was sending money, working and sending money to his daughter and wife who were still in Mexico. And according to another relative, he was the sole income for that for his daughter and wife. So these are the dangerous criminals that the Trump administration wants you to demonize here.

[Wesley Cheek]

Later, we're going to be talking to Chris Geithner about, among other things, the ruling in California that for the time being made Tom Homan redefine the definition of reasonable suspicion that he had been operating under, which is a good thing. But first we're going to hear from Wesley Cheek, a sociologist and assistant professor at Massachusetts Maritime Academy on FEMA and the disaster response and preparation in Texas. But before we do, a couple words from our sponsors. I have been on a, like a hair health regiment now for, I don't know, year and a half and it's working.

[Sam Seder]

It is.

[Wesley Cheek]

We have the neutral fall around the office. I've told the story a million times. Why? And for a long time I didn't think I need it. And then I started to take it. I started to see some results. I got a new subscription and then they came back and wanted to, I don't think they knew that I had done that but wanted to sponsor the program. I was like, absolutely. Nutrafol number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand. It is trusted by over one and a half million people. See thicker, stronger, faster growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with neutral fall, you know, you see the growth a little bit, but it's the shedding that I really notice. Much less shedding. Thinning hair of course, is different for men and women. One size fits all approach to hair growth doesn't cut it. Nutrafol has multiple formulas for men and women that are tailored to different lifestyle stages such as postpartum or menopause and lifestyle factors such as plant based lifestyle. So you can get just what you need. Plus, users of Nutrafol men reported no impact to sexual performance. I also reported none. While supplements rely on ingredient studies, Nutrafol clinically tests its final formulations so how the ingredients interact with each other. They use advanced hair measurement tools like hair counts and pull tests to track real improvements in growth, quality, shedding and texture. And it's not just backed by studies. The research is published in peer reviewed journals and vetted by doctors, ensuring scientific rigor and reliable results. Building a hair growth routine is easy. Order online, you don't need a prescription. Enjoy free shipping, automated deliveries and up to 20% savings with a Nutrafol subscription. Plus get free naturopathic doctor consults and a Headspace meditation membership. Start your hair growth journey with Nutrafol for a limited time. Neutrophil offering our listeners 10 bucks off your free first month subscription and free shipping when you go to neutral fall.com enter the promo code tmr10 that's the letters tmr the number 10 all no spaces I guess one word. Find out why Neutrophil is the best selling hair growth supplement [e-mail] spelled n u t r a f o l.com promo code tmr10 that's nutrafol.com promo code tmr10 also sponsoring the program today. Our buddies over at sunsetlake sabade.com that's right and they got a special announcement. They they have brought back two of their most popular topical products talking about the solves and they are now in the form of like a stick. Sort of like a, you know like a antiperspirant stick. So there's no more dipping your fingers in there and getting your fingers messy. You can rub it right on. These farmers know a thing or two about sore muscles and these sticks are packed with powerful relief. Sunset Lake took their classic CBD salve with Arnica and extra strength Muscle rub with Lidocaine and they put them in twist up mess free sticks. So there's like I say no more dipping your fingers in there. I use the Arnica for an off label usage. I use it for my eczema because it soothes it and then it seems to help it. I'm not saying it's going to work for you for that but. And the X Strength muscle rub has been a big hit around my house because my son complains about neck pain. He puts it on there and he likes it. I don't know. Plus they doubled their SEBA day per ounce in both formulas. That means more relief and longer lasting effects all for the same price you are used to. Again that Arnica stuff has been a go to for me particularly in the summer because I always get my eczema in the summer for whatever reason. These sticks are awesome. Check them out and here's the upshot. You can try these new sticks with 25% off with the code. New sticks, new sticks. That's newsticks all one word sale ends July 20th at midnight. So you got this week head over to sunsetlakesabadet.com use the code newsticks to treat your aches and pains to some much deserved relief. Check out their site for terms and conditions Quick break and we'll head into. Oh, we'll be talking to Wesley Cheek, sociologist and assistant professor at Massachusetts Maritime Academy. We'll be right back.

[Pam Bondi]

Sam. It sa it.

[Wesley Cheek]

We are back. Sam Seder, Emma Vigland on the Majority Report. It is a pleasure to welcome really back to the program Wes Cheek. He is a sociologist, assistant professor at Massachusetts Maritime Academy. And longtime listeners might know that this show, this iteration of the Majority Report, early on featured reports out of Japan in the wake of the Fukushima disaster from Wes. Well, welcome back to the program.

[Pam Bondi]

Thanks so much. Yeah, just briefly on that, like, my career started on this show like 14 years ago when I texted Sam was like, sam, I listened to your show in Japan. I'm about to drive into a tsunami. Is that cool with you? He was kind of, well, maybe a little bit. And then I ended up, yeah, the last 14 years working on disaster. So I guess, yeah, I was a majority reporter back then.

[Wesley Cheek]

No, I've, I have referenced you multiple times in my understanding of disasters.

[Pam Bondi]

Oh, great.

[Wesley Cheek]

Just your, your, you know, like what is involved in the study of disasters and, and what that sort of precept is about, so called natural disasters.

[Pam Bondi]

That's a good question. I like that question. So, yeah, so the study of disasters, it seems like we forget about this every time a new disaster happens. But people have been studying disasters for almost like 70 years now, especially in the realm of sociology and geography. Right. So we know and understand that disasters aren't like weather events or even climate events. They're complex sociological phenomenon. Right. And they are socially constructed in the same way a lot of our society is. So we construct what we call social vulnerabilities which are then impacted by hazards, hazards being things like hurricanes, floods, volcanoes, whatever. But it doesn't happen in a way that's just completely natural. Right. It's not like everyone's affected the same by a disaster. Right. It affects people who are socially vulnerable more. And that doesn't mean it only affects socially vulnerable people. But like poverty is like the number one predictor of being affected adversely by a disaster. You know, there's a whole gender component, there's racial components, there are sexuality components. Right. If you are more likely to get kicked out of your house, you're less likely to have a place to shelter. So also this idea of natural disasters is something that is used a lot by politicians and by insurance companies and a lot of other bad actors to kind of write off everything that we construct as a society and say, well, you know, what could you do? Like Trump's been doing this week in Texas. Well, who could have done anything about a flood? How do we know that a flood would happen? These are just things that happen. So that's been kind of, there's been a very good, especially if you're on the left, a lot of great leftist academic writing, including, you know, Mike Davis, David Harvey, even going back to like Kropotkin writing on like mutual aid. Right. Lining up for us like why this stuff is not just naturally, it's a sociological phenomenon. Does that get you to where we were going?

[Wesley Cheek]

Yeah, exactly. And I think, and there's certainly there are elements of, you know, the expansion of that camp in Kerr county or the potential for funding that was given from the Biden administration of Kerr county and the way they deployed it. And then just even the, you know, you had some official there saying, well, the taxpayers didn't want to pay for a warning system. This is all socially constructed. That leads to a.

[Pam Bondi]

Absolutely.

[Wesley Cheek]

But I want to talk to you first about fema. Yeah. Like, there's been a lot said. Let's, let's just first actually, let's play this, this clip. This is number four, Kristi Noem on Meet the Press Meet the Press reporting to a news about thousands of unanswered calls.

[Pam Bondi]

Right.

[Kristi Noem]

Do want to talk big picture in just a moment, but the New York Times is reporting that thousands of calls from flood victims to FEMA call centers went unanswered in the middle of this ongoing disaster because you didn't renew contracts to keep call center staff in place until nearly one week after the floods. Why did it take so long to extend those contracts? Those contracts were in place. Nobody take five days. No employees were off of work. Every one of them was answering calls. So false reporting, fake news. And it's discouraging. It's discouraging that during this time when we have such a loss of life and so many people's lives have turned upside down, that people are playing politics with this because the response time was immediate. And if you talk to anyone in Texas that was there, that was a part of this operation, they would say the federal government and President Trump immediately responded. Just to be very clear, on July 7, 15.9% of calls were answered. I mean, does that concern you that only 15% of calls were answered? These are people in a desperate state. FEMA, often the first call that they make, only 15% were answered on July 7, several days after the floods. These contracts were in place and those people were in those call centers and they were picking up the phone and answering these calls from these individuals. So that report needs to be validified. I'm not certain it's accurate and I'm not sure where it came from. And the individuals who are, are giving you information out of fema. I'd love to have them put their names behind it because.

[Wesley Cheek]

Okay. I bet she'd want to know who's leaking that information. Exactly. 15% of all calls coming into FEMA. That is.

[Pam Bondi]

I mean, it's ridiculous.

[Wesley Cheek]

It's ridiculous. I don't know how you get worse than that. So give me your sense. I mean, you obviously have a lot of relationships in and around female. What, what? Give me your sense of, like, what's going on there.

[Pam Bondi]

Yeah. And I should say, like, you know, I worked internationally most of my career, so, like, I'm, I'm relearning the FEMA system as I've moved back to the US as well. But, like, what's going on at FEMA right now should be a gigantic scandal. And it's one of these things under Trump that's so frustrating, I think for many people where it's all this stuff that would normally be a huge scam. Well, it's just kind of like, well, I don't know. I guess they just don't do this anymore.

[Wesley Cheek]

Right.

[Pam Bondi]

So let me run it down really quickly. We have someone who is the administrator of FEMA right now who has not gone through congressional approval. He's just kind of been put up there. And I think he's temporary. And my assumption is he's temporary until they decide to phase out FEMA or whatever. Right. Who's David Richardson? Zero experience in emergency management. None. He was in the Marine Corps. He, like, led their artillery school for a while and then he was in DHS in their, in their, like, weapons of mass destruction division. Right. Zero experience at emergency management. And I'm just going to say at the outset, one of the. We're at the 20th anniversary of Katrina. Right. I was just in New Orleans for four weeks before coming up to Asheville as I'm making my disaster rounds, you know, and one of the main things we took away from Katrina was we need people who know how to do this stuff. You can't put Mike Brown in charge of fema. Right. This is what you get. So. But we're, we're back to where we started, if not worse. We have. David Richardson knows nothing about emergency management. Right. Okay. Because all of this is going on at fema. People have been leaving fema. Career professionals who do Know what they're doing. So currently, and I can't speak personally to why these people left FEMA or not, but make of it what you will. Region 6 and 4, which is the U.S. gulf Coast, Texas, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Region 6 and 4 currently did not have regional administrators. Right. You can go on the FEMA website. No, nobody's home, nobody's running the office. Right. I think last time I looked, they don't have assistant administrators either. At least one of them don't. So there is a FEMA sort of director, no clue what he's doing, shows up in Texas a week late wearing like a boater hat, tight blue jeans and like a medallion and a button down shirt. Very strange. You also have, you know, no one's at these regions, Right. There's some career professionals there, but no one's leading them. So you don't have the leadership there. And you have regions like Region 1, which is new England, which you have Doucet, who's a conspiracy theorist who just tweets conspiracy junk all day instead of leading this. So what you're seeing, I think at FEMA is what you're seeing across the federal government, which is just a complete like ridiculing of the idea of public service, ridiculing the idea of expertise, forcing people kind of out of it by making it a miserable job, putting in incompetent people and then somehow just saying, oh, well, you know, I guess it'll work out. One other thing about David Richmond, quickly, I don't know if you guys covered it or not, but did anyone cover like his bonkers addresses he gave to FEMA that were leaked?

[Wesley Cheek]

Is this the one about hurricane season?

[Pam Bondi]

Well, he said he, he didn't know there was hurricane season. And the answer was, well, he's joking. Which either way, don't be the head of fever, right? Oh, you're joking about hurricane season. Well, on the Gulf coast we take that as great, nice joke or you don't know about it, which I think is probably true. No, no, he gave these speeches where it was rambling absurdity. I read it out loud to one of my classes and they were kind of thought I was joking. Like, no, this is an actual talk where he's like, you know, don't stand in my way. Some people want to get in my way, but don't stand in my way. And then this diatribe about Texas saying, I've got a red headed girlfriend in Texas and she had to explain to me that Texas was as big as Spain and that's why it's hard to do work there. And I didn't realize Texas was as big as Spain. So you have this guy who's kind of a bonkers character with no emergency management experience who's just there at fema. And I would assume what's happening now is they're putting Kristi Noem, who's dhs, at the head. And just a brief primer for everybody who wasn't around before 9 11. Right. FEMA was a thing. It had kind of an honorary cabinet position where it could speak directly with the president. Right. And this was kind of, you know, I'm very critical of Bill Clinton, but one thing he was very good at was we need to have FEMA here. James Lee Witt was his head of fema. We need to do this because the lesson back then was you can't fail at disaster management because it will ruin your political career and your political career. So FEMA was that way for a while. 911 happens. They put FEMA in this new thing, DHS. Whereas in there with like, you know, ICE, it's in there with, you know, Border Patrol, it's in there with all Coast Guard, which is okay, but it's in there with all these things that just don't make any sense for FEMA to be with. And now you have Kristi Noem at DHS who seems like she's just running FEMA now, who as a governor in South Dakota was not particularly good at emergency management and pretty controversial at it. I think she wasn't even allowed on tribal land for a while, which is a problem if you're working in emergency management. And, and so now she seems to be the head, but she's just using it to do this, you know, immigration fascism stuff. Right.

[Emma Vigland]

Well, well, she's redirecting FEMA funds to things like the Alligator Alcatraz and the detention concentration camps, those facilities in Florida. There's hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts that seem to be getting okayed, including like a grant for the Florida Division of Emergency Management. Dropsite reported this for over $600 million, which isn't just going to be for that one detention facility. It'll be spread more broadly. But contrast that with what the New York Times reported last week, which is that she implemented a policy where contracts of over $100,000 would require her personal sign off. And she didn't renew contracts that would have helped mitigate some of the worst of the flooding damage until five days after they'd already expired. Because this policy basically is a Catch for any contract, any grant. Because if you could just give people a sense of how infinitesimally small a contract of $100,000 would be within the grand scope of FEMA's responsibilities.

[Pam Bondi]

Yeah. There's like three or four things that come up with what you said. One thing is just a pedantic thing. I don't think it's that big a deal anymore. The, the, a lot of people said the money was from FEMA that goes to the concentration camp in the Everglades. It was DHS money that was designated for immigrants that got run through a FEMA grant program. So that one didn't really subtract to fema. But it seems like now FEMA money is going to start maybe going there. It's a pedantic point. But yeah, $100,000. Right. And so any grant or contract she has to sign off on. But like for the urban search and rescue teams, right, Like USAR teams, we use these urban emergency management abbreviations that sound cool. Now they, they can't even, I mean they can't even have like lunch for a hundred thousand dollars. Right. Once you like crank up one of these teams you're, I can't remember the exact number now but you're in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to get them like on the airplane out there. Right. So if you're saying we're going to put in this, well Kristi Gnome's got to say okay to it. It's one of those ridiculous things across the government now we're like we're being more efficient but they're absolutely not. They're sign off on every $100,000 purchase. It just won't work like because once you get into anything it's over $100,000. Debris removal, forget about it. Right. Search and rescue. No, all this stuff is over a hundred thousand dollars. Maybe you could do pack lunches for some people for a day. Maybe you could try and open a small rural shelter for a hundred thousand. But I don't know what you can do for $100,000. The other point. Yes. I think they're positioning FEMA now to just be part of this whole system. Fdm, the Florida Department of Emergency Management, they're very present in the concentration camp in the Everglades. Right. You see their symbol, you see their spokespeople, which is tremendous. I'm a Floridian. It's tremendously disappointing for me to see anyone in emergency management say we're going to go along with this because as I tell our students Our job is to help people. Our job is to help vulnerable people. Right. And if you're saying, no, I'm going to participate in fascism, like pick, pick another, pick another job. You're not doing our job. I don't know what that is. One note about that. Quickly. I'm going to do some self promotion slash complaining here. I've been trying to trademark my disaster fascism concept I keep putting out there. I had op ed with the New York Times that they kind of shelved after, after a little bit. It's kind of on the shelf and I keep kind of checking back in, being like, does that seem to you like disaster fascism? Right. Meaning that they're taking, because FEMA got put within dhs, the framework is there to just turn emergency management in general into this structure where you can just keep furthering the goals of, you know, oppression and fascism. Right.

[Wesley Cheek]

Yeah. I want to just ask you, just in terms of, like on that cost thing.

[Pam Bondi]

Yeah.

[Wesley Cheek]

The, the idea that, you know, Trump had reiterated early in his administration that I believe is in Project 2025, basically sending all this stuff down to the states.

[Pam Bondi]

Yeah.

[Wesley Cheek]

The Texas has a big disaster response, but the whole point of having a federal government do it and the whole point of it being not efficient but effective. Which are, which are, you know. Yeah, it's not efficient to, it's not efficient to do a lot of this stuff, frankly, because it's, you're, you're saving lives and lives aren't efficient, you know. Right. But the, the idea that states can take on these type of burdens, they just don't have the resources. And there's, you know, you may get a disaster of this ilk in a state once every five years. Maybe it's once every year, maybe it's once every 10 years. But you can't maintain a vigorous agency if you're only getting these one every 10 years. That's the whole point of the United States having a fema.

[Pam Bondi]

Yeah. It's crazy. So one of the frustrating things I think for everyone about the Trump administration is it seems like it's just detached from history completely. Right. So there's a history here. We used to not have fema. Right. There was a reason that they started FEMA in the late 70s. It was they were trying to work on disasters with like all of these different states, all of these different federal agencies trying to piece this together. And it was horribly inefficient. Right. As well as not being affected. And so they thought, well, maybe we can figure out a better way to do this where things are organized at the federal level and coordinated at the federal level. Because, you know, one of the leading definitions of a disaster is that it's something that's not manageable at like, whatever level it is that it's happening. Right. So if it's bigger than the city can handle, bigger than the state. State can handle, and disasters happen across state lines constantly. Right. So yeah. And you're right pointing out the, the inequality here. So Texas has essentially unlimited money maker. It's got oil. Right. And so it can just do, you know. But, you know, they fail a lot too. They failed when the, the, they had a hard freeze and the power grid went down and people frozen their houses. That's Texas. Yeah. Then you get into states that are poor. What are they supposed to do? Even in states? I will say, like, I work in Massachusetts now. Right. Part of my job is to go around to these local emergency management districts and work on these tabletop exercise with them for these real world scenarios. Our students do that and stuff. And these people, I should say, they're great. I love working with these people. They want to work hard, they want to do all this stuff. There's no emergency management agency in Massachusetts that's funded enough. Right. Like one of the places we're doing a hurricane evacuation exercise and the emergency manager is the fire chief who gets like a $6,000 stipend per year. And then like a volunteer who comes in, who retired and kind of thinks the weather is cool comes in and they have to like, run evacuation for like a town of, you know, 30,000 or something. Right. So there is nowhere in America that has enough money to do emergency management. Texas can kind of make it look like they can sometimes because they're, they have oil money. Florida used to be able to, I used to always say, well, Florida is good at this because they have to be. I don't know if that's true anymore. And one of the tipping points here really was, I think, the Trump response to Maria, where they failed completely. It was horrible. It's still a horrible response. And then no one really talks about it that much outside of Puerto Rico, where people are very aware that it failed because it used to be the lesson we were all taught. If you fail at disaster response, your political career, career is done. So Jeb Bush understood this. Look at what happened to the first George Bush. Look at what happened to the second George Bush. But Trump kind of broke it, right? He fails completely. He's horrible. They're horrible at disaster response. And his fan base just kind of like, well, what are you going to do? You know, and the media, I don't get it, seem to just kind of go along with this. Like, well, it seems like we're already past Kerrville now and they fail completely there.

[Wesley Cheek]

Yep. Well, West Cheek, sociologist, assistant professor at Massachusetts Maritime Academy. Thanks for your time today walking us through this. I suspect we'll be hearing from you more because I don't think there's any sense that the administration is going to get better at this and climate change is not going to make it any less frequent. And that is a recipe for disaster.

[Pam Bondi]

Way to bring it back.

[Wesley Cheek]

Thanks. All right. Appreciate your time, Wes.

[Pam Bondi]

Right, good. Thanks for having me on, guys. Great to see you.

[Emma Vigland]

Thank you.

[Wesley Cheek]

All right, folks, we're going to take quick break. When we come back, we're going to be talking to Chris Geithner. He is an award winning journalist and publisher of the Law Dork Substack on a couple of cases that are in the news and to take an assessment where we are in one of the few effective arenas of slowing the Trump administration's role. We'll be right back after this.

[Pam Bondi]

Ram it, Sam.

[Wesley Cheek]

We are back. Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland on the Majority Report. It's a pleasure to welcome back to the program Chris Geidner. He's an award winning journalist and the Law Dork publishing at the Law Dork on Substack. Chris, thanks so much for joining us. I think it's been several months, I think since we spoke last and the State of the Union is not doing much better. In fact, probably significantly worse. But I want to go through some of these cases and then talk about the sort of like last time you were on the general thrust of all these advocacy groups going in and suing the Trump administration and to some extent in some ways overwhelming them in a rather helpful way. But first, let's talk about this ruling that happened Friday night in la. Judge Frimpong, federal judge in la, found that the what ICE was using as reasonable suspicion to essentially pull over any brown people who might be, you know, working as a gardener or some profession they think would be an undocumented immigrant profession. I guess she put a basic a freeze on it for the time being. Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

I mean, this is basically a stop and frisk case, except for with the results being an effort to assess the legal status of the people that they are stopping and frisking and arresting and deporting them. So it's sort of like stop and frisk on steroids and. Yeah. And the ruling was a temporary restraining order to stop that. And the Justice Department on Sunday already has filed a notice of appeal which is going to go to the 9th Circuit at first and then depending on what happens there, I'm sure they will quickly run to their friends up at the Supreme Court with this.

[Wesley Cheek]

Yeah, that's what I'm, I'm sort of curious about is the sort of like, particularly in the wake of the naturalization case, I guess, ruling about the. And I still not sure I have a full grasp on what they held there that was applicable outside of this, but the, the limitations of, of something like this. So her order is just for California or is it just for the LA area? I mean, it's not binding on ICE outside of, I mean.

[Sam Seder]

Just applying to what, what they are doing in the, the lawsuit is about the Los Angeles efforts. So the, the only specific ruling that she is limiting it to is this Los Angeles, this specific effort. It is an enforcement effort that. I mean, I'm using effort because I don't know what other word I want to use right now. And so in some ways it would, it is a more limited ruling, even though there has been such attention on Los Angeles. But the effect would be that if you saw similar enforcement efforts elsewhere, they would certainly bring similar litigation and now sort of have a model of how to pursue this litigation.

[Wesley Cheek]

And, and what, I mean, what are the safeguards against ice? Just saying. Yeah, no, like, I mean, what, what happens under what. You know, it seems to me that it's one thing to sort of say like, okay, we want to enjoin them for using these practices. And in this instance, you know, as opposed to like stop and frisk, the political calculation of that entity still using that stuff is not the same as like the New York Police Department, let's say, continuing to do that under a city, you know, where the mayor has a direct responsibility here, this is an outside force coming into la. What are the remedies now? Are the remedies changed in the event that they are found to be continuing to use that stuff like this is where we run into that problem like you and what army is going to make us stop doing this?

[Sam Seder]

Yeah, I mean, at the, the sort of end of the discussion, that would be the bottom line. But the reality is that the, I mean, doj, as I said, DOJ and DHS is their client, appealed that order. So I mean, there is in some ways I always look at appealing, even though that might annoy us and even though that might mean we're headed back to into the warm embrace of the Supreme Court yet again. It is in its way a sign from the administration that they are still accepting that ruling as legitimate and binding on them.

[Wesley Cheek]

And so it goes to the, presumably to the ninth Circuit on appeal. Is there a chance that the administration fast tracks it to the Supreme Court? Because this whole, this is where we get into the shadow docket where you would think there's no reason for the Supreme Court to do this. It's not like, you know, ICE is going to be prejudiced or harmed if they are not able to do this, you know, for another three, four months or whatever it would be. But that's not the way the Supreme Court's been been. They've been doing the opposite. They've been saying that it's materially harmful to the government to not be able to do this stuff so quickly and so violently and you know, for lack.

[Sam Seder]

Of a better term to enforce their article to powers that any, any infringement on, on the president's powers is, is irreparable harm. And we, we've sort of seen with, and I do think this is potentially the distinction when it comes to the, the sort of external factors when it comes to things like the, the secretary ending status for people when it comes to things like these third country removals, when you're taking somebody to a country that they never lived in, have no connection with, which is horrific on its face. But there is sort of when you're looking for potential distinctions, an argument that where the Supreme Court has been overly deferential has been to the external looking the extraterritorial related decisions and that potentially there could be a different ruling on something like this where you, you are as you said, talking about what effectively amounts to an invasion of a US City.

[Wesley Cheek]

So I guess we'll, we'll see what happens in that case. In the meantime, theoretically at least I should be somewhat.

[Sam Seder]

Constrained.

[Wesley Cheek]

Constrained, I guess is the best. Yes. Constrained in the way that they operate there.

[Sam Seder]

Let's turn and I would just one last thing. I'd note that I do think we, we're seeing some interesting things happening with the Trump administration and the way they're treating the ninth Circuit because it now has, it's a huge circuit, it's like 27 judges. And the fact is that Trump did get a lot of appointees and in his first term. And so when these things come up on appeal like this, they first go to a three judge panel. And I think there is some hope from the Trump administration when they do appeal things out of the west coast that like maybe we'll get a good panel draw at first so that we won't even need to go to the Supreme Court. So I do think they will. To your question of whether they try to leapfrog the 9th Circuit, I think they'll at least see who they get at the 9th Circuit and see if they can get a ruling there.

[Wesley Cheek]

And if they get a good ruling from a three judge panel, then the plaintiffs, again I think it's the ACLU would then go to an en banc, the entire 27 justices more or less and look for a ruling from them. And then. Okay, so just so people have a sense of like what could happen there. But that's interesting about. I didn't realize 9th Circuit for them now is like a. Worth taking a gamble on, I guess. Let's talk about C cot. Yeah, Abrego Garcia is back, but sort of being in a sort of like a limbo state trying to avoid getting deported again to now another country. But where. But there was also a big revelation about C cot in a filing the other day. Tell us about that.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah, I mean we, we've been going through all of this litigation and once this was established that, I mean, because if you remember back in, in the beginning we didn't even know where they were going. We didn't know what was going on. Then when we found out there at the argument that the administration has been making and specifically before Chief Judge Boasberg in a class action lawsuit, habeas action that is specifically about the people who were sent to seekot under the Alien Enemies Act. But it's also come up in a bunch of other cases whenever judges issue orders like in Abrego Garcia's case, to facilitate the return of these people. The Justice Department has argued with a declaration from a State Department official that essentially once people are sent to seekot, it's El Salvador's responsibility that they've taken the authority for these people. They're doing what they want. Anything that we do as the American government to get these people back is a foreign policy negotiation, its diplomacy. And that's why they're arguing that like essentially the courts have to step back because diplomacy is like the height of the President's powers. But then there was this UN report filing in which the, the, the commission that got a complaint about the people who were sent there issued a report that said that El Salvador told the them that they did not have the control over these people and that in this context the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons Lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities that is the United States. So that's what El Salvador told the UN that this is essentially we are letting them use our facility. But the US still has the final say over these people, which is shocking.

[Wesley Cheek]

It seems to be shocking and like it would. And so where. What, how is that filing being addressed at this point? I mean, it feels like there's been concerted lying to the court, obviously to the American people, but directly to the court on multiple occasions. I mean, this has been going on for months where they're like multiple cases.

[Sam Seder]

So the, the first sort of fallout from this. The, the, the document was filed before Judge Boberg in this class habeas effort to get due process for the people sent to Seacot on March 15. But in another case where Judge Stephanie Gallagher in Maryland is hearing a case over a settlement that essentially said the US Government can't remove members of this class until they get a ruling on their asylum claims. But one of those members of that class was sent to Seekot on March 15. He's been identified in the documents as Christian. And she, similar to Abrego Garcia's case, ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return. Like with Abrego Garcia's case, they've been dragging their feet on this. And she issued an order the day after the UN Report was filed in the DC Case, essentially saying, government, tell me what's going on here. Explain this, explain how this doesn't contradict what you have been saying about this. And she gave them till July 15, so tomorrow to file their response as to that. And I think that she will hopefully not be the last judge to sort of call for this. But as we learned with, with Judge Zenas, who's still, last week held a series of hearings over the way the Trump administration has treated Abrego Garcia, that all it takes is one federal judge to really stand on their ground and say, no, you have made claims to this court under oath. I'm going to call you to account for them.

[Emma Vigland]

Do you have a sense of the status of the other prisoners sent to see Cotton El Salvador? Like the, the hairdresser comes to mind, the man with the autism awareness tattoo, among others.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah, I mean, as far as we know, they're in secret. We don't know if other people have been been moved similar to the, how Abrego Garcia was moved. We, we don't know. We, we did get another sort of bombshell that we got last week was if you remember this Erez, I forget his last name. The state Department official who was the one who admitted in court what had already been in filings, that Abrego Garcia had been removed in an administrative era. Erez Riovini, he was the one who filed the whistleblower report and that went to the Senate Judiciary Committee, among others, because of the fact that, that the, the, the, the fact that we have the, the email bovet being nominated for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, despite being behind a bunch of this, they turned over a bunch of their emails and texts last week. That was a really a, a smart move by Durbin. When that whistleblower discovered disclosure came out, he followed up and asked the lawyers for the, the actual evidence behind it, and they turned it over and he publicized that last week. And so we got a bunch of information that's, that's truly damning on, on the, the, the front of sort of how the government sort of essentially implemented this without, with, with being aware that it might be lawless, with being aware that they might quickly be facing court actions, trying to get them to, to, to fall back and still went forward with this, went forward with. I don't know if, like, you've even heard about this, but there was like, an effort for a week or so for the administration to get around Bose initial Alien Enemies act order by sending people to Guantanamo Bay and then having the Department of Defense take them to El Salvador. Like, this is just, there has just been lawlessness after lawlessness. And we're almost in a situation now where courts are, like Judge Gallagher did, they're acting, but it's, it's almost having to slow down the wheels because the Trump administration acted so lawlessly so quickly over the course of March and April.

[Wesley Cheek]

It does seem like there is an attempt by the administration in this sort of, like, area to play with jurisdiction. Because I've also heard, you know, one of the ways that they kept some of those lawmakers out of I, that detention facility down in Florida is by saying it's actually, it's a state detention facility.

[Sam Seder]

So we can't, you know, it's not an ICE facility. It's a state facility. State. It's essentially, they're arguing it's essentially just a state, a state prison.

[Wesley Cheek]

And this seems like a concerted effort across, I mean, the idea of like, well, if we get them to Guantanamo, it's almost like we go through some type of, like, it's laundering. They're basically laundering their prisoners. We're no longer associated with it. And the Defense Department does as the Defense Department does. It's no Longer an ICE issue. I imagine this is going to keep happening, but let's. I want to move over to the SCOTUS decision about the mass firings.

[Sam Seder]

Yes.

[Wesley Cheek]

In the federal government. Again, it's one of those things where it's hard to call it a decision. It's just, I guess, an edict, because there is no sort of argumentation behind it. It's just. Yeah, you're good.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah. I mean, it's, I mean, the, the way that the shadow docket has been used has been troubling, and that's why it's gotten this attention in recent years. But what we're seeing now is essentially shadow docket rulings, which, I mean, to be clear, we use this phrase, the shadow docket. What they are is like, legally, they're emergency applications. They are. Before, like, 15 years ago, 90% of the time that you saw an emergency application, it was in a death penalty penalty case. And that's why I cover, I've covered the death penalty now for 15 years. And I was like, I literally remember the time when, like, 90% of the cases we got on the shadow docket were just death penalty cases. But how they're being used by the Trump administration, especially in this second era, is to enable the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that it says is, isn't a merits ruling, that they say this is just on this initial first look at the case in order to figure out how it should proceed while litigation is going on below. But the bottom line is that that first look is essentially resolving the case. When you look at the, the. I already mentioned the shadow docket rulings where they allowed Secretary Noem to implement two different actions that removed legal status from half a million people. Those people, especially now in this administration, with their efforts to mass deport people, those people are deportable and could be, could go into the system. And so.

[Wesley Cheek]

And then once they're out of the country, I mean, they're out of the country.

[Sam Seder]

I mean, that was Justice Sotomayor in her dissent in one of those two, essentially said, like, this could moot those cases. And now you see that again with this ruling on the mass riffs that Judge Susan Nelston in California had ending. It really. I mean, like, I remember it because it came out on a Friday night when I was supposed to be on vacation and I sat in my hotel room reading this ruling because it was like, so well done, and it was really complex. And she went through all of the issues about, like, whenever a president has wanted to reorganize the Government, they've gone to Congress because that's what's needed. And this was, and Trump even did so in his first term. And this is essentially an effort with an executive order and then a joint memo from OMB and Office of Personnel Management to say agencies, you can do mass riffs everywhere.

[Wesley Cheek]

Rif just so people know, reduction in force.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah. And like this is leading to, and we saw it be implemented at the State Department on Friday was sort of the biggest immediate effect where you had upwards of the numbers we don't even know because it was so disorganized and so informalized in a way that I saw numbers that range from 1000 to 1300 to 3000 people. I've definitely, perhaps personally been informed of like basically entire departments that all of their senior leadership is now gone. I heard of one department where there's one person left. And this is going to upend. It's going to like with most doge things, it's going to end up costing the government much more than it saves because we're talking about long term efforts that were in place by the government that they just like got rid of all of the people who were implementing them overnight.

[Wesley Cheek]

So, and the issue ultimately comes down to is a reduction in force valid? And the premise of this is we can do the agency's mission with less people. And so we do this. But, but the, the, the tricky part is, wait, what's the agency's mission like? Are you fundamentally altering the agency's mission? You know, it's one thing to say the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, it's there. And really the only thing it's supposed to do is just check on bank late fees. Everything else it does is really not part of its mission. You're rewriting what Congress has established as.

[Sam Seder]

A wide agency exists. What we're seeing in more of the language and now the CFPB case you mentioned, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, like the CFPB case, specifically the CFPB, RIF is still on appeal before the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals. That was one that they did try to do individually, although it was by right. Russ vote in as the acting director of CFPB and he's like literally the guy behind Project 2025. So we know where he wants to go with this. He like, this is the thing that, that you've, you start with the Trump's executive order that says I want mass riffs, go for it. You then have this joint Office of Personnel Management, Office of Management and Budget memoir that tells agencies to do mass rips, the federal code has a provision for rips, because they understand that sometimes that's going to happen when a new administration comes in, an agency might change. But there are things within that statutory RIF process that are dealing with what you've talked about that say if there is statutory requirements, if there is, if there are current appropriations, which is Congress has said this money is going to this purpose, that those can't be ignored through a rif, because Congress has already decided that. And what we're seeing, what we saw with the CFPB rif, because that, that was the case where we actually did look, look at what they did on a department level, as opposed to a government level, was that there was no real individual. Like, what they showed us, what they submitted to the court was literally like an Excel spreadsheet with like, how many people were in the agency. And then it moved down from like 42 to 2. And they said that that would be okay. And you saw that through the entire agency. And I believe that was Judge Amy Berman Jackson at the District court sort of looked at the lawyers and were like, are you serious? Telling me that, like, this is the individualized review that the D.C. circuit said was necessary. And so now you're going to see that when the Supreme Court issued their order, they thought they were being cute. And what they said is, we're, we're just ruling on the executive order and the OMB OPM memo and whether they, the plaintiffs are likely going to succeed, that those were illegal. We're not ruling on the actual RIFs or the actual reorganizing plans of the agencies, which essentially said you can bring individual lawsuits or when those get proposed, you can add them to the lawsuit and have individual things. But as we saw with the State Department, if you move quickly and implement them quickly because they've already been planned, you're going to have people out the front door before you even get to court.

[Wesley Cheek]

All right. Lastly, let's talk about the birthright citizenship deadline. Like, just briefly characterize what the Supreme Court decided in the, the case that they, they heard, it had more to do with the power of a federal court, a subsidiary court, in constraining the U.S. government. There were, I mean, it's, it's sort of a shocking answer because, particularly in the context of birthright citizenship, because the government could just keep trying to essentially denaturalize or de. Citizen defy people and get away with as many as they can. And then just like, you know, on an individual basis, people might be able to save themselves if they have enough resources. But one would think this is an action by a court, I mean I should say by the government. Everybody is, and I think there is a judge that has ruled this. Everybody is within a, a similarly situated class enough so that this could be a, a class action suit as opposed to like a multi district tort suit where they all suffer different injuries for, from a singular event. This is where everyone's going to suffer the same injury. And so he certified this as a class. What are the implications of that?

[Sam Seder]

Yeah, so that, I mean, you're exactly right. The Supreme Court's order was just on this question of, I mean, Justice Barrett in her opinion tried to fastidiously avoid the constitutionality of the Birthright Citizenship executive order. And what they just said is you can't have these universal injunctions that, where an individual person who sues says that this should be unconstitutional for everybody. And we can have the fight over whether that ruling was good. I think it was a bad ruling on its face. But even that ruling said there are still options in the law to get broader relief. And one of those, as you said, is class actions. And so what we have going out of that, the Supreme Court said the policy is on hold for 30 days. So apparently they're still able to have universal injunctions like the, the, I mean, Barrett's ruling is to be clear, like you're going to see in the coming year, like law professors coming out with like law review articles about how nonsensical that decision was. But where we're at now, worried about people and what's going into effect is that on July 27, the government has said that they would be able to enforce this policy. And so Judge LaPlant issued, as you said, he, he did grant class wide relief. He found that there was a class and said that that class should be protected with a preliminary injunction. And the class is essentially anybody who would be covered by the order. There's another case like that in Maryland that was the actual CASA case that had gone up to the Supreme Court. They amended their complaint to bring a class action. And then there are the two multi state actions that were originally brought. And that was another issue that Justice Barrett said we're not resolving, is that sometimes, sometimes a universal injunction isn't a universal injunction if you actually need that broad of relief in order to get your harms solved. And so the example that was before the court, New Jersey had sued and because of Pennsylvania, because Pennsylvania's attorney General is now a Republican, they didn't join the litigation and the New Jersey solicitor general at the Supreme Court essentially said, if you don't allow New Jersey to get nationwide relief, what you're essentially saying is that when New Jersey residents go to a Philadelphia hospital, as they often do, if a child is born, there, is there going to be a debate over whether they are a US Citizen, if they otherwise would be covered by this executive order and are in a state that isn't covered by the injunction, and those judges are considering how to handle that, and whether or not those nationwide injunctions spit. And the fact of the matter is that despite Barrett's efforts to avoid void the executive order, the administration is going to appeal these things, and we are most likely going to be back at the Supreme Court sometime over the summer with another case challenging these rulings, issuing broad injunctions under the two scenarios where the Supreme Court said they could happen.

[Wesley Cheek]

All right, so I guess we'll find out within days on that one. Lastly, two thirds, this is a broader question, 2/3, it was reported of the DOJ, I guess, litigation unit that defends all of these policies, 69 of the roughly 110 lawyers in the four federal programs branch have voluntarily left the unit since Trump's election or have announced plans to leave. Now they're being replaced by real political cronies. But this, this is not stuff that you can just sort of like, you, you need institutional memory in there to know how to do this.

[Emma Vigland]

And.

[Wesley Cheek]

The onslaught of lawsuits against the government, combined with the lack of institutional understanding on how to handle these, I mean, even if they were all there, I think it would be difficult. And even if they all subscribed to these wackadoodle things that the administration's doing would be overwhelming. I mean, this is, I mean, this is like one of the, I don't want to say victory areas. One of the areas where, like, the sort of the ramparts are holding a little bit.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah, it's. I mean, the federal programs branch is like the pros of this, of dealing with these issues. Like, I've, I've watched them in court, the longstanding ones, over the past six months and before, long before then. But, I mean, these are the people who, who know the ins and outs. They understand the consequences of arguments. They understand the fact that you have to be very careful with arguments, because every argument on, like, one little thing is going to have sort of that butterfly effect, because all of a sudden it's going to become the principle if accepted in cases across the country, in totally different types of cases, and if all of a sudden you go from having 100 of these people who, many of whom I point out regularly on Blue sky when, like whenever I catch wind of somebody with more than 10 years of experience leaving, because that means that there's somebody who literally worked in DOJ throughout the entire first Trump administration and didn't leave like these. These are people who are really more dedicated to the Department of Justice than anybody else, and they're leaving. It really leads to moments where I've watched. I mean, you get these people, I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but you get somebody who has like five years of experience at Jones Day or at some other big law firm coming in because one of their buddies is in the senior position at doj, and they literally never thought they would work in government, never planned on it, have no understanding of how the Justice Department works. They're essentially doge employees with law degrees.

[Wesley Cheek]

Right?

[Sam Seder]

Well, with all of the disaster that entails, yes.

[Wesley Cheek]

And, but hopefully also it makes it that much harder for the administration to get to carry out and execute their plans, I guess.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah. I mean, it does. I mean, you do see fewer and fewer names on, on the briefs in the key cases. I mean, Drew Ensign, who was the one who had argued on March 15 before Judge Boasberg in the Alien Enemies act case, I mean, he's essentially on every immigration case now because so many of the people within that office are gone. It's not just the federal programs, brands. I mean, that's the Office of Immigration Litigation. We're seeing it in agency in. I mean, we're not even getting into what's happened to the Civil Rights division and stuff like that, which is both abhorrent and like, will will be like, if and when there is a president who ever wants to enforce civil rights law again, we're basically going to have to start from scratch.

[Wesley Cheek]

Chris Geithner, publisher. I mean, it's inevitable these days, but we will link to your substack at Law Dork. Thanks so much for your time today. Really appreciate it.

[Sam Seder]

Thanks.

[Emma Vigland]

Thanks so much.

[Wesley Cheek]

All right, folks, well, we're going to take quick break and we'll head into the fun half because, boy and Howie, we need it.

[Sam Seder]

Oh.

[Wesley Cheek]

But we should say we have a new addition to our merch store. Whoa. Yeah, we're calling this. Can you guys pop this up?

[Emma Vigland]

Yes.

[Wesley Cheek]

You all saw the max left trucker cap that we hired a model to come down into the studio. And yeah, we found some, some hunk.com or whatever it is, and we had a.

[Emma Vigland]

You go to hunk.com a lot, Sam.

[Wesley Cheek]

I mean look, I, I noodle around on the Internet. Why not? After Neutrophil he stars on it. And we, we had a max left trucker's cap, but now we have the max, the Max Left Majority report baseball hat, Vanguard edition, which of course is.

[Emma Vigland]

A, because they, they were saying that they wanted like real traditional hats, right? Not just the trucker hats. And so in their, in the honor of the vanguard, the boys, you know, holding the line for us all, we got the, I mean bottom line is.

[Wesley Cheek]

Look, we chase, we chase sales on our merch store. And so, you know, anybody comes up with a good recommendation, we just follow through. That's how we work around here.

[Emma Vigland]

So check responsiveness to our base. Unlike the Democrats.

[Wesley Cheek]

Exactly. It's called audience capture. And that's what we suffer from. And that's why you're getting the non truckers version of the max left hat.

[Chris Geidner]

We're afraid that our audience would turn on us if we didn't keep feeding them with this merchandise.

[Emma Vigland]

Showing that we are the purest of them all.

[Wesley Cheek]

Exactly, exactly. Also, just a reminder, you want to support this program, go to jointhemajorityreport.com when you do, you not only get the free show free of commercials, but you also get the fun half and you can IM us. And really ultimately, more importantly, you help this show survive and thrive. Join themjorityreport.com every one of your memberships helps us tremendously. Also don't forget just coffee co op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. You use the Coupon code, get 10% off. You can buy the majority report blend. I got one right here.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah.

[Wesley Cheek]

Whoa. Yeah. How's that for yeah. At just Coffee Majority report blend. You can also get the WTF blend but they have a bunch of other single origin and blends there. And to co op they're a great outfit. Just coffee co op coupon code, Majority Matt Left reckoning. Yeah, Left reckoning.

[Chris Geidner]

We had a Sunday show for patreon.com leftreckoningmembers we talked about Bret Stephens going on Ross Douthat to defend Bibi Netanyahu's decision making post October 7th. Turns out that genocide was really the only course of action that could have been taken. And he compares the IDF to an animal the Allies during World War II and the Union army in the Civil War. So we we can find out if we object to it or not by becoming a member. At patreon.com left reckoning was Bret Stephens.

[Emma Vigland]

The one who was comparing the middle east to insects in America to a mighty lion. Recently.

[Chris Geidner]

Oh, I don't know.

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah, about that.

[Chris Geidner]

But I would not be surprised.

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah. Yeah. Oh, no, it was Thomas Friedman. I'm sorry, I confused the Islamophobes in the New York Times opinion section.

[Chris Geidner]

Yeah, Brett Stevens, fanatic. So check that out.

[Wesley Cheek]

Nicola on the IM says, my boyfriend, or possibly myself would like a flaming virgonia jockstrap. If you're chasing sales. These might be a hit with the gays. God did that. I believe that, too. I mean, it does sound like a product that would move.

[Emma Vigland]

Well, if you're into the shame. And then what comes after the shame? Begonia is perfect for that.

[Wesley Cheek]

Jeff Bezos came. Bill Gates came. Mark Zuckerberg came. Many of them came numerous times. The bankers have all come. Everybody's coming. That's the Epstein files. All right, we'll see you in the fun half. Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're going to look back and go like, wow. What? What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on for. Hold on for a second. Emma. Welcome to the program. Unhappy Matt. What is up, everyone?

[Pam Bondi]

Fun hat.

[Wesley Cheek]

No, McKeen.

[Pam Bondi]

You did it.

[Wesley Cheek]

Fun hat.

[Emma Vigland]

Let's go, Brandon.

[Pam Bondi]

Let's go, Brandon.

[Wesley Cheek]

Fun hat. Bradley, you want to say hello?

[Pam Bondi]

Sorry to disappoint everyone.

[Wesley Cheek]

I'm just a random guy. It's all the boys today.

[Sam Seder]

Fundamentally false.

[Emma Vigland]

No. I'm sorry.

[Wesley Cheek]

Women. Stop talking for a second.

[Sam Seder]

Now.

[Pam Bondi]

Let me finish.

[Emma Vigland]

Is this coming from. Dude.

[Wesley Cheek]

But. Dude, you Want to smoke this? 7A.

[Sam Seder]

Yes.

[Wesley Cheek]

Yes.

[Sam Seder]

Is this me?

[Pam Bondi]

Is it me?

[Wesley Cheek]

It is you.

[Pam Bondi]

Is this me?

[Wesley Cheek]

Oh, is this me? I think it is you. Who is you every single freaking day.

[Sam Seder]

What's on your mind?

[Wesley Cheek]

We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism.

[Pam Bondi]

I'm gonna go snow white.

[Wesley Cheek]

Libertarians. They're so stupid. Though common sense says.

[Sam Seder]

Of course.

[Emma Vigland]

Gobbledygook.

[Wesley Cheek]

We nailed him.

[Emma Vigland]

So what's 79 plus 21?

[Wesley Cheek]

Challenge.

[Pam Bondi]

Man, I'm positively quivering.

[Wesley Cheek]

I believe 96. I want to say 8, 5, 7, 2, 1, 0, 35, 500. One, one half. 3, 8, 9, 11.

[Pam Bondi]

For instance.

[Emma Vigland]

$3,400. $1900.

[Wesley Cheek]

5, 4, $3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game.

[Emma Vigland]

Actually. You're making me think less.

[Wesley Cheek]

But let me say this. Call it satire.

[Pam Bondi]

Sam goes satire on top of it all.

[Kristi Noem]

My favorite part about you is just.

[Sam Seder]

Like every day, all day, like everything you do.

[Wesley Cheek]

Without a doubt. Hey, buddy. We see you. All right, folks, folks, folks.

[Emma Vigland]

It's just the week being weeded out, obviously.

[Wesley Cheek]

Yeah. Sun's out, guns out. I. I don't know.

[Sam Seder]

But you should know.

[Pam Bondi]

People just don't.

[Wesley Cheek]

Like to entertain ideas anymore. I have a question. Who cares? Our chat is enabled, folks. I love it.

[Emma Vigland]

I do love that.

[Wesley Cheek]

Gotta jump. Gotta be quick. I gotta jump.

[Pam Bondi]

I'm losing it, bro.

[Wesley Cheek]

Two o', clock, we're already late and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag.

[Emma Vigland]

Outrageous.

[Wesley Cheek]

Like, what is wrong with you?

[Pam Bondi]

Love you.

[Wesley Cheek]

Bye. Love you.

[Pam Bondi]

Bye.

[Wesley Cheek]

Bye.