Category: Prisons and Policing

  • The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has halted the imminent closure of the infamous “Alligator Alcatraz” detention camp in Florida; now, the future of the facility, and the people incarcerated within it, remains in limbo. “But no matter the future of Alligator Alcatraz, the Trump administration is turning it into a model for expanding detention capacity across the country,” Shannon Heffernan and Beth Schwartzapfel report at The Marshall Project. “Similar large-scale facilities, opened in collaboration with state governments, are already in the works. These projects mark the first time that states have gotten this involved in large-scale immigration detention.” In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa speaks with Heffernan about how the Trump administration, in collaboration with state governments, is expanding the US system of mass incarceration to unprecedented levels.

    Guest:

    • Shannon Heffernan is a staff writer at The Marshall Project whose work focuses on prisons and jails across the US, as well as sexual and gender-based violence, immigration and mental health, and how arts and culture shape (and are shaped by) crime and punishment.

    Additional links/info:

    Credits:

    • Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Mansa Musa:

    Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Today we’re talking about detention centers, zombie prisons, and alligator Alcatraz. Joining me today is Shannon Heffernan, an award-winning reporter and fiction writer whose works focused on prisons and jails across the United States. Her recent reporting include two major pieces. The next alligator Alcatraz could be in your state, which looks at the controversial ICE Detention Project in Florida and zombie prisons about how ICE is bringing shuttered facilities back to life. Shannon, welcome to Rallying the Bars.

    Shannon Heffernan:

    Thank you so much for having me. I’m happy to be here.

    Mansa Musa:

    Let’s start with the next alligator. Alcatraz could be in your state. Okay. So construction on Alligator Alcatraz was stopped because a lawsuit was filed saying it had a environmental detriment, and so it was stopped. Based on that, walk us through how that came about and what’s going on with that now.

    Shannon Heffernan:

    Sure. So a couple of groups, some environmental groups as well as some indigenous tribes. Our a indigenous tribe bought a lawsuit against Alligator Alcatraz because of environmental concerns. They essentially said, this is a federal facility, it should follow federal laws, and it’s not done the proper environmental review. Originally, a court did halt that. However, very recently an appeals court has lifted the halt on alligator Alcatraz, so it moves forward. All of this is going to continue to play out in courts. We don’t know where it will land for alligator Alcatraz, but I do believe that this all has implications beyond what’s happening in Florida for states across the country. And no matter what happens at Alligator Alcatraz, I think it gives us some insight into the strategies that the federal government wants to use to increase immigration detention across the United States.

    Mansa Musa:

    In terms of the conditions in alligator Alcaraz, I recall reading some things where one is beyond the environmental aspect of it, the impact it has on environment, but the impact it has on human, human beings, people that’s being detained in there. And I seen a picture of how it’s designed and the way it’s designed is designed like with multiple bunks and cages and tents. In your report and in your gathering your information, what can you say about the conditions of alligator ture?

    Shannon Heffernan:

    Yeah, there’s been some pretty big complaints about the human conditions there. You’ve had people complaining about food not being edible. You’ve had people complain about their access to legal representation. You’ve also had people complaining about how difficult it is to even find if somebody is incarcerated at alligator Alcatraz. They weren’t showing up in the federal system. They also weren’t showing up in the state system. So it was hard to locate folks. It became this kind of black hole. The federal government has denied some of those claims in terms of how bad the living conditions are, but there have been multiple reports from people who are incarcerated there as well as civil rights lawyers representing their case,

    Mansa Musa:

    Talk about the law that gives them the right to detain people, and if you can juxtapose that against what is actually taking place now.

    Shannon Heffernan:

    Yeah, so I think this is a really important point that I heard from legal scholars I’ve been speaking to about immigration detention. Technically, immigration detention is not supposed to be punishment. It is different in that way from what you see in the criminal system, at least in terms of the law. That said, you see these places not only having troubling conditions like you’ve mentioned, but being given these names that raise the specter of them being frightening places. Alligator Alcatraz, you now see that they want to send people to Angola, a place that has a long history of problems and lots of associations with abusive treatment or the so-called speedway slammer in Indiana. So I think that it seems to be clear that officials are really raising the spectra of these places, being places you don’t want to go, that would be punitive. So I do think there’s that gap between what you hear legal scholars saying immigration detention should be, and then actually how it plays out and what it does.

    Mansa Musa:

    And you mentioned speedway slammer, and then the fact that AIN going is known for its plantation style facilities, but more importantly, we had the opportunity to talk to some people relative to crop dusting and when they come around and crop dust, whether or not it has an effect on going into the cell blocks. And so in terms of your investigation, how do you see that playing out? Because you mentioned earlier that this what we see now taking place in alligator Alcatraz is ominous a whisk to come down the pipe in terms. Talk about that.

    Shannon Heffernan:

    So I mean, I think that there’s a couple of things to consider. I mean, I think generally there’s the issue of detention increasing across the United States and what that means for conditions. But specifically what I meant when I talked about that is there’s a strategy that the federal government is now using to specifically get state governments involved in alligator Alcatraz. As I said, this is a state run facility. You see what’s happening in Indiana, in Nebraska with the so-called corn husker clink with Angola and Louisiana, that there are these collaborations with states to do that. And so why would that matter? Why would that matter? Right. Well, when it’s fuzzy who’s in control, a lot of the experts I spoke to about this says that makes accountability much harder. It sets up conditions that are really ripe for abuse, and we already know that there have been problems with conditions and immigration detentions for a long time, and I think what folks are arguing is this just creates a really fertile ground for that to happen even more and an even more extreme way. The collaboration with states, I think also could potentially free up resources for the federal government to do this even more other places. You’ve had the DHS secretary, Christie Noam saying that this strategy of working with states is actually becoming her preferred method instead of working with private prisons. And why is that? Because she says she thinks it’s cheaper, she thinks it’s more efficient. Instead of having to sign long-term contracts, she can sign these shorter term contracts.

    She didn’t say this now, but this is me, at least she hasn’t said it that I’m aware of. It also would give her access to a workforce that might not otherwise be available because it comes from the state or buildings that might not otherwise be available because their own bar state. So if the United States government really wants to up the number of people who they’re detaining and then eventually deporting, which they’ve said that is their goal, collaborating with states on this level is something that can help them do that. I think it’s really important to note that this is unprecedented. Local governments have played a role and immigration detention in the past. For example, local jails rent out their beds to ice, but you haven’t really seen it on this scale. We’re talking about massive, massive facilities that are supposedly under the state’s control, although I think that there’s some complications and nuance there about how much they’re under the state versus the federal control.

    So this is something we’ve not really seen at this scale before in the United States and is definitely worth paying attention to. I also think it speaks to a larger idea that I think we really need to be wrestling with and thinking about, which is how our country’s history of mass incarceration is actually deeply tied to what you see happening with immigration right now. These facilities are available and built because the United States has a long history of incarcerating large numbers of people. When you saw criminal justice reforms in the last decade, some of those facilities began to be shut down, either because places were shrinking, their prison population changes to parole or sentencing, or because the facilities were simply deemed too terrible, too harsh of places to put humans into. But after those facilities closed, the buildings weren’t destroyed and now you’re seeing them reanimate it for use by immigration detention.

    And I think that’s really important to notice because in the same way that they’re being moved from the criminal system to the immigration system right now, once this system is built, once the system is fortified, you can see it being deployed against other populations. Once the infrastructure is there, there are financial incentives to keep them going. So when we see immigration detention getting bigger and bigger, I think there’s a question of like, well, what does that mean for the next decade in the United States? I think it’s something, it’s going to be a legacy that is likely to continue beyond just this present moment.

    Mansa Musa:

    Do immigrants people that’s locked up under the Immigration Nationalization Act, do they have constitutional rights? Do they have the protection under the eighth amendment, the cruel, unused upon the 14th due process, 14th amendment due process? Do they have these rights of once they’re locked up, do they have the same rights that United States citizen had or are they just put detained and then when they determine where they’re going to send ’em, they pack ’em up and fly ’em to wherever state or country they want to take ’em to?

    Shannon Heffernan:

    So there are standards that are supposed to be met in these detention centers. I think the question is, regardless of what the standards are, if you don’t have oversight, then it doesn’t matter. If you don’t have enforcement, then it doesn’t matter. And we’ve seen a real decimation of the systems that have historically provided oversight in these facilities. If you can’t prove what’s happening inside, it becomes really difficult to hold those systems accountable. And in addition to some of the groups that were supposed to watch dog detention centers shrinking or ending, you also have lawyers less able to access their clients in these facilities, which means the word is getting out less about what’s happening there. So I think it’s a real challenge and it’ll become an increasing challenge to make sure that what’s happening inside these detention centers is meeting basic humanitarian standards.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I think that based on everything that’s being done, and I did 48 years in prison before I got out, and I did, and I served time in some antiquated elaborated involvements, but I’m looking at what’s going on here. These ain’t no detention. These are basically concentration camps. They’re holding them, pinning, sending them somewhere else, but they’re holding them under the most inhumane conditions known to man at this time. But let’s talk about how the next article you wrote was Zombie Prison. I want to shift there, and you made very astute observation on this. What we’re seeing now is how their practice is in terms of how they establish this prison industrial complex, the infrastructure, how they mapping it out in terms of finding places, putting people, finding places, putting people, finding places, putting people, talk about the zombie prison, how ice detention is raising troubled facilities from the dead.

    Shannon Heffernan:

    Yeah, so we’ve seen a number of facilities that used to be prisons and got closed down reopening now as ice detention centers. And I think that’s important because in some cases these facilities closed for a reason. Either the infrastructure is in poor shape or the staff there were treating people poorly, for example. And now I think the real question is how are they going to ensure that’s not repeated for immigrants? I also think that that really illustrates the question of detention’s not supposed to be punishment.

    Then why are places that were prisons able to handle these populations? Why are they equipped? Why are the places that we’re going to send these folks? As you know from your understanding of prisons, a lot of these facilities are in fairly remote locations. They’re hard to get medical care too. They’re hard to get translators to, they’re hard to get legal help to. So just by the geographic location, you’re already setting up a real challenge in terms of people getting what they need. I want to go back to something you said before, which is you were talking about the poor conditions in these places before they deport people. I think there’s a real connection between the conditions and deportations themselves. We’ve spoken to immigrants who are inside some of these facilities who want to stay in the United States and who may even have credible legal paths to staying in the United States, but they’re choosing to leave.

    They’re choosing deportation over those legal battles because they are so disturbed by the conditions that they’re experiencing that they want to leave and they want to get out. So the conditions have, in the same way that you have people talk about people confessing to crimes that they maybe do not commit because they want to get out of jail, right? Because bail’s not available to them. The conditions are so terrible. I would say this is sort of analogous to that. People who may have credible claims to stay in the United States choosing to leave anyways because the conditions are so abysmal that they don’t feel like they can stay there safely.

    Mansa Musa:

    Talk about where we stand in terms of advocacy, what we have to do or what people need to do, what people need to understand about fighting back. Because I think Angela Davis say, if they come for me in the morning, they’ll come for you night. So the coming is coming. It’s just a matter of how they change the narrative on how they identify why a person or class of people fit up under the statute to say that you are a danger to the security of the United States, therefore you can be detained as an illegal immigrant even though you are a United States. Talk about the pushback, how we fight back or how to fight back.

    Shannon Heffernan:

    As you alluded to the so-called big, beautiful Bill gave a huge infusion of cash into immigration detention and deportation. So I suspect we’re going to continue to see efforts to grow this machinery from the federal government. I think one big challenge that advocates and activists are up against is historically under other administrations, immigration, detention and deportation was also a problem. This has gone across both parties. It’s not just unique to the Trump administration, but one thing that I think was really different is some other administrations would be shamed into action when there were reports of bad humanitarian treatment. They didn’t want that to be what it appeared to be on the outside. They wanted to appear friendly and nice. So if activists or advocates or the media showed bad conditions, there would be some thought that that would result in an action because they didn’t want to be perceived that way. But I think we’re under an administration now where that specter of it being terrible, that specter of it being cruel is something that they’re less afraid of. I mean, you have them naming these facilities, things like alligator, Raz,

    Which have a connotation of the conditions themselves being poor. So if you’ve relied on a strategy in the past that if you expose harm, if you expose things being terrible, that’s going to result in action, I think that’s a strategy that you’re going to see work a little differently now under the current administration, and it’s going to require different ways of operating for activists and advocates. I think another challenge is just moving at a really, really quick speed. How quickly the administration has been able to get these places up and running is really quite astounding. Now, I say all that with those challenges. I do think it’s also important to note that this has gotten a lot of attention. You have seen a lot of activists and advocates being motivated towards action. So people are in motion across the United States resisting this and showing

    Mansa Musa:

    Up. And I think another problem that we are confronted with as we moved in opposition, you hit on it the speed at which they’re doing it, but in every regard in terms of the amount of money they put into it and the countries that they looking at putting money into these countries, telling them like El Salvador was the test case and say, I’m going to give you money to house these prisons. I’m going to give you money. And came out and said, yeah, I’m with this. Whatever you want to send, however you want to send. Now they talking about going to different African countries or other third world countries to pay them to take people. Talk about going forward, how do we look at it from the legal landscape? Because right now, as it stands right now, it seems, and I raised this earlier, it seems like the courts don’t have jurisdiction over the treatment aspect of it that’s being litigated. It is cruel and unusual punishment. It’s inhumane. So is it a United Nation thing or is what? Talk about that. This is mind boggling. I know our audience would probably saying the same thing if this was done to United States prisoners, at some point in time the court going to intervene because we got constitutional rights to be treated a certain way. But when it comes to a person that’s they done dub illegal immigrant, a non-citizen to that non citizenship mean I can treat you like inhuman and with impunity.

    Shannon Heffernan:

    So there are legal challenges that have been brought and will play out in the courts, and I suspect that will continue. I think one of the things you really have to think about when you’re talking about these legal challenges is the law is created by humans and the law is enforced by people in power. And what the law means is decided by courts, and as you’ve seen some of these cases work their way up, you will see the courts siding with where their political affiliations are. I mean, courts aren’t supposed to do that, but there’s a range in what judges can decide. So we know what the Supreme Court looks like right now as these cases reached that the question is regardless of how the law has been interpreted in the past, what is the law itself capable of doing right now? In the same way that I talked about the specter of cruelty being a little bit differently, I also think the specter of what the law will and won’t do is something that’s really in flux right now under the current administration. So I think that’s something that definitely is worth paying attention to.

    Mansa Musa:

    And as we close out, tell our audience how they can stay on top of your reporting because it’s definitely impactful in terms of really focusing on the issues and informing people about what is the real news versus fake news. So talk, how can our audience stay intact?

    Shannon Heffernan:

    Sure. So you can read my work@themarshallproject.org. I’m also on Blue Sky, and we would love to hear from all of you about what you’re seeing on the ground and what kinds of recording you think we need to continue to do. We are especially interested in looking at ways that the criminal justice system overlaps with the immigration system because we think that’s going to be really key going forward.

    Mansa Musa:

    Alright, thank you. And as you said earlier, I just want to close on this point. So we ask that as you look at this information that Shannon put out, we ask that you follow her lead in terms of letting them know some of the things that are going on with your views on these things, what you witnessing.

    But more importantly, we ask that you take a critical look at what’s going on in this country because it’s not a matter of what I like someone or don’t like someone, it’s a matter of whether or not a person should be treated as a human being. This is about treating people as human beings. It’s not about treating people as animals because they’re not United States citizens. This is about treating people as human beings, what the Statue of Liberty says, the Statue of Liberty right now would be taking the mass off and running down the water. As you see what’s going on in this country, we ask that you continue to support the real news and rally the bar. We ask that you look at this information, give your views on it, critique it, and let us know what you think. And we’ll definitely echo your voice because we don’t give you a voice. We just turn the volume up on your voice.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Jacobin logo

    This story originally appeared in Jacobin on Sept. 09, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    On June 17, 2025, New York City comptroller Brad Lander, at that time a mayoral candidate, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Lander was engaged in the process of immigrant accompaniment, which is when humanitarian supporters accompany immigrants to their court proceedings. Their presence can throw sand in the system’s gears and slow down deportations. Donald Trump’s second administration is criminalizing this practice precisely because they know it works.

    In researching my book The Politics of Sanctuary, I spent years during Trump’s first term observing activists who practice immigrant accompaniment, trying to understand its mechanics and effectiveness. “We can stop or slow down the deportation process,” said one volunteer with the New Sanctuary Coalition (NSC), an organization dedicated to assisting migrants and asylum seekers. The Trump administration has moved to punish nonprofits and faith-based groups that engage in sanctuary practices like accompaniment, alleging that they promote and facilitate immigration law violations.

    “The judges know us, ICE knows us. They fear us,” the NSC volunteer continued. “They have blocked us [from accompaniments], but we will keep going. We show up to doctors’ appointments, to family court, to lawyers’ appointments, [and] to Varick Street,” where New York City’s immigration court is located.

    The volunteer was not bluffing about the effectiveness of the accompaniment strategy. I observed numerous cases where NSC volunteers accompanying immigrants slowed down the deportation process. The volunteers I observed were mostly native-born, white, female New Yorkers, ranging from middle-aged to senior citizens. Their presence was critical for the success of migrants’ cases. At times they were a silent presence at ICE check-ins and case hearings, while at other times they were vocal in their advocacy. “We are literally standing at that line and making sure that we hold that line and enforce rights,” one volunteer told me.

    During Trump’s first term, migrant advocates sought to counter the administration’s anti-immigrant rhetoric with evidence that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans. These efforts did not completely reverse public opinion, which carried Trump to a second victory on an even more anti-immigrant platform in 2024. However, activism during the first Trump term did bring citizens and noncitizens together at demonstrations and protests, strengthening the movement for migrant rights. Many citizens developed political consciousness during this period and dedicated themselves to sanctuary practices like accompaniment — practices that continue to this day, often led by faith-based organizations.

    These citizen activists didn’t just sympathize with immigrants but felt they had a duty to defend them. This sense of responsibility led many to 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan to support migrants attending ICE appointments. Living near immigrant neighborhoods, having immigrant friends, and believing that New York City’s institutions could be pushed to protect migrants all contributed to their support. The immigrants involved in these networks, meanwhile, saw themselves not as criminals but as tentative residents whose rights were being violated — a perspective that grew stronger through their participation in sanctuary practices. Their own activism challenged the idea that migrants are simply victims of an exploitative economic system.

    Cities as Battlegrounds for Citizenship

    Sanctuary practices in cities create space for undocumented people, asylum seekers, and refugees to engage in political struggle. But they can’t do it alone: their effectiveness depends on building alliances with citizens and permanent residents who join these struggles with practices like accompaniment and acts of civil disobedience. It is precisely this solidarity that the Trump administration is seeking to criminalize.

    Nor can migrants claim rights without the dedicated assistance of sympathetic political leaders. Many of them lack the right to vote; the New York Court of Appeals ruled six to one in March 2025 that the state constitution requires citizenship for voting. Systematically barred from the formal representational political process, they must rely instead on voluntary action from political figures — actions like Lander’s arrest as a mayoral candidate during an accompaniment action.

    Trump has made outright threats to defund sanctuary cities (though only small percentages of budgets would actually be affected). He has also threatened to expand the criminalization of immigrants, which city administrations have resisted by refusing police cooperation with ICE. These words have turned into violent acts against protesters and political representatives seen as obstructing ICE enforcement.

    Trump’s threats against grassroots sanctuary efforts serve to heighten racial hostilities, scapegoat immigrants, manufacture emergencies, and instill fear in immigrants to keep them from using social and health services. Meanwhile, urban disinvestment and austerity programs are creating a false sense of scarcity for which immigrants are held responsible. Amid urban inequality, blaming immigrants can mask the lack of real solutions for urban problems like affordable housing, high-functioning social services, accessible transit, and so on.

    Trump’s executive orders earlier this year intensified threats to sanctuary jurisdictions by calling to cut federal funding, penalize the granting of public benefits, and target local officials for prosecution. Federal courts largely blocked these measures as unconstitutional, and cities continue to fight the policy in court. They must continue to put up a fight, as sanctuary practices represent an essential part of the struggle for migrant rights and indeed all human rights.

    The sanctuary movement offers migrants more than simply hope that they won’t be deported. It provides concrete assistance toward the goal of avoiding deportation. Of course, getting migrants to participate in sanctuary practices becomes difficult in a climate of heightened fear amid stepped-up deportations. This makes the participation of native-born activists all the more necessary to create conditions of safety and solidarity. Only when migrants and nonmigrants stand together can they thwart Trump’s anti-migrant agenda.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • This story was originally published on Truthout on Sept. 05, 2025. It is shared here under a  Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is incarcerating immigrants at Louisiana State Penitentiary, better known as Angola, Gov. Jeff Landry (R) and Trump administration officials announced Wednesday.

    Fifty-one immigrants are currently incarcerated at Angola, in a solitary confinement unit once dubbed the “Dungeon.” Officials closed the unit in 2018, but over the summer, Landry ordered repairs so it could reopen as an ICE lockup.

    The unit has been named Camp 57 for Landry, the 57th governor of Louisiana. Officials also refer to it as Louisiana Lockup.

    “This facility is fulfilling the President’s promise of making America safe again by giving ICE a facility to consolidate the most violent offenders into a single deportation and holding facility,” Landry said at a press conference, with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE Deputy Director Madison Sheahan, and Attorney General Pam Bondi standing behind him.

    Landry continued: “This camp was originally built here at Angola to house the most disruptive of prisoners. It was called Camp J. Over the years, it was neglected and fell into disrepair. We decided to repair it and put it back into service to help fulfill the mission of removing criminal illegal aliens that have been causing havoc in our communities.”

    Landry said that the unit will be able to hold more than 400 people within the next few months.

    “If you are in America illegally, you could find yourself in CECOT, Cornhusker Clink, Speedway Slammer, or Louisiana Lockup,” Noem wrote in one of several social media posts about Angola. “Avoid arrest and self deport NOW using the CBP Home App.”

    Officials made similar threats this summer when they opened “Alligator Alcatraz,” the ICE jail hastily constructed in Florida’s alligator-infested swamplands.

    “You never have to go to Alligator Alcatraz as an illegal alien,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said at a news conference in July. “If you can take that plane ticket and you can go, and DHS is picking up the cost of that,” he added, referring to DHS’s self-deportation campaign.

    Last month, a federal judge ordered the administration to close the Florida facility, but yesterday a Trump-dominated appeals court blocked the lower court’s ruling, allowing it to stay open.

    Angola has long been synonymous with brutal, inhumane, and dangerous conditions.

    In 2023, a district court found that “rather than receiving medical ‘care,’ the inmates [at Angola] are instead subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by medical mistreatment.”

    “The human cost of these 26 YEARS is unspeakable,” the judge continued. “In the following pages, the Court will make detailed and extensive findings of the callous and wanton disregard for the medical care of inmates at Angola. The finding is that the ‘care’ is not care at all, but abhorrent cruel and unusual punishment that violates the United States Constitution.”

    In another case, incarcerated workers at Angola sued prison officials, alleging that they were forced to work in the fields performing “grueling, but pointless, manual agricultural labor,” for, at most, two cents an hour. They say they were forced to work in extreme heat with little if any access to clean, cold drinking water. If they were unable to work, they were placed in solitary confinement, according to their motion.

    Amy Fischer, Amnesty International USA’s director for refugee and migrant rights, said in a statement that detaining immigrants at Angola “is just the latest move in President Trump’s shameful attack on immigrants.”

    “Angola prison, a notorious facility built on a former plantation used to enslave people, is steeped in a legacy of racism and brutal conditions,” she continued. “Detaining people in places like Angola and ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ is not about safety; it is cruelty by design. And it must stop.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • It’s past midnight on September 6, 1971. 

    Across the prison, dozens of men slip out of their beds. Bricks slide out from the walls of their cells. Bodies slip out silently. They move into a tunnel that has been chiseled and dug slowly and silently for eight months, and they creep one by one underneath the prison.

    It is the stuff of movies. Or of legends. Or of cartoons. The only sound is the ruffle of their prison uniforms and the occasional scrape of knees and hands on the ground.

    A total of 111 men escape from the Punta Carretas prison that night. The prison break was known as “El Abuso.” The abuse. Because that’s exactly what the prison guards felt by the escape.

    This is episode 65 of Stories of Resistance—a podcast produced by The Real News. Each week, we’ll bring you stories of resistance like this. Inspiration for dark times.

    Please consider supporting this podcast and Michael Fox’s reporting on his Patreon account: patreon.com/mfox. There you can also see exclusive pictures, video, and interviews. 

    If you like what you hear, please subscribe, like, share, comment, or leave a review. 

    And please consider signing up for the Stories of Resistance podcast feed, either in Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Spreaker, or wherever you listen.
    Written and produced by Michael Fox.

    Transcript

    Michael Fox, Narrator: In an upscale neighborhood of Montevideo, dozens of men move quietly. Silently. Crawling their way to freedom. The year is 1971. September 6. Uruguay. South America. The country is not yet a dictatorship. That will happen two years later. 

    But it’s on the way.

    Government repression. Political prisoners. Torture against supposed subversives, taught by US advisers. But the Tupamaros are pushing back. They’re an urban guerrilla group. One of the most successful in the region. They take their name from Tupac Amaru II, one of the last Incan resistance fighters, who tried to lead a rebellion against the Spanish in present day Peru in the 18th century. 

    But the Tupamaros have faced setbacks. Many of their people have been detained. Arrested. They’re held in jails like this one, Punta Carretas. There, hundreds of political prisoners are being held. But that is going to change for many of them tonight. 

    It’s past midnight. September cold. Still winter in Montevideo. Across the prison, dozens of men slip out of their beds. Bricks slide out from the walls of their cells. Bodies slip out silently. They move into a tunnel that has been chiseled and dug slowly and silently for eight months, and they creep one by one underneath the prison.

    It is the stuff of movies. Or of legends. Or of cartoons. 

    The only sound is the ruffle of their prison uniforms and the occasional scrape of knees and hands on the ground. No words are spoken. Just movements and gestures. They crawl one after the next, after the next. Hearts pounding. Sweat pouring despite the chill. Hoping they are out and far away before they are discovered missing.

    Time seems to stand still. Each breath, each movement an eternity.

    And then… they’re crawling up past floorboards into a house. One after another. After another.

    Signs point them into a neighboring home. Silent embraces. They’re given new clothes. Weapons. And then trucks whisk them away into the night. By the time the guards discover they are missing, they are long gone… Distributed in safe houses throughout the city.

    A total of 111 men escape from the Punta Carretas prison that night. 

    One hundred and eleven. Most are members of the Tupamaros. But not all. 

    Among those who crept out that evening was one of the historic founders of the Tupamaros organization, Raúl Sendic, and Pepe Mujica, who, four decades later, would become president of Uruguay.

    The prison break was known as “El Abuso.” The abuse. Because that’s exactly what the prison guards and the government felt by the escape. Today it is still considered the largest jailbreak of political prisoners in history. The prison break occurred on September 6, 1971. 

    Uruguayan Filmmaker César Charlone won an academy award for his cinematography on the movie City of God. He is currently working on an eight-part series about the prison break.

    “At a time when the world was deeply divided, this jailbreak symbolized freedom for an entire region,” Charlone told a news outlet earlier this year.


    Hi folks, thanks for listening. I’m your host Michael Fox.

    I have been wanting to do something on this story for years. So glad you are finally getting a chance to hear it. And please keep your eye out for a much more exhaustive look at this prison break and the resistance to the Uruguayan dictatorship in the upcoming season two of my podcast Under the Shadow about Plan Condor and the role of the United States.

    As always, if you like what you hear and enjoy this podcast, please consider becoming a subscriber on my Patreon. It’s only a few dollars a month. I have a ton of exclusive content there, only available to my supporters. And every supporter really makes a difference.

    This is the latest episode of Stories of Resistance, a podcast series produced by The Real News. Each week, I bring you stories of resistance and hope like this. Inspiration for dark times. If you like what you hear, please subscribe, like, share, comment, or leave a review.

    Thanks for listening. See you next time.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Sep. 03, 2025. It is shared here under a  Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

    Legal and human rights experts said that Tuesday’s deadly US attack on a boat the Trump administration claimed was transporting cocaine off the coast of Venezuela violated international law.

    “Drug trafficking is a crime, not an act of war,” former Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth said on social media following the strike, which US President Donald Trump said killed 11 people. “Traffickers must be arrested, not summarily executed, which US forces just illegally did.”

    “Trump admits he ordered a summary execution—the crime of murder,” Roth added. “Drug traffickers are not combatants who can be shot on sight. They are criminal suspects who must be arrested and prosecuted.”

    Declassified video showing the U.S. committing a war crime when it fired on a civilian vessel near Venezuela.Being suspected of carrying drugs does not carry a death sentence and certainly not without due process.

    Arturo Dominguez 🇨🇺🇺🇸 (@extremearturo.bsky.social) 2025-09-02T23:02:57.529Z

    Michael Becker, an associate professor of international law at Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland, told the BBC Wednesday that the Trump administration’s designation of the Venezuela-based Tren de Aragua and other drug trafficking groups as terrorist organizations “stretches the meaning of the term beyond its breaking point.”

    “The fact that US officials describe the individuals killed by the US strike as narcoterrorists does not transform them into lawful military targets,” Becker said. “The US is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua criminal organization.”

    “Not only does the strike appear to have violated the prohibition on the use of force, it also runs afoul of the right to life under international human rights law,” Becker added.

    Although the United States is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, US military legal advisers have asserted that the country should “act in a manner consistent with its provisions.”

    Luke Moffett, a professor of international law at Queens University Belfast in Northern Ireland, told the BBC that while “force can be used to stop a boat,” this should generally be accomplished using “nonlethal measures.”

    Such action, said Moffett, must be “reasonable and necessary in self-defense where there is immediate threat of serious injury or loss of life to enforcement officials,” and the US attack was likely “unlawful under the law of the sea.”

    “It reflects the worst of US militarism—secretive, unilateral, and contemptuous of due process, human rights, and the rule of law.”

    The peace group CodePink said Wednesday that “even if Washington’s claims are accurate, drug trafficking does not justify a death sentence delivered by missile.”

    “International law is clear: The use of force is only lawful in self-defense or with explicit UN Security Council authorization,” the group continued. “This strike had neither. It reflects the worst of US militarism—secretive, unilateral, and contemptuous of due process, human rights, and the rule of law.”

    “Under US law, it’s equally indefensible,” CodePink argued. “The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to authorize war. Unilateral action may only be used in emergencies or self-defense, and this strike meets neither.”

    CodePink continued:

    With the US Southern Command assets already deployed in the region, why blow up a vessel instead of capturing and interrogating the crew? If the goal were really to uncover evidence of [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro’s alleged involvement, this reckless approach raises only two possibilities: Either the narrative is fabricated and Washington used it as a pretext for a deadly show of force or it’s real, and the US chose extrajudicial killing over law, evidence, and humanity.

    CodePink called on Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) “to lead the fight in Congress to stop this escalation,” urging him to “introduce legislation to block unauthorized military force, hold hearings to expose the dangers of border militarization, insist on transparency of all relevant directives, and rally Congress to cut off funding for these reckless operations.”

    Tuesday’s attack came amid Trump’s deployment of an armada of naval warships off the coast of Venezuela, whose socialist government has long endured US threats of regime change—and sometimes more.

    Infused with the notion that it has the right to meddle anywhere in the hemisphere under the Monroe Doctrine, the US has attacked, invaded, occupied, and otherwise intervened in Latin American and Caribbean nations well over 100 times since the dubious declaration was issued by President James Monroe in 1823.

    Since the late 19th century, oil-rich Venezuela has seen US interventions including involvement in border disputes, help with military coups, support for dictators, and attempts to subvert the Bolivarian Revolution—including by officially recognizing opposition figures claiming to be the legitimate presidents of the country.

    Critics of US imperialism highlighted Washington’s hypocritical policies and practices toward Venezuela.

    “Venezuela produces no cocaine, but US warships patrol its coastline under the banner of a ‘drug war,’” New Hampshire Peace Action organizing director Michael “Lefty” Morrill wrote Wednesday.

    Meanwhile, neighboring Colombia and nearby Peru—the world’s two leading cocaine producers—get no such treatment. Nor does Ecuador, which has emerged as one of the world’s leading trafficking hubs.

    Morrill also briefly explored bits of the long US history of supporting narcotraffickers when strategically expedient, noting that former Panamanian President Manuel Noriega “was first a CIA asset, then branded a narco-dictator and dragged to a US prison.”

    “The Taliban was once a strategic partner in Afghanistan’s opium trade, before being cast as the world’s largest trafficker,” he added. “‘Drugs’ are not simply powders; they are pretexts, shaped to fit the contours of empire.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Residents of Washington, DC, continue to take to the streets to protest President Trump’s federal takeover of the city and deployment of National Guard troops and federal law enforcement officers as a “solution” to a fabricated “crime wave.” “We demand ICE out of DC. We demand an end to this unnecessary law enforcement,” Nee Nee Taylor, co-founder and executive director of Harriet’s Wildest Dreams, said at a “Free DC” rally on Monday, Aug. 18. “We demand full autonomy. We demand: Hands off DC!” TRNN correspondent and host of Rattling the Bars Mansa Musa reports from the ground in federally occupied Washington, DC.

    Additional links/info:

    Credits:

    • Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Speaker 1:

    Hey, hey ho. The National Guard has got to go. We out here on 14th and you in Washington dc At the end of the free DC rally, the free DC movement is calling for the end of the occupation by the federal government of the District of Columbia. The free DC movement has a strategy and they implement this strategy one person at a time.

    Speaker 2:

    We’ll not let our people be snatched, kidnapped, abused, or disappeared by the state. We will protect each other always because we keep us safe. We demand ice out of dc. We demand an end to this unnecessary law enforcement. We demand full autonomy. We demand hands off dc. We demand homes for the unhoused. We demand dignity for our immigrants and we demand DC statehood. So this

    Speaker 1:

    Is y’all building y’all momentum.

    Speaker 4:

    How

    Speaker 1:

    Y’all doing that?

    Speaker 4:

    So we building it with people power, and we are moving just like they moved. When they take a step, we right behind them. Like I said, we didn’t just start this, we prepared for this

    Speaker 5:

    Beginning of this year we’ve been organizing on a neighborhood and at ward level in DC we’re fighting for statehood and we’re fighting to protect home rule and we’re going to keep doing that regardless. And yeah, we got to talk to our neighbors and keep fighting.

    Speaker 4:

    We knew that Trump was coming from the project 2025 when he got elected. So three DC project had been organized since January, 2025. So we have a strategy to build people power, and as they move closer to the occupation where they think they’re going to stay in DC we truly have to rise up and resist.

    Speaker 1:

    Talk about y’all strategy around trying to get the congressional body to prevent him from getting an extension on his occupation. I heard you talk about that earlier where y’all calling out all elected officials, federal and state. That’s

    Speaker 4:

    Right. State by state. State by state. We are asking everybody nationally to call your local congress person in your city and demand that they actually vote against everything that Trump is doing in an occupied authoritarianism and fascism way. We know that the power is in the people hold your Congress person accountable. DC doesn’t have a voice, DC doesn’t have a vote, but you can stand in solidarity with DC and free DC

    Speaker 1:

    How important it is for us to start looking at this in the context of us protecting because we say we keep us safe. So y’all strategy for us keeping us safe is to become more focused on pair up together and being accountable with where we like letting everybody know where we are going. You think that’s important?

    Speaker 5:

    I think it’s very important because really we move at the speed of our relationships is something that I like to say. Simply getting to know your neighbors is really the first step in building those relationships, having networks of people that can look out, let people know. If you see something going on, if you see the police or harassing people, snatching people up, you can look out for that. You can respond, you can whatever tactics you have at your disposal, right?

    Speaker 4:

    So at her’s dreams, we’re going to rise up, we’re going to go to court with our people. We are going to snatch them back just like we did Afeni in ways that they try to steal our people at free DC project. That’s when we are protecting DC home rule and also fighting in the long run. When Trump leave to make DC a state

    Speaker 1:

    In terms of your mayor’s response and your mayor, when Trump said something about Baltimore, your mayor stood up and defied them outright like, no, you can’t, we not having it. Sure. How do you think the DC government should be reacting?

    Speaker 6:

    Well, I can’t tell you that I have the answer when it comes to the legalities of it, but I can tell you that the humanity of it is unquestionable, right? You have to protect your people. You have to remember who people are. You have to give them the humanity back, and you have to do it sometimes in ways that are uncomfortable. You have to remind people that you stand with them no matter what happens. You have to show them that you care for them, care about them, and you have to walk it like you talk it. You have to. It’s not just we are tired of empty words and we’re tired of people making false promises. If anything that I could say, I’m not in a place to be dictating what a city should be doing, but I could tell you that as a human being, I think we owe it to our neighbors, to our community, to our brothers and sisters, to ourselves, to fight for each other because at the end of the day, that’s all that matters. If we’re not willing to stand up and fight for each other, then how dare we just ask anything of anybody?

    Speaker 7:

    This Gestapo take over. It’s not acceptable because she’s a black woman. I mean this clearly showing bias, stereotype xenophobic, why they don’t go and do that in the white cities. He got California, he got Baltimore, he got here, he got New York. All those cities that he mentioned, all black mayors. There’s something in the water, something don’t add up. I’m always

    Speaker 8:

    Cognizant of I’m a link in a long chain. I’m not doing anything new. I’m just the next person in the line doing the thing. You get what I’m saying? As it relates to today’s events though, one of the things I think is the coolest thing about the world that we’re in right now is everything being interconnected. This idea that borders and all these things are important, and oh, you got to be a certain type of person to do, don’t even, I’m not even respectfully absorbing that because I was a student once. I’m somebody’s child. You know what I’m saying? And if I can get outside and do these things and get in here and do this political organizing work, political organizing work is not, no, it looks like this sometimes, but it’s really, it’s you going and talking to your neighborhood. You feel me? It’s you being in your neighborhood realizing that you don’t have something that you need, and making sure that you and your peoples get what they need and then spreading that around. That’s organizing work. You can be like her if you’re willing to do the work, if you’re willing to get involved in your community. The whole reason why I’m even out here is because of people like me.

    Speaker 4:

    Our reality, I’m tired and I don’t want to be here. I don’t want to be here.

    Speaker 6:

    I never want to remember myself when the moments when things happen that I sat out, that’s not who I am. When injustice happens, I show up and I know I’m tired. And it was said in the speeches that black women are out here tired, that they’ve been pushing, and we have, we’re exhausted. We’re angry still, and we’re disappointed. And I could tell you that many of us wish we could just sit at home and just stop.

    Speaker 1:

    We don’t have that

    Speaker 6:

    Luxury. We don’t. We don’t. And that’s that I come because honestly, I have been pushing for people who look like me to be more vocal and visible. I know it’s scary. I know people are, they’re throwing in a towel. But we absolutely, like you said, do not have that luxury. And I want people to know that we should not be going out laying down.

    Speaker 2:

    We to let a white supremacist authoritarian control our lives. Our ancestors resisted worse than what we are going through and we’ll resist. Now. Children shouldn’t be

    Speaker 3:

    Afraid at home of soldiers on the streets. Children should not feel like suspects for simply living. Our young people deserve joy, safety, and dignity, not militarization.

    Speaker 9:

    The biggest connection to make is where does the money go and why is there always money for war and not for dealing with the poor? And that’s a domestic as well as an international issue.

    Speaker 10:

    According to estimates, it costs over $420,000 a day to deploy the DC Guard. That number does not factor in the guard now invading from West Virginia, Ohio, and South Carolina. But just using this DC cost $420,000 a day tells an important story. It costs $47,000 a year to get somebody off the street and into housing for one year. For one day of DC Guard activation. We could solve homelessness for nine people.

    Speaker 9:

    I was out of town, came back yesterday, walked into Union Station outside and saw these tanks placed around

    Speaker 1:

    There

    Speaker 9:

    With these guys in military uniform. And I’m thinking, what the heck is this? We don’t want militarized city. But what I’m worried about is that Trump is now touting this. He had just had a national press conference and saying that his friends in DC and I think he means white, rich people in DC suddenly feel that they are safe to go out and have their dinner parties and be out on the street at night. Which is ridiculous because the streets of DC have been filled with people. And so they’re making this stuff up and they’re pretending that DC was so crime ridden and now it’s been liberated. And I think if the media, not the real news, but the corporate media echo this kind of thing, it will be a dangerous precedent, not only for DC but for other cities. And he is going after the, not only democratic cities, but cities that are governed by black mayors. And so this is one facet of this racist attempt to change the city, to get rid of all the DEI, what he’s doing around the Smithsonian and all these other things. It’s part of a much larger, very diabolical

    Speaker 1:

    Plan. And you deploy all that for homeless people, but talk about his attack on people that’s poor and don’t have no place. They crime, the only crime they guys, they don’t have.

    Speaker 9:

    Well, absolutely, and I know I saw an interview they did with one of the people who are sleeping on the streets and they give us housing. So yeah, I mean, talk about the rent is too damn high. The rent is too damn, too damn high in this city. It’s impossible for a lot of working people to live in the places where they work. That’s an issue that has to be dealt with. Instead of these millions of dollars that they’re spending on bringing in the National Guard and bringing all of these federal troops into our city, they should be dealing with the basic issues of how do we get housing for people? How do we get mental healthcare for people? How do we deal with people’s everyday needs and issues? And I’m wearing a shirt that says, money for the poor, not for war. And I see war in the largest context, not only of the billions of dollars we spend on wars in Ukraine and on Israel, but also the war at home. And this is now such an obvious example of the war at home and how skewed our priorities are. We need the money we’re spending on militarizing our streets to be used to help the poor in DC.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • This story was originally published on Truthout on Aug. 25, 2025. It is shared here under a  Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.

    President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on Monday aimed at ending cashless bail and criminalizing flag burning protests — as reports say that the administration is arming national guard troops patrolling Washington, D.C., in a major escalation.

    The order regarding cashless bail declares that states and local governments that do not suspend their cashless bail policies will lose federal funding. It instructs Attorney General Pam Bondi to report on states and jurisdictions that have eliminated cash bail within the next 30 days.

    Trump has specifically instructed his administration to focus on D.C., which has had a cashless bail system for decades. He and his administration have spent months spreading disinformation claiming that cashless bail — implemented predominantly in liberal-leaning areas — contributes to crime rates.

    But there is no evidence to back this claim. Numerous analyses have found that there is no correlation between cashless bail policies and crime rates in places where it’s been implemented. D.C.’s own Criminal Justice Coordinating Council recently found that only seven people, or 3 percent, of defendants were rearrested on pre-trial release between August 2024 and January 2025. None of them were rearrested for violent crimes.

    Nonetheless, Trump has repeated this narrative numerous times. “Crime in American Cities started to significantly rise when they went to CASHLESS BAIL,” Trump said in a Truth Social post in July. “It is a complete disaster, and must be ended, IMMEDIATELY!”

    Cashless bail allows people facing charges to be released while they await trial, as long as a judge does not view them as dangerous or a flight risk.

    Cash bail systems, which are widely used across the country, are frequently criticized for deepening inequality and supercharging the two-tiered criminal legal system, especially among Black communities. The average bail for felony charges is $10,000, and many people are roped into predatory bail bond schemes. The U.S. is one of only two countries in the world allowing for a commercial bail industry that profits from people’s inability to post bonds on their own.

    Trump also sought to widen the scope of what constitutes a crime on Monday. He signed a separate order ordering Bondi to “prioritize the enforcement to the fullest extent possible” of criminal and civil laws regarding “desecration” of the American flag, “consistent with the First Amendment.” Notably, the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that the burning of the U.S. flag is protected under the First Amendment.

    The order says that immigrants must be subject to punishment like revocation of visas or other immigrant statuses if they have engaged in “American Flag-desecration activity.”

    The orders come after the National Guard announced on Sunday that troops in D.C. are now carrying weapons and will start carrying out detentions, in a major escalation of Trump’s militarization of the capital city. Trump has said that he may target Chicago with troop deployments next.

    “I have a slob, like [Illinois Gov. J.B.] Pritzker, criticizing me. They say he’s a dictator, he’s a dictator. A lot of people are saying maybe we’d like a dictator,” Trump opined as he signed the orders Monday morning, before adding, “I’m not a dictator.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Russell Mmemo Dlamini, Prime Minister of Eswatini speaks during the High-Level Segment of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in the Nizami Plenary Room at Baku Olympic Stadium. Photo by Dominika Zarzycka/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

    This story originally appeared in Progressive International on Aug. 21, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    On 16 July 2025, five prisoners from the United States were secretly transferred to Swaziland, Africa’s last absolute monarchy. They arrived without UN oversight, parliamentary approval, or judicial scrutiny.

    Only after widespread shock and outrage among ordinary Swazis did Prime Minister Russell Mmiso Dlamini concede the truth: the transfer was arranged during “high-level engagements” with Washington, and the deportees were described as “guests of His Majesty the King,” a euphemism for detainees held at the monarch’s pleasure. 

    The prisoners are held at Matsapha Maximum Correctional Prison, but no one knows precisely on what charges and in what conditions, prompting significant concern from human rights groups. Civil society activists have launched a lawsuit on the matter, but there is little expectation of justice as the judiciary is commanded by the throne. Worse still, it appears that the agreement with the US is for a total of 150 prisoners, suggesting that many are yet to arrive.

    The secrecy of this deal, and the fury it provoked, underscored a reality that ordinary people know too well: in Swaziland, the rule of law bends to royal decree. Parliament was never consulted, the courts were sidelined, and the Attorney General himself has declared the transfer unconstitutional, warning that it could make the country a target for violent reprisal. Yet legality means little when a king rules with absolute power.

    This scandal is part of a wider pattern. Swaziland is a dictatorship in which political parties have been banned for over fifty years. King Mswati III wields sweeping executive, legislative, and judicial powers, controls an economy marked by staggering inequality, and presides over one of the most repressive regimes in Africa. The people have repeatedly demanded democracy, only to be met with lethal violence. The rebellion of 2021–2022 claimed at least 46 lives, with many more injured or forced into exile. The assassination of human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko in January 2023 was one terrible marker in a broader campaign of repression that has also included other political killings, torture, and imprisonment of activists. Regular abuses — abductions, unlawful detentions, and violent intimidation — are well documented.

    Swaziland is a subcontractor of imperial power. Much like Rwanda, it functions as a U.S. proxy state on the continent. It aligns with Israel, is preparing to host an Israeli embassy even as South Africa pursues justice at the International Court of Justice, and remains the only African state to recognise Taiwan. The regime has, following Rwanda, sought advanced Israeli surveillance technology to monitor and suppress dissent, continuing its long campaign of silencing opposition. And it has deepened relations with reactionaries across the region, positioning itself as a hub for neocolonial interests in Southern Africa and beyond it. 

    The transfer of U.S. prisoners is not an isolated scandal. It is part of a wider pattern in which Swaziland acts as a staging ground for imperial interests, reactionary politics, and repression. Left unchecked, more prisoners will be dumped, more deals struck, and more lives sacrificed to preserve one man’s throne.

    The people of Swaziland, however, continue to struggle with courage and determination for peace, democracy, and justice. Their rebellion is inseparable from the global fight against imperialism and authoritarianism. Progressive forces worldwide must recognise Swaziland for what it truly is: a dictatorship serving imperial power at the expense of its people and the region.


    This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Velaphi Mamba.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • In this documentary report, CLUE members Rev. Dr. Jason Cook and Rev. Dr. Terry LePage speak about the chilling truth behind the Trump administration’s targeting of immigrants at federal immigration courts and what they’ve witnessed at the federal immigration courthouse in Santa Ana, California.

    Federal immigration courts have become a primary site for ICE abductions as the Trump administration escalates its all-out assault on immigrants and the rule of law. “These aren’t arrests for people with criminal convictions,” TRNN Editor-in-Chief Maximillian Alvarez reports. “These are people going to their immigration court hearings, trying to follow the law, who are being trapped by this government.” As more immigrants appearing for their court hearings are ambushed by ICE, detained, disappeared, and deported, faith leaders with the group Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE) are showing up to immigration courts to provide support for individuals facing deportation, and to bear witness to the humanitarian crimes the government is committing inside immigration courthouses.

    Speakers:

    • Mona Darwish is a reporter for the Orange County Register, a graduate of UC Irvine, and an experienced academic researcher. She has covered multiple beats as a college reporter, photographer, and opinion editor for the Coast Report. Before joining SCNG, she helped cover labor, public policy, and the justice system as an intern at More Perfect Union.
    • Rev. Dr. Jason Cook is a minister at Tapestry, a Unitarian Universalist congregation in Lake Forest, CA, and a member of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE).
    • Rev. Dr. Terry LePage, MDiv, PhD, has worked as a research chemist, transitional minister, and hospice chaplain. She currently lives in Southern California and facilitates nonviolent communication practice groups, grief circles, and social justice groups both locally and for the international Deep Adaptation Forum. She is the author of Eye of the Storm: Facing Climate and Social Chaos with Calm and Courage, and a member of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE).

    Additional Resources:

    Credits:

    • Pre-Production: Maximillian Alvarez
    • Studio Production / Post Production: Cameron Granadino
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    These are not hardened criminals who are being kidnapped and abducted by armed masked, unidentified agents of the state. These aren’t arrests for people with warrants. These aren’t arrests for people with criminal convictions. These are people going to their immigration court hearing, trying to follow the law, who are being trapped by this government.

    Nancy Mace:

    One of my favorite things to watch on YouTube these days are the court hearings where illegals are in court and ice shows up to drag them out of court and deport them.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    The most vulnerable people are being trapped, vilified, brutalized, kidnapped, disappeared. That’s the reality of what’s happening here.

    Mona Darwish:

    I went to the immigration courthouse and saw someone be taken right in front of me as soon as I got here on Tuesday last week. And when I came here, I saw a group of three or four men in masks just quietly surrounding a man who I didn’t really know what they were doing. And it was a really weird encounter for me, and I asked them who they were. One of them finally told me, but they took him into an unmarked civilian car, no license plates, and they just took him away. That was the day that I saw a woman have a panic attack. That was the day that I saw a woman and her little boy who I had waved at earlier just be pulled aside. And I just see the mom start crying. And there’s been a lot of really consistent observers or clergy members from Clue who’ve been doing a lot, and they’ve been here to show support to the people here. The woman was crying. They were praying for her, and they were trying to get her contact info. And I just remember seeing that little boy that was, he looked so cute and happy when I saw him like an hour before just dissociating and just rubbing on his coloring book. And they took them through the back of the stairs, and that was the last I saw of them.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    I went to the Federal Immigration Court in Santa Ana, California to see it for myself and to speak with Reverend Dr. Jason Cook and other members of the group Clue Clergy and Laie, United for Economic Justice, along with the Orange County Rapid Response Network. Clue members have been showing up regularly to immigration courts to document and bear witness to the crimes that the government is committing in order to entrap and disappear immigrants who are showing up to their own court hearings

    Rev. Dr. Jason Cook:

    For myself and for other people in faith communities as we to get the word that ICE agents were appearing here in the courthouse and whisking people off without due process, without identifying themselves. We wanted to be witnesses. We wanted to see what was happening and we wanted to be here for folks who didn’t have anybody else here on site for them. So we have clergy, we have lay people, we have people from a variety of Christian communities. We have people from Jewish communities. We have people like me from a Unitarian Universalist community, Muslim folks. We have people representing a wide variety of faiths and no faith who are simply here to try to witness what is happening behind closed doors. It’s been dangerous. Sometimes it’s been tense. We have witnessed a lot of pain families ripped apart people without warning being essentially abducted and pushed into the white vans that they have behind this building and whisked off. We don’t even know where

    Rev. Dr. Terry LePage:

    This courtroom is, a branch of DHS. So they are obligated to work with ice if they’re higher ups tell them to, but the court staff don’t like it. They want to do their jobs. They want to get people moving in their process and not have them scared to come to court. So in the time that I’ve worked here, because the word has gotten out about ice being here, many people are not showing up for their hearings, and that puts them at risk of being marked for deportation. Of course, if they show up for all they know, they’ll be arrested and deported.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    So they’re really damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

    Rev. Dr. Terry LePage:

    So they come and ask me what should I do? And I’m like, there is no good answer.

    Rev. Dr. Jason Cook:

    What we’re seeing in the courtrooms are folks are going in, they are somewhere in the process. They might have temporary protected status, they might be somewhere else along the way. They have shown up here in good faith with the belief that the system will work for them as they should. And the judges here have been pressured to dismiss as many cases as they can. And when those cases are dismissed, as these folks walk out of the courtroom, ice agents are waiting to pounce. So no judge has said to them, you’re going to be detained. No one has told them that that’s going to happen. What’s simply happening is their case for some technicality, for one reason or another, is being dismissed while they’re here in good faith doing what they’re supposed to do. And they walk out of the courtroom and they are abducted, they’re taken no warning, nothing. And it’s horrific.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    People around the country are being told that these are hardened criminals. These are the worst of the worst. Is that what you’re seeing in the courtroom?

    Mona Darwish:

    No. Since I’ve been here, I’ve find myself seeing a lot of women and small children being picked out. There was a woman with a 11 month old baby from Nicaragua, and she was by herself, and I just asked her, she was waiting for a case and she didn’t have any family here. She didn’t have any support system and she had no idea what was going on. And that just broke my heart because when she told me that her asylum case was, she had been here for less than two years, I was like, they could take her. And that’s just heartbreaking. There’s so many things like this happening.

    Rev. Dr. Terry LePage:

    And just for the record, I want to be clear that I’ve watched dozens of cases. I’ve sat in the courtroom and I have not heard of one crime committed. I’ve heard of people entering without their papers in order. That’s a misdemeanor and it’s a civil thing, and because of that, it doesn’t make them eligible to have a court appointed attorney.

    Rev. Dr. Jason Cook:

    It’s just unimaginable to see it and witness it, to see an elderly couple being split apart, and one of them hauled off down a back stairway to see a child ripped out of their mother’s arms and the mother being taken away. It’s just something that you think would never happen here in the United States, and it’s happening right now behind the doors of that nondescript building.

    Mona Darwish:

    It’s not just the Latino community in Orange County. It’s the Vietnamese, Cambodian, Iranian. Everyone is being affected

    Rev. Dr. Terry LePage:

    When they take people on the street. They are profiling a hundred percent when they take people from this courtroom, they have taken that. I know of Koreans, they have taken people from Russia. They’ve taken a variety.

    Rev. Dr. Jason Cook:

    And I can tell you that the folks that I’m watching being snatched are not criminals or anybody dangerous that we need to be worrying about. Again, these are folks who showed up in good faith trying to do what they thought was the right thing and that’s why they’re here. Criminals don’t do that. But also, I have to imagine

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    There’s a force of moral shame that these ice agents have to feel when they just see you, when recoil, when they see you and other clergy there, do they feel shame for what they’re doing or does it appear like they’re feeling shame?

    Rev. Dr. Jason Cook:

    That’s a great question. And of course we never fully know what’s in another human being’s heart. What I hope is for every one of those ice agents that sees people who are willing to be present at this time, that there’s just a little part of their brain and their heart that just, even if it just kind of just a little worrisome little itch there that says, maybe this isn’t right what I’m doing, maybe I should be doing something else. Maybe the story that I’m telling myself about all this is, is not really the whole story. I can’t know that that happens, but we feel like it’s more likely to happen with our presence there than not, because otherwise there’s no one there that is offering that sense of witness. And we all know that when things are hidden and they’re out of sight, that’s often when the worst and most egregious things happen

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    With the Trump administration continuing to escalate. It’s all out assault on immigrants and on the rule of law. The sobering reality is that these immigration court abductions and deportations are not going to stop anytime soon. But Reverend Dr. Cook and other clue members say that they’re going to keep showing up to bear witness and to provide whatever support they can and they urge others to do the same.

    Rev. Dr. Jason Cook:

    We are organized to the point that we have all of our people who come here as witnesses, get training. We have a schedule, we have shifts. We have two people at a time so that nobody’s here alone. This is a lot to cover. We don’t know how long this will go on. We’re going to do this as long as it needs to be done, and we realize we’re potentially in for the long haul here.

    Rev. Dr. Terry LePage:

    These people are human beings. They deserve to know that there’s danger in the room that they’re walking into. They deserve someone to witness their imprisonment. They deserve to not disappear. In all through the Hebrew and Christian Bible. It says, to care for the stranger, to honor the stranger, to welcome the stranger. And I’m just doing what Jesus said.

    Rev. Dr. Jason Cook:

    You have to find a reason each day to wake up and keep going. And I think we each potentially play our part and you’re doing what you can at this moment. And I think we’re all trying to find that place. And what I would encourage folks who are hearing this at the moment is anybody, whoever you are, there’s something you could do right now. Again, what we’re doing doesn’t require a degree. It doesn’t require a huge amount of special training. It just requires the ability to witness and be present in a particular way. There are so many things like that that people can do right now. The worst thing we can do is turn away and ignore what’s happening that we can’t do.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • For the last week, countless videos have circulated online showing National Guard troops menacingly patrolling the streets of Washington, DC, and militarized police setting up traffic checkpoints, harassing residents in the streets, and violently clearing encampments of people experiencing homelessness. “The state of mind of DC citizens right now is that they’re under a police state, mainly in the poor Black and Brown communities,” Mansa Musa, host of Rattling the Bars at TRNN and a DC native, reports. In this episode of Working People, we speak with Mansa about the authoritarian reality DC residents are experiencing right now, and we hear from a range of residents and organizers Mansa spoke with on the ground at the “Free DC” demonstration on Monday, August 11.

    Additional links/info:

    Featured Music:

    • Jules Taylor, “Working People” Theme Song

    Credits:

    • Studio Production: Cameron Granadino
    • Audio Post-Production: Jules Taylor
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    All right. Welcome everyone to Working People, a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. Working People is a proud member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network and is brought to you in partnership with In These Times Magazine and The Real News Network. This show is produced by Jules Taylor and made possible by the support of listeners like you. My name is Maximillian Alvarez and we are recording this urgent mini cast episode on Friday, August 15th to give you guys an update on what the hell we know about what the hell is happening in the nation’s capitol. As Chris Cameron reports at the New York Times, president Trump made a show of force in Washington, DC this week exercising his unique powers over the nation’s capitol to commandeer the city’s police force, deploy the National Guard and send hundreds of federal law enforcement agents into the city in what he described as an effort to combat crime.

    It is the first time a president has used a declared emergency to rest control of the city’s police. A step that its mayor said was unsettling, though allowed under the law. Congress and the executive branch have long exerted controls over the city’s budget and other decisions, but the president’s move may represent the biggest encroachment on the city’s autonomy since it was granted home rule 52 years ago. While crime is a concern for many residents, the situation on the ground defers from Mr. Trump’s hyperbolic statements. In justifying the moves, official data shows that crime is falling, particularly violent crime, which hit a 30 year low last year after surging during the pandemic. And I’m sure you guys have been seeing the horrifying videos that have been circulating online all week of militarized police menacingly patrolling the streets of DC and setting up traffic checkpoints like the whole city is under Marshall Law, as well as videos of encampments of people experiencing homelessness being violently cleared and trashed.

    As Brian Mann reports at MPR, just before midday Thursday, crews in DC moved into a grassy park near the Lincoln Memorial in the nation’s capitol, dismantling one of the small homeless encampments that’s drawn the ire of President Trump. David Beatty, age 65, looked on as a bulldozer, scooped up tents and other belongings and shoveled them into a garbage truck. It just feels wrong to me. The idea that we’re poor makes them uncomfortable. They don’t want to be reminded that poor people exist. He said, asked where he expects to sleep, Beaty shook his head and said quietly, I don’t know. I don’t know. Now we know that Donald Trump does not deescalate and the widespread dystopian, but sadly, credible fear right now is that President Trump will fabricate a national emergency to justify escalating his authoritarian assault on our cities and our communities. The administration has openly threatened to expand its military occupation to other cities around the country, specifically cities that they’ve identified as democratic strongholds, including our own city here in Baltimore.

    As Stephen Prager writes at Common Dreams, US President Donald Trump suggested Wednesday he may declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress and continue his military occupation of Washington DC indefinitely. Under the Home Rule Act, the president is allowed to unilaterally take control of law enforcement in the nation’s capitol for 30 days. After that, Congress must extend its authorization through a joint resolution. The authorization would need 60 votes to break the Senate filibuster, meaning some Democrats would need to sign on. Minority leader Chuck Schumer has said there’s no fucking way they would adding that. Some Republicans would likely vote against it as well. And in a final update, published also at Common Dreams today Friday, Brad Reed writes, Washington, DC Attorney General Brian Schwab on Friday filed a lawsuit to block United States Attorney General Pam Bondi from taking over the US Capitol City’s Police Department. The lawsuit accused the Trump administration of violating the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, a 1973 law that delegated certain powers over the city once held by the federal government to local government officials.

    So that is by no means all the information that you need, but it’s a rapid fire barrage of key information that we have as of this recording on Friday. And we’re recording this in the Real News Network studio in downtown Baltimore. And as always, I’m truly grateful to have my colleague the great Mansa Musa here with me. Mansa is of course the host of Rattling the bars on the Real News, and he was actually filming in DC at some of the protests against the Trump administration’s authoritarian takeover of the city earlier this week. Mansa is also himself a resident living and working in Washington dc. Brother Mansa, thank you so much for sitting down and chatting with me, man. I really appreciate it.

    Mansa Musa:

    Yeah, thank you Max for having me on this show working people. This is what it’s all about, people getting their rights as human rights as workers.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    That’s right, man. Again, I cannot express to you how grateful I am that you and Cam ran down there to DC on Monday as this was all unfolding to film and talk with folks on the ground. And I want to get to that in a second, but I wanted to start by just asking if you could just sort of lay out for listeners what the past week has been like for you living and walking through Washington dc What does it look and feel like right now to you and what are you hearing from others in the city?

    Mansa Musa:

    Well, you know what, Mac, that’s interesting that you asked that the other day. And to really put this in perspective, the other day, I was coming down a regular street that I normally travel and the police was parked on the side. So when I passed him, he pulled up behind me and I didn’t come this way thousands of times. Literally, this is not an exaggeration. This is the route I take coming and going home. And so I was like, I ain’t paying no mind. I don’t have no issues with the police. I’m not doing nothing wrong. But I noticed that he was on, he followed me for significant amount of time before he turned off. And so I’m in a room, I’m in a group talking to guys and saying, everybody talking about the FU on police. I said, man, I felt like he was like, follow me.

    Well, then he turned off and one of the guys say, no, what he did, he ran your tags and when he ran your tags and seen you ain’t had wasn’t nothing up, then that’s when he pulled off. And whether that’s true or not, that’s the state of mind of DC citizens. The state of mind of DC citizens right now is that they’re under police state, mainly in the poor black, poor brown communities, the Hispanic communities with large pockets of, and what they call east of the river, the low income projects, and that’s where they’ve been at. They coming around before, they wasn’t enforcing that you couldn’t smoke marijuana in public, and that’s the law. So we get that. But before they wasn’t enforcing it because it wasn’t an issue.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Oh yeah, I walked down DC plenty of times and seen people smoking out,

    Mansa Musa:

    Everybody smoking, police right there, see ’em smoking. Now they’re saying, okay, it’s a law. So now enforce it before it wasn’t, loitering wasn’t an issue. Now it’s a law enforce it. So what they’re doing, what the administration is doing is they’re provoking the population by all these misdemeanor laws. And when it is, it gives them probable cause to approach you. Once they approach you, then it escalate. So that’s what’s been happening. You seen they went in one neighborhood, low income neighborhood, ran up there, guy smoking, put handcuffs on one guy. So now the whole community is up. Well, why you got him handcuffed? So they can’t understand, okay, why you got him handcuffed for smoking a joint? Why you just didn’t give him a citation or whatever, lease it path for resistance. But no, it escalated. Got a guy, Jack, took a guy out of his car, his car running up into the woman smoking.

    But all this is about smoking or laing. And now I heard you was talking about the homeless encampments. They’re moved their systematically coming through with bulldozers, national Guard. They got every brand of police in the world in dc. And every brand of police that’s in the world is operating individually in their silos. So that’s what the attitude in the District of Columbia, it’s real tense. And it is not going to get no, it is not going to get any different because their mandate is to harass the citizens of the District of Columbia. That’s their mandate.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And it sounds like that’s exactly what they’re doing. I mean, you know what? I can’t help but think about the first conversation that you and I had on this podcast, right? And that was a couple of years ago, but I remember you talking about what it was like living near and walking around DC as a young black man in the sixties and how it was very clear that it was still a segregated city. I’m wondering how this compares to your memories of DC back then.

    Mansa Musa:

    It doesn’t because the repression that you seen, it was based, you seen it from the perspective of a class, you low class, you don’t have, but everybody living in low income housing. So you got that. And you don’t have no way of assessing that against what’s going on in the real world because you don’t have a heavy police presence. Now, this is literally like any third world country where you have checkpoints because they’re moving in, having presence in areas where they letting it be known that we are here to do you have an id, you are asking people, lemme see your id. If you don’t have an id, they locking you up. You can say, oh, wait a minute, hold up. I just ran out to get the DoorDash. My ID is in my house. No, you don’t have an id. You getting locked up. So the difference is, is you can feel the tension in the city right now. I mean, it’s really tense. People are actually avoiding federal property and federal highways because the fear of if I’m on federal property, they can stop me, but the is that they going to stop you anyway.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And let’s not forget there are multiple converging assaults happening at once here, right? Because it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that on Thursday DC Metropolitan Police Chief Pamela Smith issued an executive order allowing the officers who were setting up these traffic stops to report undocumented immigrants that they find in the course of those stops, which is a departure from how the DC police normally operates. So it’s a trap being set for anyone who they can get to fall into it. And between DC police collaborating with ICE in this and other ways to increase Trump’s assault on immigrant communities to now the assault on unhoused people in the encampments to the militaristic assault on the freedom and liberty of poor black and brown residents of places like Washington, DC and doing all of this under the guise. And he’s saying that it’s all because DC is just ridden with crime and it’s bedlam over there.

    And we’re being told to fear all this crime from homeless people, from immigrants while a convicted felon is sitting at the White House who also pardoned a bunch of the January 6th rioters who killed police officers. It’s such a topsy-turvy, dystopian reality. But I wanted to ask you, this is what we do, right? We show people what’s actually happening on the ground so they can cut through all the lies and crap. When you are living and working in DC do you see the kind of DC that Donald Trump is telling the rest of the country he sees? Is it ridden with crime? Does it justify what’s been happening this week?

    Mansa Musa:

    There’s no justification for what’s happening this week. And this is one, DC was a sanctuary city. So he came and see all sanctuary cities. I’m attacked two DC is black, ran is a Black, have Black political apparatus. When you look around, he said, Baltimore,

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Baltimore, Chicago. Chicago

    Mansa Musa:

    And LA. The difference with DC is DC as you open up, see DC don’t have no, it’s not a state. So he got the authority to take over the police. And so now what you see is that’s that. But in terms of your question, no, I’m talking about the DC I grew up in. You’ve rarely seen any white people in certain neighborhoods. Very rare, rare, rare.

    Now you see white people walking their dogs in all neighborhoods, the so-called high crime neighborhood, they catching the bus right there. The subways right there. You don’t hear like, well, somebody slaughtered five or robbed. No, they feel safe enough to walk there. Animals, they feel safe enough to go shop. So the citizens of the District of Columbia, they feel safe. It’s not saying that DC don’t have crime because all city has crime, but what he’s using, the pretense that he using to take control over the District of Columbia don’t exist. So really this is not about the crime. This is about them taking over the district Columbia. 

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Yeah, it’s really wild to even be having that conversation, man. But that’s the country that we live in and the reality that we live in here in 2025. And I wanted to not leave our listeners with just a sense of all the awful shit that’s happening. But of course, as always, we want to lift up the voices from the grassroots that are saying no, the people who are fighting back, the people who are standing up and fighting for their rights and the rights of others amidst this onslaught. And that’s exactly what you were doing earlier this week, right? So let’s talk a little bit about the protests that you were at, the folks that you were talking to and what that message from the streets is right now.

    Mansa Musa:

    And there was a rally response by Free DC, which is a coalition organization of different groups, grassroots organizations that come together around DC, all things DC related. And the anti-fascist movement was, there was also a part of this protest, but what we was hearing from the street is people are not selling back and just accepting what he’s doing. So they had a strategy and their strategy is boots on the ground going into neighborhoods, educating people on their rights as it relates to your rights as a citizen in this city. Make sure that you don’t give them no ammunition to lock you up. So that means have your identification, understand that they are enforcing laws. They were one time misdemeanor, they’re making no felonies, and they’re going around to the neighborhoods and addressing the community and getting the community to become more involved. And I was excited to see this because when we talked to the people that was there that was supporting the protest, everyone to a person was saying that they don’t see crime as being up.

    They feel safe. They don’t see this as a problem. They see this as more a takeover by the federal government and to let everybody was saying the same thing, that this is a diversion to divert people’s attention from the Epstein tapes. Now, whether it’s the diverted people’s attention from the Epstein tape, we know it’s a diversion, whatever the diversion, whatever, Epstein tapes, oil, Gaza, wherever we know to get the public attention off of issues that directly affect food, food prices being high, no job, you fired everybody. And then you’re saying unemployment is down. 

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And to qualify that, when we’re talking about firing that many people in a place like DC and the DMV where so many people work for the federal government, that’s what we mean when we’re seeing lots of people around here have lost their jobs. But it’s not just federal workers who live in DC. Of course the majority of them live and work outside of DC. But we have such a high concentration of folks who have been losing their jobs over the past few months because of the cuts from the Trump administration. And we’re seeing that here in Baltimore and Maryland and in DC proper.

    But I very much take your point that Trump was having a pretty bad couple weeks between all the allegations about his connections to Epstein and the very obvious photos of him with Epstein that have been circulating everywhere to the genocide in Gaza, which is now Trump has as much blood on his hands as Biden does. So yeah, rather than deal with any of these issues, he does what he always does and he doubles down and creates other news cycles with evermore authoritarian, brazen policy decisions that, like you said, distract people from what they were so outraged about just a few minutes prior

    Speaker 3:

    To that.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    It’s kind of anyone’s guess where this is all going to go. But I think again, what we know from having studied this man is that he’s going to go as far as he’s allowed to,

    Mansa Musa:

    Exactly

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    So inevitably the question’s going to come down to what are regular working people, the citizens of this country willing to do, to stand against authoritarianism and to stand up for their rights? And that is a question that we can answer for you all listening. That’s a question that you all have to answer yourself.

    Mansa Musa:

    What we see that the populace is going to respond because no matter what he say, and he say to his base when they go home and they put a plate in front of him and they got to divide up with a meal for one person, they got to divide that up among seven people. When they see that somebody not going to eat, they can blame the Hispanic community, they can blame the black community. They can blame a whole lot of people and claim that they took their jobs. They can blame, but at the end of the day, they’re going to have to blame him because that’s who’s responsible for the state of the economy. That’s what the distraction is. But the good news is working people not going to accept that unions, whatever major unions do, the people the rank and file, they not going to accept it. It’s always been a rank and foul that did it. It wasn’t, the AFL-CIO was not an AFL-CIO. The A-F-L-C-I-O was Bobby or Tony or John or Murray or Sally or Sue that said they didn’t like the conditions of what they was working under and they organized. You can’t take that entity, the neighborhoods. It’s the people in the neighborhood saying like, okay, we don’t want heavy handed police in our neighborhood. We don’t have no problem with you riding around doing what you been doing, but now when you come, I’m walking in my house, you say, come here where your ID at? That’s a problem for me. So that’s the difference.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Oh man, I think that’s powerfully put, man. And again, I really appreciate all the work that you’re doing in DC, all the work that you’re doing on rattling the bars. And of course this is not the end of the story, so we’re going to keep covering it and we’re going to keep doing what we can to lift up voices from grassroots of struggle. And in fact, that’s how we’re going to end today’s episode by playing a few clips from the interviews that Mansa himself was doing with DC residents and organizers earlier this week when Donald Trump announced that federal government would be taking over the DC Police and that the National Guard was being called in. So please listen to these, share this episode with everyone that send us tips for folks that you want us to talk to, stories you want us to cover because we’re going to be out there as long as it takes until we get justice. So keep listening, keep fighting, and thank you all so much for caring about this. And thank you again Mansa for joining me on the show.

    Mansa Musa:

    And thank you Max for allowing me and workers of the world united.

    Speaker 4:

    I am a native Washingtonian. Yes, I’m a former member also of the DC National Guard. I support law enforcement. I do not support this. Donald Trump is a pathological liar. He is a 34 counts convicted felon. He is not interested in making DC safe. He’s just trying to divert attention. He doesn’t care about homeless, he doesn’t care about black people. Donald Trump only cares about himself. He’s a pathological liar and he supports pedophilia and white supremacy.

    Mansa Musa:

    Okay, look now, tray White, the representative from the eighth ward, he called for the National Guard to come out. What’d you think about

    Speaker 4:

    That? Sharon Wright is wrong, but the National Guard does not have a right purpose under the situation that Donald Trump is called for. The National Guard has a purpose and a function in the District of Columbia, but this is not it. The Posse Act prohibits the National Guard from engaging in law enforcement. That is not their function, that is not their purpose. And that being misused by the commander in chief.

    Mansa Musa:

    Let me ask you this here. How detrimental or how critical or how detrimental is homeless people to the safety of the United States?

    Speaker 4:

    Homelessness is an issue that people don’t want to address and don’t want to deal with and they don’t want. People need a place to go and rather than try to find them housing, they want to just put them out of sight and push them someplace else. Out of sight, out of mind. Homeless people, everyone needs a place to stay, needs shelter. And we should work with our homeless people and try to find accommodations so that they can be off the streets. People on the street don’t want to be on the streets. Nobody wants to live in a tent in a park that’s not home called

    Mansa Musa:

    Trump issued an executive order saying that anyone that’s asleep on the street, anyone that’s homeless can be locked

    Speaker 4:

    Up. That’s crazy. That’s criminal. Poverty should not be a crime.

    Speaker 3:

    Poverty

    Speaker 4:

    Should not be a crime. And that’s what Donald Trump and his people are trying to, they want to criminalize poverty. Poverty is not a crime. Thank you. Thank you.

    Mansa Musa:

    And they using the crime as a pretext. Do you think crime is up in DC

    Speaker 5:

    No crime’s at a 30 year low. It’s been going down every year. I think this year, year over year. It’s down 26% this year.

    Mansa Musa:

    And in terms of safety, do you feel like the city is safe?

    Speaker 5:

    Yeah, it’s absolutely safe. I walk my dog at night. I am always out in the community. I love being here. I don’t feel unsafe at all.

    Speaker 6:

    So this is what we are building at free DC a people campaign. That is the goal for five years as we build this out to resist in a non-cooperative way that we will eventually in DC get DC statehood hood. Our goal right now in the present is to protect home rule by any means necessary. Right,

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. Because it’s under attack,

    Speaker 6:

    Right? Because it’s under attack. So as we see them come out, the whole rule, we strategize and organize around ways to protect home rule. We are asking our national organizations to contact their congress person to write

    Mansa Musa:

    No

    Speaker 6:

    To those the harms that’s causing dc. 700,000 people in DC pay taxes and we have no voice. We don’t have a vote. So we need the people in national, in other states to vote for us for in Congress. But here in DC on the ground, we are going to do our part to protect DC and DC on rules.

    Mansa Musa:

    What do you think about the city councils position? How do

    Speaker 6:

    You evaluate them in terms of this conflict? The council can do more right now as we give the little bit of the most impacted to satisfy Trump. This is why we are here now. When you give a little, they take a

    Mansa Musa:

    Lot. That’s right.

    Speaker 6:

    So therefore we are saying that know that the people are behind you and rise up to fascism and authoritarianism because when it start in DC, when they come for us in the daytime, they’re going to come for you at night.

    Mansa Musa:

    That’s right. Angela Davis.

    Speaker 6:

    You hear what I’m saying? I hear what you saying. And so therefore they have to do their part and fight back. Don’t cater to them. Don’t cater to the police. Police don’t keep us safe. Police, police keep property safe.

    Speaker 7:

    So when Trump says that he’s going to bring the national guards back to dc back into dc, I think it’s incumbent up on the local population to resist. We know this is not the first time, but this time it seems more insidious and the rationale that’s being used is even more flimsy. We know if you look, you’re saying that crime is going up. We have to bring the troops in. Matter of fact, crime is going, crime is

    Mansa Musa:

    Going down.

    Speaker 7:

    So there’s no basis for that. Whether it’s laws that are passed by the city budget that the city deserves Trump, and the administration is saying that we are taking control of dc. Look at where we’re standing right now. The fact that he put pressure on the local administration, the mayor, mayor caved, and this is no longer Black Lives Matter plaza, right? So that’s an symbolic indication of like, okay, this is my home. The White House is right there. DC belongs to me. That’s what he’s saying to folks.

    Speaker 8:

    DC formerly has self-rule, but in reality, the rich people still run the city. So whether we have statehood home rule or not home rule, the same group of people are going to run the city regardless. We’ve seen that over the last 50 years as disinvestment has destroyed communities, the war on drugs has destroyed communities. So getting home ruler, getting statehood is not going to change those policies unless we have a different type of leadership or leadership, which is opposed to capitalism, which limits the power of these rich people and fights for the working class to lead society. Well, the city council just voted to give Harris the guy who owns the commanders a billion dollars. Why isn’t that money used for affordable housing, for better education, for better programs, for working people in this city? That shows you where the city council really lies with the rich people and the billionaires.

    Speaker 9:

    Oh, what Trump is doing is atrocious. So being out on the streets is very important to me. I work for a nonprofit in DC called Black Swan, which teaches young kids about advocacy, organizing and all of those things. And again, I grew up here, so the city was conducive to me being out on the streets, protesting when I was growing up, when I was in high school. So I’m happy to help educate younger people how to do that now.

    Mansa Musa:

    And talk about the youth because you say you deal with youth. Do you see the youth being so unruly, so disruptive, so homicidal that it calls for the president of the United States to call for the National Guard to come up specifically when he’s saying crime is on the rise and directly relating to youth?

    Speaker 9:

    Absolutely not. Absolutely not the city. It’s a safe place. The youth here, the youth that I work with, they represent to me the youth of dc. So I believe that there’s no warranted reason for him to be calling in the National Guard. Fuck Trump.

    Mansa Musa:

    Okay. Why are you saying that?

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Because he’s a wild piece of shit that doesn’t deserve to be in the White House. We don’t like liars in our lives, but we like him running our country. You make that make sense

    Speaker 10:

    On man. This is a city of men, right? This is a city of people that know how to do their own thing. We’re looking at a guy who’s sitting here saying that his focus is on crime. He’s a felon. He won’t release this Epstein list.

    He’s not really worried about crime. He’s the same person that released the people that did January 6th. He cares about control and he cares about control of a Black city. You see, Washington, DC has always intimidated white lawmakers across this country. And it’s because they had to look at this city and it had to say, damn, it’s a Black mayor, it’s a Black city council, it’s Black entrepreneurs, it’s Black power in this city. And so them attacking this right here is a symbolic attack on Black America. So what I’m telling all of America, and I’ve often been saying that DC is a racial justice issue. All of the Black [inaudible] across America got to tap into DC statehood right now because if we fall, who else can go? And let me

    Mansa Musa:

    Ask you this, your opinion on this, Trayvon White council member Ward eight, he said that he think that Trump is right on the National Guard and he think they should bring National Guard. What’s your

    Speaker 10:

    Opinion, man? I think that we know how to do our own thing here. I think when we look at comparative to other major cities, we don’t need the National Guard here. We have over 3000 police officers. We have over 32 police forces, different police forces. We have more than police here. You know what I’m saying? If there’s a conversation about them doing their jobs differently, maybe more efficiently, that’s a conversation to be had,

    Mansa Musa:

    Right?

    Speaker 10:

    The idea that we need more police is crazy as hell. Like I said, that’s coming from somebody who walks the streets of DC every single day. Do you feel safe? I feel safe. And maybe it’s a consequence of me being from here. You know what I’m saying?

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. But you

    Speaker 10:

    Love the city. I love the city. Like I said, it’s no different than a New York City, than a Miami, than a Los Angeles. And you have activity everywhere. Like I said, all in all though, Washington DC is still a beautiful place to be. It’s still a safe place to be. I’m proud to raise my daughter here. I’m proud to live here and I don’t feel afraid at all being in Washington, DC

    Speaker 11:

    And I’m saying DC is safe for the most part because anywhere you go in the United States, you’re going to have crime in major cities. This is a major city. So I say we are pretty safe. And I say he’s overreaching. He don’t really know what he doing. That’s what I say.

    Mansa Musa:

    Now, did you know that he criminalized homelessness? Say if you homeless and you be on the park bench,

    Speaker 11:

    If you homeless, man, life done already beat you up and you don’t need to be beat up by racist president

    Mansa Musa:

    In terms of him criminalizing homelessness because he is your mandate. I was saying that if you homeless and you on the street that they can lock you up. What’s your view?

    Speaker 12:

    This country is lacking empathy by today. And I think that’s a prime example of it. I think we need more programs. I think we need more mental health programs for people who are out here because a lot of these people, unfortunately, are dealing with mental health issues. I don’t think a majority of people want to be homeless just for the fun of it. So we need programs, we need more clinics. We just need to pour back into our people. I mean, society has shown when we pour into the people who make it, we are all better just as a whole. And I think that’s just another form of division. It’s another form of classism essentially.

    Speaker 13:

    Yeah, there’s been a lot of people out today. Trump just announced that he’s going to be deploying the National Guard, federalizing the Metro Police. A lot of people are very rightfully upset about that. So it’s been a little bit chaotic. Everyone all at once is trying to do something, get out in the streets because we really don’t want to see this happen. Donald Trump and all of these politicians who are behind this, they don’t really live here. They’re here to go to that building for show and then they go home.

    Speaker 3:

    But

    Speaker 13:

    Some of us really do have to live here, and we don’t want the National Guard in the streets. We don’t want the militarized police department rounding people up. We don’t want ice here. We just want to live our lives.

    Mansa Musa:

    Do you think the fact that he’s able to federalize segments of the police department, is this the beginning of the complete takeover of this with Columbia?

    Speaker 13:

    Yeah, I mean I think it’s definitely really scary that he’s able to do that. And I’m sure a complete takeover of DC is exactly what Donald Trump wants, but we need to stand up and not let it happen. I think we really need to do more. I think it’s great to be out on the street. We need to be taking up space so people know that this is our city and we’re not going to stand for this. And I think we need to be putting a lot of pressure on the local DC government that has achieved to Donald Trump’s demands. I mean, mayor Bowser has been kind of just letting Donald,

    Speaker 3:

    Donald Trump

    Speaker 13:

    All over her, and that’s really just not acceptable. Right now, the DC people have voted on so many things that will actually help so much more than just doubling or tripling the amount of cops we’ve voted on measures that are actually going to help people and they won’t appropriate the funds for it because of threats from Donald Trump. And I just think that weakness, we really can’t have that in our leadership.

    Mansa Musa:

    And then he’s using this euphemism or this broad brush approach like crime is high, kids juveniles is running the streets killing people. Is this misinformation or is this just same old, same old?

    Speaker 13:

    It’s misinformation. I mean, crime has been going down in dc. I’ve never felt unsafe in this city. This is my home. I mean, there is crime, but the way to stop it is not by cracking down with violence. The way to stop it is to implement measures to end homelessness, making them be housing better education. So to keep youth from getting into violence.

    Mansa Musa:

    Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Trey, and what, you got the last word. What you want to say to our S and to the DC population in general and the country,

    Speaker 13:

    I just want to say now is not the time to be afraid. Now is not the time to get overwhelmed. Anything that you can do will help anything that’s not just sitting at home being afraid or just sitting at home, getting in arguments on Twitter, get outside, get connected with your community, and get involved with resistance groups.

    Speaker 14:

    After January 6th when the National Guard had to be called out, we were occupied for weeks right here. I had National Guard dump trucks blocking alleys in my neighborhood. This is literally a neighborhood people actually live here. 700,000 people actually live in the District of Columbia.

    Mansa Musa:

    So you really know the ins and outs of the DC party. What do you think going to be the ultimate end game as we see what’s happening with the city in terms of the Trump administration, they systematically dismiss the District of Columbia.

    Speaker 14:

    They can try and they can do what they can do. One of the things that does give me hope actually is the free DC Coalition and Movement because it’s organizing in all eight wards of the city, and it’s brought together some would say strange bedfellows. And some of us make each other uncomfortable, but that’s okay. Democracy is messy. That’s right. That’s right. And it’s worth fighting for. So I am more than willing to be uncomfortable in coalition with folk who have different perspectives than me

    Mansa Musa:

    As long as we got the same objective and same goal.

    Speaker 14:

    Yes, we don’t have to agree on everything to certainly agree that like every other citizen of the United States, we deserve to have agency over our own affairs here. And ultimately that means statehood.

    Speaker 15:

    I feel like this is a moment that we’ve all seen before, especially as black people in this country. We know what it’s like for our communities to be constantly occupied. And this is nothing different than that. The Trump administration has shown that time and time again that they’re willing to flout the rules to break whatever’s legal, whatever legal doctrines exist. So out here, Freed DC is an organization that is fighting for the autonomy of DC and it’s important that we show that every step during history that we never consented to this no matter what happens. I would say the city council is a part of the problem at this point. The budget that they just passed was extremely, extremely favorable to what Republicans wanted to see out of a DC budget. They stripped worker protections, a democratically voted on ballot initiative. They gutted it. They have refused to actually raise taxes on the rich.

    They cut the child tax credit. There were so many different things that through this budget they showed that the DC people were not their priority. And while all this is happening, they decided to work out a $2.2 billion with the commanders so that way they can build a stadium. The people have to wait. But the Commanders Stadium, the commander’s deal needs to be rushed through. And that is because the Trump administration has explicitly said that they want the advisory administration and the city council to work with the commanders. So this is another capitulation that the DC Council is being involved in.

    Mansa Musa:

    Talk about the cities and the grassroots efforts to combat this because I know you in that space and you in that space heavy,

    Speaker 15:

    There are a lot of really great organizations that are doing rapid response work in response to ice, keeping their neighbors safe, building alternative economies through our mutual aid networks, continuing to take care of our neighbors. The child tax credit is gone. So that means that our DC children are going to need more clothes, they’re going to need more food, and we need to be a part of the grassroots movement to provide that. There are going to be organizations that lose funding. It is going to be so important at this time for us to uplift the work of organizations that are going to lose funding and by proxy lose capacity to do this work. So how are we supplementing that? Because if we do not build the capacity, if we do not support these organizations, if we do not support working class people in their quest to get the materials that they need to survive, we will not actually have a sustainable movement. So we need to make sure that we’re doing everything we can outside of the institutions that already exist. We’ve done enough within the institution and they have showed us time and time and again that we are not their priority.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. And George Jackson, this being black August, George Jackson called the Autonomous Infrastructure, basically saying exactly what you just characterize, that we have to take care our own. We have to build alternative institutions to feed people, clo people, and more importantly, to give people security to protect people.

    Speaker 15:

    Absolutely. And what’s

    Mansa Musa:

    Your name, sister? Yeah, I know you. Afeni.

    Speaker 15:

    Nice to see you. Afeni Evans. It’s so nice to see y’all. And yeah, the time is now to fight back. It is not time for us to shrink our ass. It is not time for us to be anticipatory compliant to what a factual regime is asking for us. We must stand 10 toes on our principles because every single time we sacrifice our principles, every single time we sacrifice our talking points and our messaging, we are sacrificing and seeding more ground to the right and to their cultural revolution as well. So we need to be the counter culture that we want to see all power to the people, all power to the people. All power. All power.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    All right gang, that’s going to wrap things up for us this week. I want to thank my brilliant colleague Mansa for chatting with me today and for all the incredible work that he’s doing on our show, rattling the Bars, which every one of you should be watching. And of course, I want to thank you all for listening and I want to thank you for caring. We’ll see you all back here next week for another episode of Working People. And if you can’t wait that long, then go explore all the great work that we’re doing at The Real News Network where we do grassroots journalism that lifts up the voices and stories from the front lines of struggle. Sign up for the Real News newsletter so you never miss a story. And help us do more work like this by going to therealnews.com/donate and becoming a supporter today. I promise you we really need it and it really makes a difference. I’m Maximillian Alvarez. Take care of yourselves. Take care of each other. Solidarity forever.

    Speaker 16:

    [Music] When my face you no longer. See, I live on, yes, I live on wherever we go. We are going to roll the union on the some I live on. Yes, I live on wherever Hungry, hungry. Are we just as hungry as hungry can do the some I live on? Yes. I live on where mean things are happening. In this land is read or sung. I live on, yes. I live on wherever the book mean things are happening. In this Land is read. I live on. Yes. I live on wherever the video tape of me showing I live on. Yes. I live on if I have help to make this a better word to give you. I live on. Yes. I live on when my body is silent and in some Dons breathe I live on. Yes, I on when my are on. Yes, I on.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • After seeing friends and neighbors in their community of Pasadena, CA, being terrorized, assaulted, and abducted by masked federal agents, Daniela Navin and Jeannette De la Riva joined together with other neighbors in their area to form Grupo Auto Defensa and fight back. From chasing ICE cars out of town with bullhorns to setting up security brigades so terrified residents can walk outside and go to the grocery store, from providing know-your-rights information to reclaiming public space, protecting each other, and rebelliously refusing to live in fear, the members of Grupo Auto Defensa are defending their community when no one else will. In this crossover episode of Working People, recorded with Professor David Palumbo-Liu and the Speaking Out of Place podcast, TRNN editor-in-chief Maximillian Alvarez joins Daniela Navin and Jeannette De la Riva to discuss the origins of Grupo Auto Defensa and the power of grassroots resistance in the face of the Trump administration’s authoritarian assault on immigrant communities and the rule of law.

    Guests:

    • Daniela Navin is a resident of Pasadena, CA, and a founding member of Grupo Auto Defensa.
    • Jeannette De la Riva is a lifelong resident of Pasadena, CA, and a founding member of Grupo Auto Defensa.

    Additional links/info:

    Featured Music:

    • Jules Taylor, “Working People” Theme Song

    Credits:

    • Audio Post-Production: Jules Taylor
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Alright. Welcome everyone to Working People, a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. Working People is a proud member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network and is brought to you in partnership within these Times Magazine and the Real News Network. This show is produced by Jules Taylor and made possible by the support of listeners like you. My name is Maximillian Alvarez and I’m just popping in here for a second because firstly, I miss you guys. And secondly, I wanted to apologize for the disruption in our usual programming over the last month. If you guys have been following what we’re doing here at the Real News Network, or if you’ve been following me on social media, then surely you’ve been seeing me running all over the damn country the past month. I mean from going to Philadelphia to cover the beginning of last month’s city workers strike to going to Chicago for the Socialism Conference to New Orleans for the Net Roots Conference and back here in Baltimore to speak at the UAW Convention for the National Organization of Legal Service Workers.

    And also, most importantly, I took an emergency trip back home to Southern California to film reports on the fascist assault on immigrant communities and the people who were standing up and fighting back against it. Now, we’ve already released multiple short reports and our first full video report on the Real News YouTube channel, and we’ve got lots more coming your way. So please if you can help us share these reports, make sure that everyone sees them and understands what’s really happening in this country. And today’s episode is actually a crossover that we recorded with Professor David Pumba Lou and the Speaking Out of Place podcast about the ice raids in Southern California. I was truly honored to be part of this conversation alongside Daniela Navin and Jeanette de La Riva, two incredible human beings who are residents of Pasadena, California and who are part of the community defense group, Grupo Altoa.

    This is a totally grassroots group formed organically by a collection of neighbors from the hood as they describe it, who all saw the fascist terror spreading in their community and who all decided to stand up band together and do something about it from chasing ice cars out of their town with bullhorns to setting up security brigades so that terrified residents can walk outside and go to the grocery store from providing know your rights information to reclaiming public space, protecting each other, and Rebelliously refusing to just live in fear and stay indoors. These ordinary working people are showing extraordinary bravery, and I’m incredibly grateful to them for speaking so openly and honestly with me when I was filming on the ground in Pasadena and on this podcast. And I’m so incredibly grateful to Professor Pumba Lou for having me, Daniella and Jeanette on the show, and for lifting up their vital, powerful voices. Be sure to follow and subscribe to speaking out of place and follow Grupo Alta Defensa on Instagram. We’ve included links to both in the show notes for this episode. Now, I promise you guys, we are going to be back in action with our regular weekly show very, very soon. We’ve got critical episodes coming your way, so please stay tuned and keep fighting. And without further ado, here’s our crossover podcast with speaking out of place featuring Daniella Navin and Jeanette de la Riva from Grupo Alto Defensa.

    David Palumbo-Liu:

    Today we speak with Daniela Navin and Jeannette De la Riva, two members of Grupo Auto Defensa, a community organization based in Pasadena, California, which has come about in response to attacks by ice, which have violently disrupted everyday life and led people to form new relations of mutual support and care. We hear their stories of how Trump Lieutenant Steven Miller’s demand that ice arrests 3000 people every day has put unbelievable constraints on hardworking people’s lives. Nevertheless, we also hear how they have invented tactics to challenge these repressive measures. We’re joined by journalist activist Maximilian Alvarez of the Real News Network who grew up in Los Angeles, and comments on the broad networks of resistance cropping up organically to fight fascism. We hope you enjoy this and other episodes please help support speaking out of place by subscribing via our website, speaking out of place.com. Following us on Instagram and following me on blue Sky, you can give me your feedback and suggest people to invite and topics to cover.

    Also, please check out my book of the same title published by Haymarket Books, Ian Yata Taylor calls it quote, the exact book we need for the troubled historical moment through which we are living. Thank you all for being on the show. This is such an important topic. It speaks exactly to the purpose of the podcast, which is to get the story out to correct misperceptions and to empower people. So I’m going to ask you three to all introduce yourselves any way you want to introduce yourself and then we’ll into the show. So maybe Daniela, do you want to start?

    Daniela Navin:

    Sure. Daniela Navin. I’m a resident of Pasadena.

    Jeannette De la Riva:

    I’m Jeanette de Lava. I’m a resident from Pasadena.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And I’m Maximillian Alvarez. I am the editor in chief and co-executive director of the Real News Network in Baltimore, also born and raised in Orange County, California.

    David Palumbo-Liu:

    And it’s really thanks to Max that we’re all together because I’ve known Max for a long time and he got me in touch with Daniella and Jeanette. I thought we’d begin by just asking folks, walk us through what Pasadena is to you.

    Jeannette De la Riva:

    As for me, Pasadena’s, it’s my neighborhood. It’s my own community. I grew up here, I was raised here. My grandparents, they came from Mexico to do a living here. So I got to know almost everybody. Everybody knows me because of my grandparents, my dad. So I’m just going to fight all the way until I need a fight because this is a family to me. Everybody’s important. It doesn’t matter for me what color you are or where are you coming from. It’s like we got to protect one another.

    David Palumbo-Liu:

    So what have been the threats and the things that have been going down that it put this sense of community into high gear in terms of people getting to know each other and stepping in?

    Jeannette De la Riva:

    I think more the community came more together for me is like when we started getting those notices. People are getting just swept up by these supposedly ice people that are just covered up from the face. So that’s the thing that made us come out there and start defending everybody that doesn’t want to come out to defend themselves. When this happened for me is when Elizabeth, she started with her horn just going down the street where I live and just yelling out that ice is here. So that’s when I just came out the window and just started telling her like, okay, what’s going on? So she told me. So that’s when I was like, okay, this is not going to happen. Not in our hometown. And I think Daniella felt almost the same way. Daniella?

    Daniela Navin:

    Yeah, I would say for me in Pasadena, I didn’t grow up in Pasadena. I grew up in El Monte, which is very similar to Pasadena in terms of the demographics and the immigrant community, undocumented status, and also coming from a mixed status family. So I moved to Pasadena probably about around 12 years ago. Where I live is just right above the two 10 freeway and people always think about the Rose Parade, Eddie Van Halen, you think about the Rose Bowl, but above the two 10 freeway, it’s sort of a different vibe, a different community. It’s la asa lives there. It’s just a community where you’re going to find very similar to what I grew up with in Monte. And you had the fires that happened earlier in January, so already we were in a very vulnerable space and the community did come together. I think that was the most encouraging part was the support and the community and the volunteer hours.

    One thing that really upset me was there’s a windshields donut up the street from me on Orange Grove and Robles and men dressed up their faces hovered, kidnapped six men that were actually going to go and clean up an Altadena. So the Pasadena Job Center did do a lot of training for the day laborers to help clean up the debris, the trees, and so they were on their way there on the bus stop. And this was about, I want to say about 5 36 in the morning. And so it was so close to where I live that when that happened, just something lit a fire in me that I couldn’t believe that this was happening in our community and in a place where we were still recovering from the fires. That was so devastating. And Jeanette started this with Liz. Liz was our connector, Jeanette and Liz, they knew each other from high school. And for me, I went to the vigils, I went to the protest, I went to city council. I went to something to try to find some sort of where I could take action because with this happening, it was six people. This was on a Wednesday and then on Saturday there’s a park right across from where I lived, Villa Park, there’s a Tamal stand, and they took men from the Tamal stand and also where Liz’s apartment on Marengo, they also took people from her apartment complex.

    Wow. So posting on Instagram is not enough. I just didn’t feel like it was actionable. City council, passing city council, that felt like it was nowhere. I changed my route home. I was patrolling on my own before I met Jeanette and Liz and looking for something. And sure enough, I found the tent. I remember I rolled up there on a Friday after work, and then I met Jeanette and I think the tent went up on Tuesday. And so I just started being there, started going to sightings and starting to advocate. I don’t know, just looking for something. And I definitely found it with our little group that we created organically. It all just was put together. I don’t know, we just all meshed well together.

    David Palumbo-Liu:

    Yeah. You mentioned earlier on, that’s how you two met, right? Is through this particular action. But obviously you’ve been thinking along the same lines for a long time. Max, you grew up in la, right? Tell us a little bit about how this registers with you.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    There’s so much there, man, that I’m frankly still processing it. And I’ve been back in Baltimore for two weeks, since I was there in southern California filming for the Real News, including filming with Daniella and Jeanette and everyone at Grupo Alto, the FSA in Pasadena. I’ve been going home practically every year minus some of the COVID years for the last 20 years since I left when I was 18. And there’s so many familiar things and feelings and sights of going home that just always put my body and soul in a different mode. And it’s like a different part of you reawakens when you’re back in the surround that you were raised in. And I still felt that, but I’ll be honest with you, coming home has never felt the way it did a couple of weeks ago. The place that I have always associated with warmth and light and community and just the friendly vibe of Southern California, like I said, it’s not all that was gone, but there was a dark heavy P on everything and you could sense it.

    If you’re from there, you can start to notice the differences because on the surface, everything looks the same. But then you start noticing that the parks that are normally filled with kids are so quiet that the food trucks you’re used to seeing, maybe they’re 8, 9, 10, there’s one there if that. It’s details like that. It’s the rings under people’s eye because they’re not sleeping. It’s the heaviness in their voice because this is so different from anything that we’ve really experienced. And I think one of the most striking parts for me was, the example I use is that when it comes to something like climate change, speaking of the fires, which I’ll get to in a minute, our biggest battle with climate change over the years has been convincing ourselves and each other that it’s actually happening. And we’ve never really had a firm footing where everyone could just acknowledge that this thing is happening and we should all deal with it.

    I would say to everyone out there, it’s almost a careful what you wish for situation, because I didn’t feel that at home. I didn’t have to convince my friends and my family that this was happening. We all knew it. And there’s something both really I think essential and powerful about that, but also deeply disturbing because you want to convince yourself that it’s a bad dream, that it’s not as bad as it is, that things aren’t changing as rapidly as they are, but they are. And I felt that going home. And I felt that in the communities that we filmed in, these are communities, these are neighborhoods, these are streets, freeways that I grew up in. I got family all over LA and Orange County. I grew up with people who are so much like Daniella, Jeanette, chewy, Liz, all of them. They felt like people I grew up with and went to high school with, which again highlighted just how real this is and how it shook me at the deepest core of who I am to see my people, my home, be taken over by this fascist occupation, this terror campaign.

    But at the same time, I’ve never felt an inspiration like I felt seeing what Daniella, Jeanette, and everyone they’re doing, because I felt they’re harnessing the best parts of who they are. The skills that you develop just as a kid and SoCal, whether that be being bilingual, whether that be knowing the streets so well that you can evade ice cars that are trying to follow you or something, or whether it be just your ability to communicate with so many different people at different parts of their life. I saw everyone in Grupo, Alta Defensa harnessing the skills that they had developed as a person, as a southern Californian, as people of mixed races, and put those skills to use for good to fight for their community. And that is an incredible thing. And I think everyone should really take heart and take inspiration from what GPA Alta Defensa is doing.

    And the last thing I’ll say about just what this means for our home, Daniella mentioned it, Pasadena specifically, this is an area that was just battered by incredible wildfires. In January. The Eaton fire was blazing through Pasadena while the Palisades fire was blazing just a couple miles away. I saw the burnt out ruins of old businesses and homes. They’re still there. There’s so much debris that’s been cleared, but there’s still so much just ruins of the former Pasadena there. And in fact, so many immigrants were the ones clearing away that debris months after the fire. And now these are the people who are being taken away. These are the people who can’t leave their homes because they’re terrified of getting kidnapped in broad daylight by massed, unidentified armed thugs who no one knows if they’re agents of the state, no one knows if they’re bounty hunters. No one knows if they’re vicious impersonators who are abducting people to kill, rape, whatever. No one knows. And this is the situation that the Trump administration has actively and deliberately created in our homes. And it was just so apparent that the scale of the problem was not being matched by the institutional responses from local government, from unions, nonprofits, but where it is being matched with force, with determination, with creativity is from working people like Jeanette and Daniela and their neighbors. And that is an incredible thing.

    David Palumbo-Liu:

    Well, that’s such a powerful statement, max and pack, so much information and so many questions I’d like to get to. One is how has your life changed? What kinds of ways are you exactly not able to lead the life that you expected and had been living? And second is exactly Max said, what kinds of skills and tactics and networks and relationships are you building? And I guess third we should get to it at some point is obviously your energy is finite and you’ve been burdened with an awful lot and it can’t be sustainable over the long term. What can we do to help? How can we form a larger network even to make up for the lack of response, if that’s probably the best characterization, if not antagonism that you find from local government and state government? So first of all, again, how has your life changed? What kinds of things have you had to adjust to Second, how are you learning these new skills and deploying them to defend yourself and to advance your community? Let’s start with those two maybe.

    Jeannette De la Riva:

    I think basically for me, it changed a lot. Usually getting up early in the morning before I go to work, like how Daniella does. We go patrol usually if my kids are up for it, my kids be tagging along too, where everything happens, we start recording taking pictures, and it’s been tiring. It gets tired sometimes. My body just, it takes a lot of energy out just trying to be out there. And I love it. I love being out there. I love standing out there with the group. It’s like a big family that we have that we’re all sticking together. Stuff that I don’t know, Daniela will help me out. Or the other team we have Jesus and Elizabeth, we all just sit in a circle and just talk it out. We have sit down a couple of times and just let it out right there.

    I know we had pride a couple of times right there. Let our frustration out. We pass each other information, whatever we don’t know, we just keep in touch with each other. For me, I believe sometimes we want to be in other cities and help them out, but at the same time, we think we won’t make it on time for them. And that’s what frustrates me more and it gets me upset because I have my kids and then seeing others that maybe the other kids may think, oh, it’s my mom or dad coming back home. Am I going to see them again or am I going to see my family again The day, like how Daniella said with wind chills, I knew two people that got picked up and then where Elizabeth stays, I used to stay there long time ago when they told me the people that got picked up there, I knew them.

    It broke my heart because the gentleman that got picked up, I knew them for a long time. When I went to ask at his job, he came to work and they told me that he never showed up. It hurt me more to break the news to his own daughter. And when I had to go in there and let her know that her dad never made it to work and that he did got picked up, I cried with her because she was just in tears that her dad just got picked up just like that, out of nowhere. But we’re still standing. We’re trying to stay strong the day, make it by a good day. We’d be having ups and downs. I know we’d be having a lot of people just talking to us, negative stuff, but we still out there that we really not going to let the negative come to us. And I know Daniella has supported me all the way too. She has seen me frustrated sometimes that these people that are masked and then the thing that gets me more upset that we have the officers, that really doesn’t back us up.

    I know I had one incident that I did have my first time that I had to chase a Titan truck all the way now to Dina where we had the fires, chasing ’em all the way and almost ran over a worker. So it got me more furious, really, you’re out here trying to just pick up people and you don’t want to tell us who you are or let us know that at least you working for ice. But just going around the whole street just like that and almost hitting innocent people, it’s not fair. And then I want to thank that N left too for always checking up on me when she sees me frustrated when she’s me, just take off and just, I need to breathe. She has been there, even the whole group, and it is been beautiful.

    Daniela Navin:

    Yeah, I think I definitely have those moments of being very vulnerable. I think also it has me stand in my power more that I can make a difference. And the way that we get through this is with each other. I think that it’s so easy to feel isolated, and that’s how I felt. I felt isolated. I felt frustrated. I felt angry, sad, mad. And like I said, searching for something on my phone as we all do, connected to our phone, trying to find some sense of community and realizing that it’s not on my phone. It’s not. It’s by talking to my neighbors. It’s about meeting people. And I think that’s one thing that has definitely changed for me is checking in on people. I may not know you, but hey, how are you doing when I go to the grocery store? How’s it going? Acknowledging people I think has definitely changed for me.

    Checking in with each other more, supporting each other. I may not know you, but we’re all a part of the same struggle. We’re all looking for something. So I think that’s one thing. It’s strengthened community. And I never thought that I would be the person that I would be chasing these men, these mass men and scare shitless, but then there’s something that comes over me is the drive to get in their way. I think that’s one of my motivation is that you’re stopping people from living their lives, but then you get to come into our community and you get to enjoy our community. You get to have coffee, you get to have a haircut, you get to go to work. The amount of people that have stopped us in our corner to tell us that they’re scared to leave and because we’re there, they feel safe, they feel like people are watching their back.

    And that’s our little corner. So we’re protecting our corner. We have eyes in our corner, so we know that we have eyes at Villa Park, we have eyes at windshields. We can respond to things. And Jeanette says, our day, what’s changed for me is Jeanette. My day starts early. I patrol in the morning. I wake up early, I get myself ready for work, I patrol, and then after patrol I help set up our little corner and then I go to work. And then after work, I come back to our little corner. So it’s just that we are all just together. And today we didn’t set up our corner, but we met up for coffee. And so it feels like more of a ritual now that when I don’t see Jeanette and when I don’t see Liz or Chewy or other members like Karen and Spencer, it just feels, I don’t know, it just feels strange, but we’re messing each other. What are you up to today? And I think seeing Liz and Jeanette as moms and the care that they have for their kids and still doing this major props to them, I don’t have kids, so for me, they’re struck so thin already, but already their focus and their drive really motivates me to continue to do this.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And Dave, if I can just, I want to underscore a little more for listeners again, who aren’t there, what this looks like, what I saw reporting on this, because on the same day that I got to meet and film with Daniela, Jeanette and everyone at Grupo Defensa, we started that day filming just a couple blocks over at the Pasadena Job Center, and I really want to give them a shout out. They’re doing incredible work and everyone should look them up and support them. So we were there filming a food distribution drive that they are doing every single week, every Friday. This is a drive that they started during COVID. It’s a drive that they picked back up during the fires and now they’re doing them every week. Why? Because so many people are so afraid of leaving their homes that they won’t even go to the grocery store.

    They need neighbors, friends, family to go to distribution drives like this. Most of the people I saw there were picking up food for other people because the people they’re picking up food for haven’t left their homes in weeks. That’s what we’re talking about here. I talk to elderly people. I talk to young 20 year olds who are doing everything for their parents, and they’re heartbroken because they’ve never seen their parents so scared in their lives on top of dealing with all the burden of going and doing the shopping and doing everything that needs to be done in the house because you’re the only one who will leave. I heard so many stories of spouses who have to basically come up with a plan to decide which one of us is going to take the risk to leave and what’s going to happen if I get taken.

    But we can’t risk both people leaving. These are the decisions that people are making in their homes daily because of the terror that has been unleashed on our community. And I do want to be clear, it is also very true that this is not just happening to Latinos and people who look like Latinos. I’ve been to immigration courts like the one in Santa Ana where you’re also getting folks of East Asian descent. You’re getting Haitian immigrants. It really is a full on assault on immigrants as such. But of course, especially in a place like Southern California that is just so full of different Latinos from different parts of Latin America, and you have a government that’s trying to meet this ghoulish quota from Steven Miller to arrest 3000 people a day, you don’t have that many warrants. You don’t have that many criminals to get. You’re only going to meet that quota by racially profiling people like they are doing in Pasadena, like they did in Santa Ana with Narciso Barranco, a landscaper who’s lived here for over 30 years, was just doing his job.

    He’s raised three sons who were all Marines. And then one day a group of armed guys with vests that they bought on Amazon, it looks like just swarm. Don’t announce themselves, chase them, tackle ’em in the middle of an intersection, beat the crap out of them and disappear ’em into a van. For anyone who’s looking at that and saying, oh, that’s so horrible, but that’s not going to happen to me. It could happen to us. So imagine how we feel watching that shit. Imagine how we feel talking to our children and telling them it’s going to be okay, telling my dad that he shouldn’t leave the house without a copy of his passport. That’s what we’re dealing with. And that’s what these incredible women and their neighbors saw happening in their communities, and they were feeling as much fear as all of us are. But they did a heroic thing in saying, we’re going to do something.

    David Palumbo-Liu:

    We’re

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Going to band together and stop this. And whether it’s Elizabeth Castillo grabbing her bullhorn and chasing these unmarked cars, she recognizes them and is telling neighbors, Hey, this is la, that car with the organ plates, that’s la. And then you see that bravery when people like Daniela, Jeanette, Liz, all these folks, when they show that bravery, it brings out bravery and others because then suddenly people are whipping out their phones and they’re holding them up to these fascist kidnappers. That is what I have to really underscore is not only the decision to do something and not wait, but dealing with all this fear to still stand up and be brave and instill bravery in others. That has given me more hope than anything has in a long time.

    David Palumbo-Liu:

    Yeah. Again, I had two buckets of questions that I want to ask or topics, and I definitely want to end by you both telling us more about your amazing organization. And then Max, maybe you can give us other organizations too, because we have a blog function on the podcast, so you can give me all your links and articles and stuff, and we can always refresh it. So I want that to be like a live resource for all of our listeners to know more about you and other organizations and how we can help as things change. But before we get to that, and something I mentioned earlier on, I’m constantly pissed off, angry, frustrated at the way in which the mainstream media distorts what’s going on either by misrepresenting or just not covering things. So I always give my guests a chance to tell us the truth. Tell us what you think allows for this kind of violence to go on over and over again. How a lot of Americans just are buying the distortions. They hear and listen, and this is a question for all three of you. What kinds of things need to be corrected that are wrong?

    Daniela Navin:

    I think the notion that if they just done it the right way, I think that’s one of the constant things that I’m seeing online or some of the criticism that I have faced, even with my own family, if they done it the right way, they wouldn’t be in this or criminals. And so I just want to emphasize that the immigration process is long. It’s expensive. It has taken my dad, it has taken my sister who is a DACA recipient. We’re a mixed status family. And so just the notion of that, that if only to dinner the right way, it’s not as easy as what they think. It’s the right way. And so I think if we want to solve immigration, then maybe we need to look at the process. It hasn’t been solved. There has no been major updates. And in my community, all I see are hardworking, hardworking people.

    And then you have the notion of we’re the criminals. But then you do have criminals that are in the White House and you have the exoneration of January Sixers, so then it’s two narratives, right? It’s like we criminals, max mentioned that it’s not just Latinos are being targeted. It’s a whole group of people. And so I think just understanding that it’s so complex. There’s history, there’s segregation laws, there’s redlining and why we live in a certain area. So it’s just a little bit more nuanced and it’ll be better. People think about before they say something because to them they’re like, oh, they’re just, they’re criminals. They came here legally, they should be locked up. But this is just a one stop away from grounding you up. I’m not trying to exaggerate here. I’m not trying to say this is Nazi Germany, but the threat of being deported has always existed in our family, and it’s always been this idea that this could happen. But what I’m seeing now, it feels like rapid fire. It could happen to you. It could happen to your city. I never thought this would happen in my backyard, and it took that happening down the street for me to engage with my community in the way that I haven’t engaged with it before.

    David Palumbo-Liu:

    I thank you so much for that because among the things, you’re absolutely right. If we don’t put the brakes on here, there’s no reason for it not to. And a lot of it is just the sheer exercise of power on anybody. So Jeanette,

    Jeannette De la Riva:

    I think that Daniella did say mostly everything that I was about to say when they snatch people out their car or breaking their windows or just grabbing them real and just throwing them on the floor. I’ve seen some people have gotten hidden by the batons and everything, and now I think that’s not right. I was like, they’re not doing nothing. They’re just scared of their life. These are humans. What about if that was their family getting taken away and that your family’s getting hidden, what were you going to do? I get mad and I cry, and I was like, you’re hitting this person. When they threw the bombs and everything and I saw it on the news, I was more pissed off. Why are you doing that for? You have kids running, you have elderly people running, especially the gentleman that passed away that he fell off the ladder. I think I forgot his name. Do you remember his name?

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Give me one sec. I got this.

    Jeannette De la Riva:

    There you go. So for him, for losing his life, for just treating these people the wrong way, and it’s not right for them doing all this stuff instead of doing it the right way, how they were saying, or we’re just going to pick up criminals that have done trafficking that have really bad records, and you’re just sweeping up people that are innocent, hard working people. I even have a lot of friends that are scared to come out. I have friends that are gardeners. My daughter’s dad always calling me and letting me know, is everything okay out there? Or I be calling them when this was going on 24 7. We might not be together and everything, but just giving them call. Hey, how are you doing? Are you okay? Just let me know if anything goes by you see a suspicious car, just let me know. But they do need to do the things the right way, not treat everybody like an animal, not.

    Daniela Navin:

    And just to add what Jeanette was saying, they’re showing up without warrants. They’re showing up and just kidnapping people. I think we as an American should have an expectation that we should be able to walk down the street regardless of the color of our skin, what we do for a living, the language that we speak and not be grabbed off street. Does that expectation of having due process, what is happening to them when they are taken, how long are they taken for? What are the conditions? And I think that people just don’t realize that it’s the lasting trauma of being taken, the impact to the community. We’re always on the defense. We’re always on the stress. I feel like I can’t sleep. We’re restless, we can’t turn it off. We’re just thinking about when is the shit going to hit the fan? If things are quiet, what’s going to happen?

    And seeing the other eye sightings. And there was one in the Hollywood at Home Depot today, and then yesterday in Paramount, they took two people. We’re all looking at this and we’re all just wondering, we have our community patrols. We check in with each other. What’s happening? We have a Home Depot in Pasadena. Has it been hit yet? It’s like when, I don’t know. I’ve sometimes at full restless, and it’s hard to try to take that space for yourself because what if something happens? What if I took the morning off and something that I would’ve seen a car? What would’ve happened? And I know Jeanette and I, and even with Liz and Chewy in our group, sometimes it’s just there’s so much and we’re just, I don’t know. Sometimes it’s hard to turn it off sometimes.

    David Palumbo-Liu:

    Yeah, absolutely. Max?

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    in terms of correcting the narrative, there’s almost too much to correct because the narrative is so patently false and full of lies and bullshit, and it’s just people are believing it either because their brain has become so addled by the internet or right wing media or in all this conspiracy theory crap or just homegrown plain old racism. Our lives have gotten harder, cost of living has gotten higher. All the sort of economic factors that have made people increasingly more desperate and thus more willing to buy into the kind of fascist grif that Donald Trump is selling. There are myriad of reasons like why people may believe the lies that they’re being fed, but just really drive home some of the basic corrections that Danielle and Jeanette already did beautifully. The people should just be coming in and immigrating the right way and following the process.

    This has always been just such a, and David, I know you’ve written whole books on this, so this is going to be nothing new to you, but it’s just always so bonkers that generations of white Americans who just had to walk through Ellis Island and get their tonsils checked can turn around and say, Latinos who have been going through a broken immigration process for 20 years to try to get a damn green card are somehow doing it the wrong way. The perspective is just off the charts that I don’t even know what to do with it. But I went to one of those immigration courts in Santa Ana. I talked to people like Reverend Dr. Jason Cook and Mona Darwish at the Orange County Register. People who are going in there, seeing what’s happening, bearing witness to the crimes that our state is committing in a court of law.

    But these are people who are going to their immigration court dates, trying to follow the law, trying to do it the right way. And they may have been doing that for years if not decades. And then suddenly they are walking into a trap. It is a government laid trap where a politically appointed judge is being told from the White House on down, throw as many of these cases out on as many technicalities as you can find, give any excuse you can to essentially put this person in violation. The second they walk out of that courtroom and then they have masked agents waiting there to swarm them, take ’em down like an elevator and whisk ’em into unmarked vans that are parked right outside in the back of the courthouse. That is what is happening. So people who are out here saying, oh, immigrants should be following the law and doing it the right way.

    The people administering the law are doing it the wrong way to trap the people like us who are trying to do it the right way. That is what your government is doing. That is what is happening day after day. Family after family is being broken apart through this process that is going so unnoticed because it’s not as dramatic as ice abducting people in the middle of the street, but they’re doing it in immigration courts all over the damn country. And that feeds into the other point. I do not use the term fascist lightly. I use it very deliberately. And if you want to see why, go look up the new ad campaign from the White House of Defend the Homeland, join ice. It is just freak fascist aesthetic you can imagine. And they are telling people that they’re going to get like $50,000 signing bonuses.

    You’re going to pay off your student loans if you come join this Gestapo force. And if you look at the posters for it, it is straight out of Nazi Germany. Like Danielle has said, we are not Nazi Germany. We’re not there yet, but we’re sure as shit like heading that direction right now. And it’s got all the aesthetic trappings and a lot of the same factors that societies that devolved into fascism experience. The highlight here, and the point I want to end with is we still have a chance to change that. We’re not there yet, but we are heading there quickly and in pockets of America it’s already there. And that’s what I need people to understand is it can always get worse. It is getting worse after that big beautiful bill passed, it’s going to make ice the largest law enforcement agency in the entire government.

    It’s going to be bigger than most countries militaries. And these are again, the people that are being recruited for the purposes of unleashing fascist terror on immigrants. The people who are taking those signing bonuses, signing up for this know damn what they’re signing up for, and a lot of them are hungry for it. And that is where we’re headed right now. And the question is, who’s going to stop ’em? Who’s going to get in their way? And so far, the Democratic Party, sure as shit ain’t doing it. They’re just hoping to play possum and hope things get so bad that they don’t have to do anything to win votes in the midterms. That’s their strategy. So they’ve thrown us overboard and basically said, good luck, hope for the best vote for us in the midterms. So you got that. You’ve got so many other people looking around not knowing where the help is going to come from.

    And again, it’s got to come from us. It’s got to come from you banding together with your neighbors, you talking to your union members, you talking to the people in your apartment building, come up with a plan, make sure everyone knows their rights, make sure everyone knows each other so you feel less alone, less vulnerable, because the more alone and vulnerable we are, the easier we are to pick off and they are actively trying to criminalize compassion. I think that’s the last thing I’ll say is that’s how you know this is so morally wrong because as a child, as a basic human being, when you see your fellow man being brutalized in this way, your natural instinct is to help. Your natural instinct is to say, Hey, stop doing violence on this person and to try to intervene to stop the hurt. And this administration is trying to criminalize people’s natural, instinctive, good natured responses to help one another, and they know if they break that they will break us.

    And so the most rebellious thing we can do is to not give into that, to lean into the most compassionate parts of your heart, to the parts of your soul that know deep down that all of this is wrong and it cannot go on. We cannot look our children in the face if we don’t say, we did everything we possibly could to stop this. And that is what group defense is doing. That’s what the Pasadena Job Center’s doing. That’s what incredible folks working folks like you and me are doing. And you listening to this can do it too.

    David Palumbo-Liu:

    You all three have been so powerful in your speaking about all the things that are wrong and all the things that have to be done and the urgency of it. I would like to end with you both talking more about the group of Alta Defensa. Tell us more about what the everyday operations are, how people are working together, because everything I’ve heard so far has given me inspiration to want to do exactly what Max said, and this is the message we have to drive. As Max put it so powerfully to learn from your example and your courageous efforts to be human to other people. As Max said, it’s the bottom line of what we are supposed to be doing, but we have this oppressive government doing everything in its power to make it impossible. Tell us more about your organization and then again, I’ll ask Max to also talk about other organizations and we’ll put up a big blog and all the numbers and stuff like that, but I’d love to take the opportunity that you’re both here. Tell us about what the organization is about, how it got started and how it works.

    Jeannette De la Riva:

    Well, it started with Liz, everything that we started doing, and then from there she loose when she was going around the street, he was a little puppy lost, just jump in. So he did the same thing. I did the same thing with her, just followed her. We all met up right there, our C, DC, and I just want everybody to know you could do it wherever you are at. Just pick a corner. Don’t be scared from these people because they’re nothing. Liz, if you ever meet her, get to meet her, she’s a tiny little person that she’s out there just chasing them and we’re out there behind her giving her that support. We give a lot of information to the community what they need to do.

    Daniela Navin:

    We provide resources to the community of know your rights. We also have resources of the different organizations that are around to help legal support, food and that sort of paperwork. And then also what type of vehicles are ice driving? They’re changing their tactics, but what to look out for, and I think the biggest, and Jeanette maybe will agree with me on this one. I think the biggest thing that we’re there for is also all of the rumors, the miscommunication, the panic, the fear that’s spreading, and to stop the fear and provide actual factual, yes, this was ice. No, this was ice. If he hears in the bullhorn, it’s a confirmed ice sighting to dispel those rumors and really the concept adopt a corner came from Angela at the job center and they do adopt a Home Depot where you have a tarp and you’re set up at a Home Depot and you’re watching the day laborers, you’re watching the corners, you’re looking for suspicious vehicles, you’re providing resources to them, your rights. So we took that concept and put it in this corner that’s very vulnerable. There’s a laundromat, there’s LA Tacos, there’s very vulnerable area, and we just adopted that corner. We have eyes on this side, we have eyes on this side, eyes behind us. Jeanette has her car at the ready, so does list Chewy myself. I would say we’re not really an organization where people that live in the area that are just fucking pissed off and just

    Jeannette De la Riva:

    Trying to protect our people. That’s even Spencer. I think by the time we get in our car, Spencer is already out the driveway in his little, I don’t even know what to call it if it’s a bike motorcycle, but he’s the one that’s already just gone. Last time we went to check on something, I told Daniella, where did he go?

    Daniela Navin:

    Gone. He was just gone. He has an electric bike, so then he’s able to get to places quicker than us. He’s able to,

    He sees something and already he’s on his bike and he has taken off. So we just all live in the area. We all saw that there was an issue that was happening. Liz was the catalyst of giving us a space where we can all join together and just clicked. When we were chasing ice, they kidnapped a mom. I remember two sons and that was devastating. So we took names, we documented cars, how many agents were there. And so from there we got a hint of where they were meeting up and we went and it all fell into place, was driving the tubes on the Bull farm. I was recording and we caught them all in their rendezvous place. We all have the skills, we all bring different things to the table, but it works. And I think what makes it works is that we live in the area, in the media area and we’re just neighbors and we love and care for each other.

    I consider Jeanette family now, Liz, chewy, Sandra, our other members, Spencer, Karen. We just become so, so close and it does feel like an act of rebellion because we’re connecting with each other and we’re all come from different walks of life. I would say if he wanted to get involved, Gillon does do webinars and trainings of how to adopt a corner, and you can just go and find a vulnerable area, gain the community’s trust, just stay there, check in with them, provide what to do with ICE comes and to your business and help them with their notices and be a partner to them, an advocate for them. And then it’s just easy as getting your neighbor patrolling. There’s a Home Depot by you, wake up a little bit early in the morning and just patrol around the area. I think the hardest part is just getting out, but when you do it, it feels something small.

    But we see the impact in our community. We see people coming out and it was like COVID. No one was coming out. Everyone was too afraid. And seeing people come out, seeing there’s kids at the park now, that gives me the strength to continue the work, but it’s hard. But I think that’s the first step is finding, talking to your neighbors, adopting a foreigner, taking some of the concepts, and it could be whatever you want it to be, and I think there’s no right formula. It could be whatever you want it to be, whatever that looks like, whatever the need is, every community is different, right?

    David Palumbo-Liu:

    One of the coolest things you said, Daniela, was we’re not an organization. I think because it’s clear from just spending this short time with you and please come back again. It just comes from the heart. You don’t think it to death. It’s just instinctively what you do with neighbors and friends and new family members, and it’s so much what we all need in this feeling of intense violence and suppression and lawlessness as you point out. Max, did you want to add anything before we turn off?

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Just really quick because I really want folks to hang on Daniella and Jeanette’s words, but since you asked for some other places that folks can look, I did just want to give a few shout outs. Some of these I have talked with directly, others have been recommended me by a lot of folks. I’ve read up on them, they’re doing great work. But on top of Grupo out the Defensa and the Pasadena Job Center, who we’ve mentioned already, they’re incredible folks at the National Day Labor Organizing Network. They were there in Pasadena when I was there. I talked with Pablo Alvarado. He’s incredible. The Union Del Barrio is also doing really important work and provides, I think a great model for again, how you can effectively unionize your neighborhood, how you can form a union in your community, which essentially means just people standing together and fighting for something together.

    And that’s what they’re doing. That’s what Gupta Defense is doing. That’s what you listening can do yourself. There are folks forming rapid response networks and crisis response networks like the Orange County Rapid Response Network. They provide a lot of great information and resources for folks when they are kidnapped by ice. But there are also other more autonomous rapid response networks that are responding to distress calls of ICE in the community. We need community presence on the street so that at the very least, someone can document what is happening at the most. There’s also a really incredible group that I want to shout out is their acronym is Clue. It’s the Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. So when I was at the Santa Ana courthouse talking to folks like Reverend, Dr. Jason Cook and Reverend Dr. Terry LaPage, these are people of faith leaders who are leading the way in showing how to demonstrate compassion.

    And they are going to these immigration courts. They’re not throwing their bodies at these ice agents and stopping them, but they are being a powerful moral force of witness. And I heard all these stories of the ICE agents. They know in the eyes of these pastors that they’re doing something wrong, that they are forsaking their fellow man and they hate being reminded of that, and they get even more violent and they even lash out at the clergy and they clergy keep showing up not just for that purpose, but to more essentially provide comfort for those who are entering this horrible space to provide company for those who are alone and have literally no one else to be with them. That is such a huge gift and a service that folks in Clue are providing. And they’re not the only ones, right? They’re great journalists like Michael Nigro in New York, who is fought to get access to these immigration courts so that he could document what’s happening there.

    They’re great LA based and Southern California based journalists and outlets like the two that I’ve gotten to know and want to shout out, which is not to say that they are the only ones but want to give shout outs to La Taco. They’ve been doing incredible social media first reporting that has really actually tangibly benefited people on the ground, but also Sonali Kar, without whom I would not be able to have done so much of the shooting that I did in Pasadena. She’s an independent journalist who has worked at outlets like Yes Magazine and has every reason in the world to be protective and guarded about her contacts, about her subscribers. But she cares about these stories and these people. And she’s saying, Hey, if you’re coming to help, you can have any of my contacts. I’ll take you to them. That is a real journalist.

    That is someone who really cares about the work. And to really bring it back to gpa, Alta Defensa, I also wanted to shout out, we’ve mentioned their names, but Jen, Karen Spencer, I want to shout them out too, because these are white neighbors who are showing up with their brown neighbors and standing in solidarity with them using their privilege when they can. Even if that means just showing up and showing that it’s not just a brown person problem. This is our community’s problem. That is really important. No one can do everything, but everyone can do something. And even just showing up is doing a really big something and they are doing that. And I wanted to make sure that folks knew about it. The last thing I’ll say, David, because this connects all the way back to when you and I got to know each other and did our organizing with the Campus Antifascist network during the first Trump administration when we were fighting the fascist Alt-right far right, even openly n people coming to college campuses and delightfully terrorizing the communities there.

    We were part of campus communities that were trying to do what RuPaul Defense is doing. We’re saying, no, you’re not going to come into our home and terrorize us and brutalize us. We’re going to stand up for ourselves and we’re going to do it as a community. And what I learned in that period was that the best defense against fascists is like love and numbers. Because if we bind together with that force of light that cannot be broken with their hate, it cannot. I have seen it time and time again, their hatred, their bigotry, their fascism. It breaks on the shores of our solidarity and our strength and our love for one another. But then when we match that with not just a few people who feel that way, but a whole lot of people who feel that way and we outnumber them. And you have scenes like in Boston where this little tiny group of fascists thought they were going to make a statement in protest, and they’re surrounded by hundreds if not thousands of people saying, get the fuck out of our community.

    That is how you tell the fascist to get the hell out. You make ’em as small as they really are, and you show them how small they really are. And you do that with community strength and love and solidarity. And that is something that we can all be a part of. And that is what group Alta Defensa is doing. And I saw it firsthand. I went to Villa Park, this park that was a central place for kids, for families. It was like any other park and it had been empty. And what RuPaul to defense did, they didn’t lead some riotous march to the Capitol building. It may not be as dramatic as that, but what I saw was people tentatively coming out afraid at first they weren’t dancing, but they were there. And then within an hour or two, everyone’s out there dancing the kumbia, everyone’s joyously, rebelliously reclaiming their home, their public space, refusing to live in fear.

    If you don’t think that’s meaningful, I don’t know what to tell you. You got to check your pulse. I saw it. I saw people’s faces go from terrified to remembering that they belong and feeling like they belong. And finding again that bravery in refusing to be told that you don’t belong and refusing to just accept that we are what this fascist administration says we are. No, we’re not. We are not the worst of the worst. We are not these hardened criminals. We are human beings like you and me, and we have every goddamn right to be here just like you do. We’re trying to make a life for ourselves and our families, and that is the American dream that we still believe in. And in fact, we’re going to fight harder for it than our parents did for us. And it’s up to us. We’re the adults now, and I am following the lead of incredible folks like Danielle and Jeanette, Elizabeth, chewy, everyone there in Pasadena and everyone out there who is fighting the fight in their own way. You guys give me inspiration and I know that if we keep fighting and if we keep fighting together, we can get through this.

    David Palumbo-Liu:

    Well, I can’t think of a better way to end this program, but as I said, you are all three. Welcome to come back anytime you want. It’s been such an honor to spend time with you and I’ve been inspired and moved and really energized in this world. That’s something that we all lack to different degrees, but you give so generously of your energy that it energizes all of us. So thank you so much. Take care and have a great rest of your day.

    Daniela Navin:

    Thank you. Bye. Thanks.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Solidarity from Baltimore.

    David Palumbo-Liu:

    Okay, take care. Bye-bye bye.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    All right, gang, that’s going to wrap things up for us this week. Once again, I want to thank Professor David Pumba Lou and the Speaking out of Place podcast for recording this crossover episode with us. And I want to especially thank Daniella Nian and Jeanette de la Riva from Grupo Alto Defensa in Pasadena, California. And of course, I want to thank you all for listening and I want to thank you for caring. We’ll see you all back here next week for another episode of Working People. And if you can’t wait that long, then go explore all the great work that we’re doing at The Real News Network where we do grassroots journalism that lifts up the voices and stories from the front lines of struggle. Sign up for the real new newsletter so you never miss a story. And help us do more work like this by going to the real news.com/donate and becoming a supporter today. I promise you it really makes a difference. I’m Maximilian Alvarez. Take care of yourselves. Take care of each other. Solidarity forever.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • President Trump’s all-out assault on immigrant communities and the rule of law escalated to new heights when federal agents beat and arrested David Huerta, a prominent labor leader and president of the Service Employees International Union – United Service Workers (West), while Huerta and others were observing an ICE raid in Los Angeles, CA, on June 6. Huerta was released from federal custody, but he is still being charged with felony conspiracy to impede an officer, and the Trump administration continues to ramp up its attacks on immigrants, sanctuary cities, and organized labor. In his first public interview since he was arrested, recorded at the Netroots conference in New Orleans, LA, TRNN editor-in-chief Maximillian Alvarez speaks with Huerta about the status of his case and about the roles unions must play in the fight against fascism.

    Guest:

    • David Huerta is a longtime labor leader, born and raised in Los Angeles County, CA, who currently serves as president of the Service Employees International Union – United Service Workers (West) (SEIU-USWW).

    Additional links/info:

    Credits:

    • Filming: Kayla Rivara, Rosette Sewali
    • Post-Production: David Hebden
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    David Huerta:

    Sure. David Huta, president of S-E-I-U-U-S-W-W represent 50,000 workers across the state, janitor, security officers, airport workers, public event workers, and state council president for SEIU in California, which is 750,000 workers across the state, public sector, private sector, healthcare, long-term care, and everything else.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, brother Huerta, thank you so much for sitting down with me here at the Net Roots Conference in New Orleans. I really, really appreciate it and I know that you’ve been going through a lot. Our country’s going through a lot right now, and everyone in the labor movement and so many beyond organized labor felt a collective chill run through our blood. When we watch those videos of ice agents brutalizing you, arresting you, you a prominent labor leader, and then they go a step further and they charge you with conspiracy to impede an officer. And I know you can’t talk too much about that because you’re embroiled in this legal battle now. And I also know that you’re the first person to say that this fight is not about you as an individual. And I want to dig into everything and everyone it is about. But since I have the chance to sit with you here and now, I wanted to just ask if you could remind our viewers and listeners, take us back to that day, remind us of the context of what you were doing, what happened to you, and what you can tell us about where things stand now.

    David Huerta:

    Sure. Well limited on what I can talk about that day. As you’ve mentioned, I’m still in a process and so on the advisement of my legal team, I can’t really go into the details of the incident itself, but I will say that I was there. I have a first amendment to be there

    That day. I remember waking up, the first thing I see is looking at TikTok and stuff and that there was sightings of ice in and around Los Angeles. And up until that point, there had been a lot of false flags, so to speak, with the exception of what we saw in Central Valley. But I know at one point, I remember I walked several weeks before that, walked through downtown Los Angeles because our members told us that there was ice agents around and we didn’t find any. But this day seemed different. It seemed really, really different in that it didn’t longer felt like there was a false flag going on. And by the time I made it to my office that morning, I remember we were having a training with our members and our staff because we’re gearing up for different contract campaigns. And there was a lot of activity that we were in front of a highway patrol office, our offices, and saw a lot of street activity. And we were embroiled in a fight that morning or that day as part of the referendum against for the $30 minimum wage that we passed for the tourism workers in Los Angeles. And they were fighting, I guess. So technically I wasn’t supposed to be there.

    I was supposed to be somewhere else, but I was asked if I could be there because they needed support. And there was a raid that if I could confirm one was it happening and two, if I could help. And so I said yes. I didn’t think twice. I figured I’ll be there and then I’ll go to my second destination, the destination I was supposed to be at. And when I arrived, I think you can see it in the video, it was a full on operation. And I will say, I think for me, what really triggered my emotion that day was just seeing this young girl just crying because she knew her father was inside. And I just really felt how hopeless she probably felt in that moment in time. And I think that just that sense kind of transferred to me a little bit in that sense of, and something just told me that this was going to be, again, I can’t talk into the details of that day and hopefully someday I will be able to talk about it more freely and hopefully I’ll have my day in court to talk about it freely.

    But I just felt like this was a moment of taking a stand and I didn’t really think it out. It wasn’t like something that I went with any intention, but I felt as if somehow this was starting something much bigger. And so when I said, this is not about me, it’s about what’s happening, it was really because I don’t think the focus should be on me. The focus should be on what is actually happening, what is really being with the intention of what’s happening, and let’s focus on that.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, let’s talk about that, and I want to get real here and talk to you about this not just as David Huta labor leader, but as two Chicanos from Southern California, two brown kids from the same place. You grew up in la I grew up in Orange County, and we’ve watched so much of our home change so quickly. I wanted to ask if you could just communicate for folks who don’t live there, what is actually happening back home and is this the America that you grew up in? What is happening right now?

    David Huerta:

    Well, I’ll say this, LA is my America. LA is, LA for me is probably one of the best cities. It is a point of people can say anything they want about la,

    But we’ve seen it all. Man, I grew up in the unincorporated territory, valley County called West Whittier, born in East la, very typical Chicano family story. But what Los Angeles for me represents is really it’s home. It represents a place that a point of origin and a point of departure, so to speak, both. It’s where culture is vibrant, language is vibrant, everything is really, it’s a place that, and it’s a very working class city. A lot of people probably see the glamor of la. I always see the grid of la and when I always say when I was growing up, my father was a teamster. His jobs were right around Washington Boulevard and City of Commerce where all the trucking outfits used to be at. And it always has been a very worker oriented place. And so when I see, when we saw what happened or is happening in Los Angeles, I don’t think they’re done with this yet. I don’t think they’re done with this country yet in the sense of what they’re trying to do. But what I saw is what happened on June 6th at that garment facility is people taking a stand and people defending their community, defending their families, defending their casinos, and defending who they are. For me, that’s the most important thing, right? Because too often we’re kind of like, we’re not considered American, we’re hyphenated.

    So for me, it’s sort of like this is our response back to those who want to erase us, who want to deny us, and you can’t deny us anymore and we’re going to defend him. We’re going to fight,

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And we’ve got a real fight on our hands. I was just back home filming for The Real News in Pasadena Santa Ana, like 10 minutes from where my folks live. I’m interviewing the son of Narciso Barranco, a man who’s worked here for 30 years and was working as a landscaper in front of an ihop. And he just gets sworn by these mast unidentified armed thugs who beat the shit out of him in the middle of an intersection and disappear ’em in a van.

    And this is happening all over the place. I went to food drives that are for immigrant families that can’t leave their homes and haven’t left in weeks. The parks are empty, the food trucks are gone. There’s a real terror gripping the neighborhoods I grew up in. But like you said, also seeing a lot of grassroots resistance from folks who are done waiting on the Democratic party, they’re done waiting on local governments, even official unions. They’re saying, we’re going to band together and do this ourselves. And I wanted to ask where the labor movement and where unions need to be in that fight and what the labor movement can do to really help empower people in this fight against authoritarianism.

    David Huerta:

    Well, look, I think as a labor person, as somebody who spent his last 29 years organizing in community organizing, basically immigrant workers and black workers, right? Because the beauty of my organization is that it was, I think about 15 years ago, we engaged in one of the largest organizing efforts to organize black workers and security officers in a really long time. And so our organization, I think is what’s possible, right? Especially in Los Angeles where we can’t deny there’s been tension between black and brown communities in the past. But I think it’s also how do we build those bridges between our communities, but allowing our communities to show up as who they are is very important. And we’ve played as a labor union, we played a role in creating that environment for our members. I think this moment in time though also calls for labor to really weigh in.

    They have to lean in, man. It’s like we have to be part of, we have something that’s unique. We have resources, we have facilities, we have rank and file members, we have standing organization. All of those things make us a catalyst right now in creating something. And I think the one thing that we can do, because I think how we’re going to fix this or not fix this, there’s no fixing this. We got to organize this. It is we’re going to have to create disruption, non-cooperation, figure out how we are really destabilizing, so to speak. What is this authoritarianism, right? But labor, I think plays a central role in significantly different role in that labor disruption. How can we build the rank and file power? How can we build within work organization to really build towards mass disruption? And how do we lean into that disruption? And I firmly believe, I think if there is going to be a disruption, it’s going to start with service workers. Those service workers are the ones who are on the crossroads of this organization because those are the places where the predominantly black and brown workers are

    Speaker 3:

    At.

    David Huerta:

    And so that’s, in my opinion, it’s the workforces that represent those workers. They’re going to be a catalyst and change. And so when I look at S-E-I-U-S-E-I-U is all predominantly, we’re the long-term care workers, we’re the healthcare workers, we’re the janitors, we’re the security officers. We are that service workforce that if we lock arms with other service workers like hotel workers, farm workers, if we’re able to really galvanize and move, it’s going to be that workforce that’s really, in my opinion, can really create the disruption big enough or the crisis big enough to make the change that we need.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And I know you got to head out of here in a sec and catch a plane, and I really appreciate this time with you, man. I wanted to kind of build on that last point and ask that, sorry, I mean in the administration and the people who support it, they understand the threat that unions and organized labor pose to their agenda. I mean, Donald Trump is now rescinding collective bargaining rights for federal unions and agencies across the board. They went after you, they’re going after labor leaders. And so I guess the blunt question is why do fascists hate unions so much? And what role must organize labor play in the fight against fascism and the fight for something better for working people?

    David Huerta:

    Yeah. Look, I think we’re the one part of our economy and our society where we have the collective power to make change. And a fascist authoritarian government like we’ve seen right now is going to try to dismantle that so they have the power to be imposed. Look, I think right now we’re going from a billionaire class to the trillionaire class. We’re not very far from that. The sad thing is that’ll probably be celebrated. It’s like we’re going to celebrate somebody’s wealth that comes at the cost of working people. I think the fear is that if labor does their job right as we should, we can grow a class consciousness. We can make people understand that the wealth that’s being accumulated, the wealth that’s being generated, the wealth that’s being centralized into the hands of a few at the cost of many have the power to change something.

    And I think that, and that’s why I keep telling when I said it today, I tell my members all the time, you have the power. You have power in your hands because your hands are the labor that makes this economy function. And the same way how you give that power, you can withhold that power as well. And so I think it should not be lost on these guys why they’ve been over the last 40 years have been pounding on labor. That’s why we were at such small numbers that we are now, back in the day of my father’s generation, labor was, they were power. They had the ability to be able to, my father was able to raise two children on one income. Tell me where that happens. Nowadays, it doesn’t happen. And not loading and loading the truck, it surely does not happen.

    I think what is possible is what scares them. I think what is possible is what should motivate us. I think that’s what we have to remind ourselves, that when we build that power across our differences, white, black, brown language, gender, all these different differences we have, it doesn’t mean I have to change who I am. It means I get to show up as who I am and respect each other’s difference and get into a space where through that difference, we can build power and really show up as a Chicano show up as black people show up as white people show up as who you are. And let’s build that power. Because I firmly believe, and I still believe in this democracy, I haven’t given up on it yet, and my father fought for it. I have uncles who fought for it, my brother, and so I haven’t given up on it yet.

    None of us should give up on it. And like I said, the flaw in MAGA is that they think somehow the greatness of this country is in its past. And I really think the greatness of this country is still in its future. And so these are the things that, for me, I hope that as working people should motivate us, should inspire us, and should really put us in a space where we can make a better quality of life for working people and not allow the trillionaires to determine our destiny. But we should determine that for ourselves.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Aug. 14, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    More than 100 protesters gathered late Wednesday at a checkpoint set up by a combination of local and federal officers on a popular street in Washington, D.C., where U.S. President Donald Trump has taken over the police force and deployed around 800 National Guard members as part of what he hopes will be a long-term occupation of the country’s capital—and potentially other major cities.

    The officers at the Wednesday night checkpoint reportedly included agents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is also taking part in immigration raids in the city. Some agents were wearing face coverings to conceal their identities.

    After law enforcement agents established the checkpoint on 14th Street, protesters gathered and jeered the officers, chanting “get off our streets” and “go home fascists.” Some demonstrators yelled at the agents standing at the checkpoint, while others warned oncoming drivers to turn to avoid the police installation.

    There was no officially stated purpose for the checkpoint, but it came amid the Trump administration’s lawless mass deportation campaign and its broader threats to deploy U.S. troops on the streets of American cities to crush dissent.

    At least one person, a Black woman, was arrested at Wednesday’s checkpoint. One D.C. resident posted to Reddit that agents were “pulling people out of cars who are ‘suspicious’ or if they don’t like the answers to their questions.” The Washington Post reported that a “mix of local and federal authorities pulled over drivers for seat belt violations or broken taillights.”

    The National Guard troops activated by Trump this week were not seen at the checkpoint, which shut down before midnight.

    Wednesday night’s protests are expected to be just the start as public anger mounts over Trump’s authoritarian actions in the nation’s capital—where violent crime fell to a 30-year low last year—and across the country.

    Radley Balko, a journalist who has documented the growing militarization of U.S. police, wrote earlier this week that “the motivation for Donald Trump’s plan to ‘federalize’ Washington, D.C., is same as his motivation for sending active-duty troops into Los Angelesdeporting people to the CECOT torture prison in El Salvador, his politicization of the Department of Justice, and nearly every other authoritarian overreach of the last six months: He is testing the limits of his power—and, by extension, of our democracy.”

    “He’s feeling out what the Supreme Court, Congress, and the public will let him get away with. And so far, he’s been able to do what he pleases,” Balko wrote. “We are now past the point of crisis. Trump has long dreamed of presiding over a police state. He has openly admired and been reluctant to criticize foreign leaders who helm one. He has now appointed people who have expressed their willingness to help him achieve one to the very positions with the power to make one happen. And both he and his highest-ranking advisers have both openly spoken about and written out their plans to implement one.”

    “It’s time to believe them,” Balko added.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • When police kill someone, state medical examiners have an outsized influence in determining the final cause of death—and whether or not cops can be charged or held accountable for the killing. In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa speaks with fellow TRNN reporters Stephen Janis and Taya Graham about their years of investigating Dr. David Fowler, former Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Maryland, and the families of people killed by police that were denied justice because of Dr. Fowler’s malpractices.

    Speakers:

    • Stephen Janis is an award-winning investigative reporter turned documentary filmmaker. He is the co-host and producer of Police Accountability Report and Inequality Watch at The Real News Network.
    • Taya Graham is an award-winning investigative reporter covering US politics, local government, and the criminal justice system. She is the co-host and producer of Police Accountability Report and Inequality Watch at The Real News Network.

    Additional links/info:

    Credits:

    • Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Mansa Musa:

    Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Imagine this: that you are on trial and the principal witness against you is getting ready to be certified as an expert witness, to be certified as an expert witness. Your body of work is going to be examined, and then at some point in time, the prosecutor going to say, your Honor, I move to this person. Be certified as an expert witness to give a testimony along these lines. And then the jury hears this and the jury, because of you being certified as an expert witness, believes this person to have the voice of God. But then you later on find out that this person not only was not an expert, but was an expert in lying. Joining me today is Stephen Janis and Taya Graham, two of my colleagues at The Real News, introduce y’all ourselves to the Real News audience or really the Rattling the Bars audience.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. My name is Stephen Janis. I’m a reporter, investigative reporter at The Real News. I host the Police Accountability Report and the Inequality Watch Show here.

    Taya Graham:

    Hi, I’m Taya Graham. I’m a reporter here at the Real News Network, an investigative reporter criminal justice system is my primary beat. I co-host the police accountability report with Steven, and I’m also the co-host of the Inequality Watch, which is a government accountability report.

    Mansa Musa:

    Okay, so in the article written by y’all published on May 15th, 2025, y’all examined the audit fines, dozens of police custody, death in Maryland should have been ruled homicide. And this is relation, as I open up about the expert, talk about this particular expert

    Stephen Janis:

    And

    Mansa Musa:

    What went on with that.

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, Dr. David Fowler was the chief medical examiner for the state of Maryland from I think roughly 2002 to 2019, which meant he had the final say on almost all suspicious deaths in terms of what the manner of death would be. So the manner of death is the way you classify death in, there’s five categories. There’s homicide, accent, natural causes, and suicide. And the last one is undetermined. So if Dr. Fowler at that point and during any of that period of time had a case come in and rule it, let’s say an accident rather than a homicide, well, police can’t really do much because you can’t prosecute a case that’s

    Mansa Musa:

    Right,

    Stephen Janis:

    So, the medical examiner has an oversized influence on the outcome of cases in terms of criminality. Now, during that period of time, Dr. Fowler was very liberal in the way he ruled on police involved deaths. Deaths where police were the cause of death, or a person died in police custody. And we had written extensively about this, and he tended to rule in favor of the police. For example, the case of Anton Black, a 19-year-old young man who was killed on the Easter shore after he was chased by police to his mom’s home, and they sat on top of him. And Dr. Fowler ruled that death, I think it was undetermined or accident, an accident. And so the police couldn’t be prosecuted. So we would write about extensively. We would get outside experts to say, this guy’s not a credible person. His science is incredible. He used things like excited delirium, totally discredited theory of why people would die after a taser. So anyway, we didn’t writing about this fear, and I have been reported on it, and no one did anything in Maryland. They letting him off the hook. So one day he testifies in the trial, if you all probably remember the Derek Chauvin trial.

    Derek Chauvin was a police officer who sat on George Floyd’s necks and killed him. And he testified that George Floyd did not die because of the positional asphyxiation or the downward pressure on his neck that instead he died because of the tailpipe and a drug overdose. So the scientific community went crazy, and 450 doctors wrote a letter and said that Dr. Fowler should be investigated. So the Attorney General’s office investigated 87 cases of police involved restraint and looked at them and said, did Dr. Fowler rule correctly? And they concluded he did not. They concluded that unanimously concluded, I believe in 36 or 37 cases that Dr. Fowler incorrectly ruled, which is profound because all those police officers could not be investigated, right, Teo?

    Taya Graham:

    Absolutely. And I don’t think it can be underestimated. Essentially the corruption in Dr. Fowler’s office. Come on. Steven mentioned the case of Anton Black, a 19-year-old track star who came home to visit his mother after walking the catwalk in New York Fashion Week, he had just gotten his first small part in a movie. This young man was about to have an incredible life front of him.

    Speaker 4:

    He

    Taya Graham:

    Ends up being chased home by three police officers. They lay on top of him. He’s on just the front steps of his mother’s house, and she’s watching him turn blue. She’s watching her child turn blue right in front of her. Now, what’s amazing is that the officers were actually allowed into the room while the autopsy was being done. One of the things they listed as a contributing cause of death was that Anton had bipolar disorder. So it was as if the fact that they attempted to tase him that he had three grown men on top of him that had nothing to do with his death. Instead, he had bipolar disorder and a heart abnormality. This was a perfectly healthy 19-year-old boy. And it’s deaths like that, that Dr. Fowler would rule accidental and undetermined, making sure that the family could have no chance at justice because there was no way legally to move forward with an investigation.

    Mansa Musa:

    Okay, let’s unpack this then, because okay, this is already abuse at the highest level.

    Speaker 4:

    Why

    Mansa Musa:

    Did it take the medical community

    Speaker 4:

    So

    Mansa Musa:

    Long to weigh in? Because now I’m going to give you an example. I had a knee replacement and they put it in wrong. So when I get out, the doctor that examined me took x-rays on both my knees, asked which knee I wanted to get replaced, and I said, one of ’em has already been replaced. So he told me, show me where the one was put in wrong. So then I asked, I said, look, can I get something from you to help me pursue this? And he was reluctant. So I’m asking you why did it take the medical community to got to this point where Freddie Gray, where you can’t ignore it, but all other cases it’s still got the same ominous kind of situation. Oh, this person fell out, fell down. It wasn’t me, my knee on his neck that killed him. It was the fact that he fell and hit his head. He asthmatic.

    Taya Graham:

    I don’t know if Steven would agree with me here, but I think the media played a role in Dr. Fowler’s crimes. And I am saying

    Speaker 4:

    Crimes

    Taya Graham:

    Not being acknowledged. Steven, for years, he was a lone voice reporting on the medical examiner’s office, for example, he did an in-depth investigation on a number of black women who died in Baltimore city whose deaths were not investigated. And yet when you looked at the autopsy report, there was evidence of blunt trauma evidence, asphyxiation evidence that perhaps they had been strangled evidence that they had been experienced sexual assault,

    And yet their deaths were ruled undetermined. And you would ask, why would you rule a death like that undetermined? Well, as you know, in Baltimore City, political careers are made on whether or not the homicide rate drops. So by taking these women’s deaths and sliding them into the pile of undetermined, these are women who might’ve had histories of solicitation, drug addiction, et cetera, and they go ahead and they slide their bodies into the undetermined category and the homicide rate is artificially dropped. And so I do think that there’s an area of politics here, and that the larger media ecosystem refused to acknowledge that the medical examiner’s office was absolutely essential in protecting the police department. And Steven was one of the few reporters that called that out.

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, I mean, I think science is very good at serving injustice.

    Mansa Musa:

    Come on.

    Stephen Janis:

    And justice and authoritarianism and science can craft narratives that people will believe despite the evidence. And I think that’s one of the things that we saw with the propaganda of science that Dr. Fowler utilized. Because for example, for years he used excited delirium as a cause of death in police custody and taser death, or even in just police restraints. And excited delirium is just a fiction. It’s a total. So I confronted him on this one time down at the medical examiner’s office. I said, Dr. Fowler, what the hell is excited delirium? And he handed me a book. He gave me a book to read too. So I went home and I read it, and it recounted a condition in 18th century San Asylums where patients would suddenly start to freak out and two weeks later just collapse and die. And that was the entire basis of there was no scientific evidence, just like blood spatter. There’s no scientific

    Speaker 4:

    Evidence,

    Stephen Janis:

    Just like hair follicles. There’s no scientific evidence. None of these are supportable. But what are they used for? They’re used for generally in service of our fascist and authoritarian impulses in this country to believe police out of fear, to believe an authoritarian infrastructure that resides in most of these cities. In terms of policing and the medical examiner, Dr. Fowl played a very critical role. As T said, they were cited in this audit for being too cozy with police. They’re supposed to be an objective agency that doesn’t, I mean, they listen to police, but they’re not supposed to be influenced by police. And one of the things that came out is they were constantly influenced by police. So when you let an authoritarian infrastructure infiltrate government, then things like signs tend to become propaganda, not science at all.

    Mansa Musa:

    And to your point, as I open up one thing in criminal cases, the first thing they do is certify ’em as an expert witness.

    Stephen Janis:

    Exactly.

    Mansa Musa:

    And then that gives them this glow of, my word is law. And then when you come and say, bring someone in the counter that, because in most cases you’ll bring somebody in the counter. But in this case, when he’s testifying on behalf of the state and saying, undetermined, cause then there’s no way. There’s no way that

    Stephen Janis:

    To counter it, to counter it.

    Mansa Musa:

    So they get a pass.

    Stephen Janis:

    Think about this. I mean, why would he be called to testify on behalf of Derek Chauvin, the most notorious cop in the history of this

    Mansa Musa:

    Country?

    Stephen Janis:

    Why would he be Who call? Why would you call Dr. David Fowlers specifically? Well, that’s because he was known to work with police and known to be so the science propagandist for police. So of course they would call him. I think the thing that you talk about that why did it take so long? It was just because in that particular instance, his ruling or his assertions were so proably false and so prove ignorant. We all saw with our own eyes, George Floyd died under the knee of Derek Chauvin, and here is this man who has the gall to testify in front of the country, in front of the entire nation that he died because of a tailpipe. I mean, so that showed the world everything that we had been saying for years. And unfortunately it took 19 years for that to happen.

    Mansa Musa:

    My question is why is it that the prosecutors office across the state or wherever this person insert itself in? So I’m going to give you a case. In that point, federal government had an expert witness that was dealing with hair follicle. And to come to find out he didn’t know nothing about hair, hair at all, but the Justice Department got involved. And everybody that whose Casey testified in, they told him, the Justice Department said, listen, if this person testified in your client’s case, filed for a motion for a new trial, because they couldn’t justify his blatant behavior. So why is it that the prosecutors continue to use this guy in defendant’s case, knowing that he perpetuating a lie?

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, I mean, remember the state went through some reforms separating police investigations from local prosecutors because prosecutors were found to be biased and compromised by police as well. So I don’t think te there was any incentive really for prosecutors to divorce themselves from Fowler. Right,

    Taya Graham:

    Right. I mean unfortunately when you have prosecutors and police and the medical examiner’s office, unfortunately they’re just too cozy. They all work together. So honestly, these prosecutors, in a lot of cases, not all of them, but they really can’t see straight, they can’t divorce themselves

    Stephen Janis:

    From

    Taya Graham:

    The relationship that they’ve established with these people over the years.

    Stephen Janis:

    I mean, in fact, we talked to Dwight Petitt when we were doing our investigation and he was talking about in the case of Tyron West where police, where the medical examiner would not rule at a homicide, even though it was like people witnessed Tyre West getting beaten to the ground for 45 minutes. And he said, I’ll never forget this. We were interviewing and he goes, police, were in the autopsy room telling the medical examiners what to think. Now that’s not supposed to happen. Police are supposed to give their investigative report, but the medical examiner is supposed to be an independent body. And as it shows, once you allow the power of policing, which Baltimore, if nothing has been ruled by police for decades, once you let the power of the policing infiltrate all your institutions, those institutions are ultimately corrupted by the authoritarian impulse of American policing.

    Mansa Musa:

    So do you feel exonerated now? I mean, I know you like somewhere on the Bible screaming in the wild saying, listen man, this is corrupt. I’m telling you it’s corrupt people losing their lives.

    Stephen Janis:

    I will feel better once the police cases, the 27 cases that Mount side medical examiners unanimously ruled, we’re wrongly determined and we’re homicides. I will feel better once those homicides are investigated and in cases where it’s warranted, prosecuted. And we’re also writing a very long story about some of the cases, like you said, that were looked like murders, but he didn’t rule correctly. I will feel better when those cases are reopened. So I would like to see justice for the people who deserve it and then I’ll feel a little bit better at this point. For me, it’s just I am gratified that the world woke up. I dunno, how do

    Taya Graham:

    You feel? I mean, I’m also really grateful that he was exposed in front of the entire nation for everyone to see. I mean, this is the same medical office that when we were doing a podcast where we were discussing some of these cases that were ruled as undetermined or accidental and were very suspicious, the press information officer tried to get us fired for the medical examiners, for the medical examiner’s office, tried to get us fired, called the management and said, you should take their podcast off the air. So the medical examiner’s office reached out to attack us for doing this

    Speaker 4:

    Journalism.

    Taya Graham:

    So we were both out there trying to let the public know what was going on. We had people coming to us. One person that we spoke to, Tyra McClary daughter, I spoke to her. This was a woman who was found in an alley partially disrobed covered by debris. And there was a

    Stephen Janis:

    Plastic bag tied around her

    Taya Graham:

    Ankles, right? There’s a plastic bag tied around her ankles. And there was evidence she had particular hemorrhaging. So there’s evidence that she had been perhaps strangled and he, because she had a little bit of drugs in her system, decided to rule it undetermined that he couldn’t be absolutely certain what the cause of death was. Well, her family has, all they’ve ever wanted was an investigation. All they’ve ever wanted was to know that our city cared enough to investigate her death because as her sister said, they tried to sweep her under the rug like trash. They didn’t care about her life. So if they open up cases like that, if they can actually do an investigation. So families like that can get some consolation, I think then will feel vindicated.

    Speaker 4:

    Yeah.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I think that that’s right there where we want be at because we talking about human beings and what we think, it’s always got to be a human factor associated with this. And the family members deserve the right to know what happened with their family

    Speaker 4:

    Members. I agree.

    Mansa Musa:

    And more importantly, I think when we look at this, how this plays out, everybody is involved, the city’s involved because you’re trying to control the crime narrative. So you looked up away because in your mind I’m saying crime is down now how is it down? We manufacturing these numbers then I’m looking the other way when I see this psychopath making these examinations and saying, oh, cause of death, undetermined, somebody threw ’em off the roof and say, oh, the person had some drugs in. So they just jumped off. And everybody in their mind saying, well nah, that’s not that person. You don’t do the investigative thing.

    Speaker 4:

    And

    Mansa Musa:

    Then we are left with a situation. How do we trust this particular institution when the police is involved? The institution plan two, which lead me to my next

    Speaker 4:

    Thing

    Mansa Musa:

    Where y’all had did a report on John Hopkins, professor say, America’s dissent into authoritarianism have started with policing in blue cities. If that’s true, we are in big trouble. So look, so we can see this as a continuum because absolutely they’re connected. These entities,

    Stephen Janis:

    They’re totally connected.

    Mansa Musa:

    They totally connected, right? And they totally connected to the big narrative. But talk about, and when I was looking at this particular article, and I really commend y’all on y’all vision in terms of how y’all get in the weeds and flush ’em out. So it’s not a matter of if somebody confronts you, it’s a matter of like, you will give me the information to contradict this particular, it’s not my opinion. Give me the information to contradict this statement of facts. And so in this case, you got a John Hopkins professor saying, we in big trouble talk about that.

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, we were interviewing Lester Spence, who’s a political scientist from Johns Hopkins University during our making a documentary, Freddie Gray, 10 Years, a struggle about the Freddie Gray Anniversary. And he said something that struck both of us, I think, which was that because blue cities are incubators of progressive ideas because people here tend to be more liberal and want to see more progress, think about the great American progressive era in Chicago or New York or Baltimore, even with civil rights,

    All these things come here. Because of that, the use of authoritarian policing in these cities has diminished the democratic impulse of this country. It’s like we have taken the most progressive people in this country and we quashed them from dissent with policing. And it struck me so hard because for many years I had watched zero tolerance and Taylor will talk about zero tolerance, but I had watched authoritarian policing and I never thought about it in terms of the implications we have for the rest of the country politically. And that’s why we decided to kind of take that idea a little bit further and say,

    Huh, how does this play out? And there were several facets. There were two facets that we thought about. And then Taylor, we’ll talk about zero tolerance. Number one was that the more you arrest people, the more you take away their constitutional rights, the less politically active they become, the less likely they are to vote, the less likely they’re to participate. That’s the first. And the second is that this use overuse of policing failed. It failed, it did not do anything. It made everything worse. You know better than anyone how an arrest uproot someone’s life, totally disengaged ’em from the political system and disengaged ’em from the economic

    Speaker 4:

    System.

    Stephen Janis:

    So what it ended up doing was creating these blue cities that looked like failures and the Democrats and the Republicans were able to take that narrative and create this idea of liberal failure, that progressive policies are ultimately failure. So that’s what really struck me. And of course, and take and talk about this, but number one, zero tolerance and of course what we’re seeing now. So if you want to talk about that a little

    Taya Graham:

    Bit, well, zero tolerance policing, what Stephen was talking about

    Stephen Janis:

    In Baltimore

    Taya Graham:

    And what he’s talking about is political efficacy, which is when you have an interaction with law enforcement that there’s research that shows that when you have a negative interaction with law enforcement, you are less likely to vote. You’re less likely to believe that your voice will be heard. You’re less likely to believe you can influence your government. So when our city experienced zero tolerance policing, which occurred from about 2000 to 2007, where roughly 100,000 Baltimore residents were arrested per year. Now this is a city of 600,000 people. So think about it, 100,000 residents were arrested per year. Now of course there were a few repeat arrests in there, but that’s an incredible number of people arrested. But what were they arrested for? Nuisance crimes, quality of life crimes. And I went through hundreds, hundreds of statements of probable cause. And I can tell you I saw with my own eyes, expectorating spitting on a sidewalk was a reason that someone would be taken down to central booking loitering. So what that can mean is you’re standing with your friends on the corner, a cop says move, and you don’t move fast enough. You’re taken in, you’re sitting your own stoop of your house with an open container taken in. Okay? So for all these reasons, people were being taken in. And that’s based off of that broken windows theory of policing where

    If you take care of these nuisance crimes, it’ll help take care of the bigger ones in your neighborhood. Well, all it did was criminalize an entire population as well as take away their political efficacy.

    Stephen Janis:

    Okay, go ahead. Sorry. Ahead. Do you want to finish?

    Taya Graham:

    So in relation to taking away your ability to feel like you can influence your government, you have an entire generation of young people who have been harassed, who have seen their civil rights violated, who’ve seen their constitutional rights violated on a daily basis. You have disempowered an entire community and it’s hard to believe that’s not purposeful.

    Mansa Musa:

    And they become apathetic. They be like, man, why would I do something? If I say something, they going to lock me up. If I

    Speaker 4:

    Roll

    Mansa Musa:

    My eyes, they’re going to lock me up. If I shuffle my feet, they’re going to lock me up. So stop from being locked up. I’m not going to do nothing.

    Stephen Janis:

    It was also very a constitutionally aggressive. And there are more examples. There was a training called Diamond training, which was literally the brochure. This was in the 2000 tens, was training Baltimore police officers, was supposed to be things learned in the streets of Fallujah. And they trained Baltimore police officers. They used Eric Reon Reon, he’s a discredited politician who was also a Navy seal. And he came in and he trained officers to be militarily aggressive. And that led to something called Visa Violent Impact Crimes Division, which was a group of 80 officers not tied to any district dressed in jeans going around and just the idea was to disrupt. But of course the idea was to impose an unconstitutional regime and order on the neighborhoods that they destroyed. I mean, they really did. They would come in, I would do stories where they just ransacked the whole neighborhood, arrested everybody, threw people around. This was going on in a democratic, allegedly democratic city. And we used to confront the city solicitor about it. And we would say jokingly, well, the Constitution doesn’t imply in Baltimore. And he would just smirk

    Mansa Musa:

    Because

    Stephen Janis:

    I think they felt like anything was justified. And so this set the roots of authoritarians in this country. Go ahead.

    Mansa Musa:

    And other part of it is this is like a continuum of what has been going on forever because we had no knock laws and blue cities. We had stop and frisk.

    Stephen Janis:

    Absolutely.

    Mansa Musa:

    And we was talking about this, you had the shotgun squad in Baltimore jump out, boys jump out boys in DC they had the same thing where, so this attitude,

    Stephen Janis:

    Gun trace, task force, gun

    Mansa Musa:

    Trace, yeah. Attitude. It goes on and on and on. And they reinvent and they redefined.

    Stephen Janis:

    Let me give you a perfect example. When I was reporting on Zeto in the s, I got a list of quotas that police officers had. They had quotas for arrests, they had to make a certain number of arrests regardless of if someone broke the law. Well, now what are we hearing now that federal immigration officers have quotas?

    Mansa Musa:

    Right?

    Stephen Janis:

    Right. It’s very similar and parallel. Unfortunately, it happened in a place that is most likely to push back against authoritarians became subject to it.

    Mansa Musa:

    And as we see now, to juxtapose that to what we see today, we see right today that now the first thing that president did, and he made a speech at the Justice Department, he recogniz the Justice Department.

    Stephen Janis:

    That’s true.

    Mansa Musa:

    He said, yeah, look, I’ll pity deal with Pam because we getting ready to unleash the line. And right after that, now we find ourselves that any type of dissent, any type of descent, it could be no more than holding up a sign saying Impeach trumps. Under any given circumstance, you can find yourself locked up. But more importantly, we’ve seen the situation in California with the state Senator and where voting on your budget, we’re responsible for regulating your behavior.

    Speaker 4:

    We arrest

    Stephen Janis:

    You.

    Mansa Musa:

    You don’t give me the common decency. Come forward and let me hear what you got to say. You say arrest them, get ’em out, and then come back and say, anybody would know that that was out of order. With that person did.

    Stephen Janis:

    Let me give you the most important point of why blue cities are so important and how they prove progressive policies despite the fact that this authoritarian impulse, which of course was imposed by a political regime that wanted to bolster tax breaks for developers and gentrification, all sort of stuff. But this year Baltimore’s homicide is down significantly as it is across the country, and most people are giving credit for that to community-based programs, not police. While this is happening, the Baltimore Police Department is down between five to a thousand officers, in other words, at historic low staffing level. So less policing, less crime, less crime, community programs, less crime, less crime. And these all things like safe streets started in places like Baltimore in blue cities, and yet they have proven to be more effective. So that’s why I think it’s so important for the Trump administration feels like it’s so important to attack blue cities because here we are open to progressive ideas and that’s the last thing he wants.

    Mansa Musa:

    And to go back to your point, you can pick up from this, go back to your point where the impact that it has on the psychic of the population, because if you attack of Blue city, which is progressive and have the potential to do progressive things, that’s going to become the standard across the country. If I can attack that thinking, if I can get people to become apathetic, if I can get people to become fearful, then now I can come in and say, well, crime is up, carjacking is up. I’m your savior, I’m doing this for you. But now you know it ain’t for you, but I’ve been beat down so much psychologically I don’t care. I say, well, long as they ain’t come and knock my door down, I don’t care. I know ain’t nobody carjacking. I know this neighborhood is safe, but I don’t have they done beat me down psychologically. Talk about that.

    Taya Graham:

    This is something that is really important for people to understand. The Trump administration is purposefully attacking progressive cities. The arrest of Senator Alex Padilla, that was no accident that occurred that that man was taken out of that meeting with Christie Nome, that he was forced face down on the floor, forced to have his hands behind his back and put in cuffs. That was a message loud and clear to the rest of the country to let you know that any form of dissent, even a senator can be arrested and cuffed and have his rights taken away. We saw the mayor of New York Baraka when he was simply trying to take a look at one of the detention centers in his city,

    Mansa Musa:

    Right? He was mandated,

    Taya Graham:

    Right? He was simply doing proper oversight. He was arrested, representative vers, she was charged with resisting arrest interference and the charges, these are federal charges against her. They actually carry one to eight years as actual sentences. Representative McIver is facing this. So this is very purposeful to tell the public that if this can be done to a mayor, if this can be done to a senator, we’ve seen members of the media detained. We’ve seen members of the media. I don’t know if people saw that video of that Australian reporter where you saw, and this was during the LA protest against the raids of ice. And she’s standing there talking, it’s obvious she’s a reporter, has a big blue microphone, and you see a police officer turn around behind her and shoot her right in the back of the leg. You can see it clear as day. It was purposeful. There’s no other way. There’s no way to describe it. And that was a message to the American people. Just lock your doors, stay home and don’t speak up.

    Stephen Janis:

    How you were talking about why did people know about Dr. Fowler and his bad science? Well, similarly, Baltimore had unconstitutional racist policing for decades. But you know how we finally found out about it and was certain about it was because a bunch of people in Baltimore rose up and had the uprising and the uprising brought such attention to Baltimore and also the people not comprising and saying, we’re not going to take this anymore. That the Justice Department came in, did an investigation and found that we had unconstitutional policing. Now Tay and I knew this and we had reported on it, but the people of Baltimore rose up and some people look at the uprising and say, oh, it was a riot. No, it was an uprising of democratically conscious people who didn’t want to live under the regime of fascist policing anymore. And they show the world and then the world listen, and now we have all these reforms and now we have lower crime.

    Mansa Musa:

    You know what? And crazy part about, for the people that don’t know about the history of Baltimore, all the figureheads, Bishop Robinson Black, everybody that was in authority in terms of the police, you would never think, oh, racist police. But they was complicit

    Stephen Janis:

    Absolutely

    Mansa Musa:

    With that. But talk about the connection between, because this is interesting, and I think our orders really need to understand this, the blue cities and sanctuary cities, because most of the sanctuary cities are blue

    Speaker 4:

    Cities.

    Mansa Musa:

    Talk about that because you said that they’re intentionally targeting blue cities. But to give our audience an understanding what a blue city look like and why when we say a blue city, what that is,

    Speaker 4:

    Because

    Mansa Musa:

    Most people might think otherwise, oh, sanctuary city people got same-sex merge anywhere. Anything that’s progressive in terms of supporting the populace and adhering to the descent or the views of the

    Speaker 4:

    Population.

    Mansa Musa:

    If you not that then you rock robotics. So talk about that.

    Taya Graham:

    The one thing I would say, I know Steven has a really interesting theory behind this of the authoritarian impulse of the Trump administration, but the one thing I’d say is one of the reasons why they’re attacking these progressive cities and the ice raids are happening in la, San Diego, Denver, Austin, Texas, Chicago. Why these raids are happening in these cities is very purposeful. It’s because it’s in these progressive cities where we are most likely to push back. We are the ones who stand up for constitutional rights. We are the ones who have fought for civil rights and they know they have to essentially make the population here fearful of coming forward, of coming out. If you can make the population fearful, you can make them quiescent and you can keep them silent because they know the toughest points of resistance is not coming from rural America. It’s coming from these blue progressive cities where we have fought day in and day out for our civil rights. So that is why they’re doing their best to que descent in this way. Well,

    Stephen Janis:

    Just to add on to the thesis of how blue cities incubate new ideas that create progress. So yes, places like Baltimore are technically sanctuary cities, but if you look at the statistics of this country, we have a lower birth rate, 75% of our workforce growth, the growth of the people that work in this country came from immigration and blue cities have embraced those people because we need those people economically. Without them, we can’t grow without them. We can’t take care of our elder or farm our food. So that’s why progressive cities have pushed a welcoming. It wasn’t just the idea of America being open, which it is, but it’s also the idea that we need more people and we need to grow our cities and we need to embrace people from other

    Speaker 4:

    Countries.

    Stephen Janis:

    They bring vitality and strength and that’s why they’re attacking it because it’s an idea that actually is a counter to their idea, which is Baltimore. The country has to go backwards somehow, intellectually and morally, and also legally has to go backwards. And here are these blue cities that are diverse and thriving. I mean, most blue cities are the economic engines of this country.

    Speaker 4:

    That’s right.

    Stephen Janis:

    Like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Washington, DC are the economic engines that make this country grow. And it’s just ironic that they’re attacking them, but I think they’re attacking them for a reason because if we prove these progressive ideas are right, what hope do they have to push their faster?

    Mansa Musa:

    And to the professors, he said authoritarianism, it’s just experiment is working, is like they looking at blue cities and if this is the case, we’re in trouble. And so how do we unpack that? Because

    The reality is we know that we are dealing with the fastest authoritarian government right now. There’s no question about that. Monuments is being like, next thing we are going to see is confederate flag in the White House, simple as that confederate flag, American flag and a Nazi flag and saying that this is not the flag, what the flag represent, this is history that we’ve been ignoring. And that’s not right. But the reality is that we dealing with a fastest regime, and like you say now, the attack of the blue city, and to your point, Jan, that’s a correct because the migration to

    Speaker 4:

    Chicago, when

    Mansa Musa:

    You look at everybody,

    Speaker 4:

    Great migration,

    Mansa Musa:

    Regardless of what went on, the contradiction that went on between the groups they eventually found, got together and say, okay, it’s better to work together than work against each other because all of us come out the same

    Speaker 4:

    Area.

    Mansa Musa:

    But talk about that. Talk about how do we counter this or what is the counter to this?

    Taya Graham:

    Well, one thing I would say is that this is an ideological battle because as student rightly said, these progressive cities and progressive states like California, California has one of the biggest economies in the world.

    Stephen Janis:

    Six largest economy in the world,

    Taya Graham:

    Sixth largest economy in the world compared to other whole entire countries. So we know progressive policies work. We wouldn’t have an iPhone if it wasn’t for letting immigrants into our country. So we have to understand that they are part of the economic engine of growth in our country. And that these progressive policies, these freedoms actually make us more productive. They make us innovators and it actually makes money. And I do think behind this that for years even see the old school Republican party, they knew that we needed immigrants. I mean even George W. Bush was trying to find a path to citizenship for people.

    Speaker 4:

    But

    Taya Graham:

    I think in the background that big agriculture people who like Tyson’s chicken people have those meat processing plants, those folks wanted to keep a certain segment of the population undocumented so they could remain exploited. So they could pay them nothing so that they could hold deportation over their heads as a threat. So they couldn’t bargain for any type of labor rights whatsoever. And now they’re realizing, oh, we might’ve pushed it too far because we’re about to lose all of our farm markers. We’re about to lose all the people who work in that meat processing

    Speaker 4:

    Plant.

    Taya Graham:

    And the thing is, this is an ideological war because we literally have economic proof that these progressive policies work. When you take a look at red states, they’re the ones who have the worst education. They’re the ones where people have the lowest medium incomes,

    Speaker 4:

    Progressive

    Taya Graham:

    Policies work. But what the Trump administration is trying to do is say he’s fighting the ideological war to say no. See, their cities are chaos. Their cities are in disarray. Their cities are crime ridden. And that’s one of the reasons he’s putting that military on the streets. He wants to condition the American public to be used to seeing military on the street. And he wants our military to get used to trying to pacify the American public.

    Stephen Janis:

    I think at its core, this fight and how we fight against it is over America’s original sin, which of course is slavery. And the idea that you have an economy that’s purely extractive, that exploits one set of people for the benefit of another. And I think that’s really what underlies Trump’s and the conservative movement here in the United States. That’s why they worry about Confederate statues and that’s why they worry about naming bases after Confederates. They do not want to acknowledge the original sin of this country because for some reason they think it challenges the order of things for them, which is to exploit people, is to make well, to have an extractive economy. And that’s where this battle, and that’s why what we have to do is call attention to that. Call attention to the root

    Of what? Yeah, the root of racism, the drives, all of this. Racism drives every aspect. There’s nothing. That’s why it’s so irrational. That’s why you look at it and you’re like, why do they keep making these ridiculously counterintuitive moves like the trade wars and things? It’s because Trump’s brain is baked by racism in many ways, and so is the conservative movement at this point. So I think the best way to fight back against it is to acknowledge that and to understand it through that prism, and then it starts to make sense and then you can fight back.

    Taya Graham:

    Steven, I think you make a really good point. My concern in this ideological war is that to some extent the Trump administration and their allies have been telling the American public that the media cannot be trusted. Good point. And we know as members of the media that our job is to help people tell their stories, to help amplify their voices. And if the public doesn’t trust the media to help them get government accountability, the public, our community has lost one of the weapons in its arsenal to push back against this government. So there’s so many different ways that the Trump administration has tried to isolate the public from their natural sources of government accountability, whether that’s the freedom to protest, whether that’s trusting a member of the media to tell your story and amplify your story. There are all these different ways that the Trump administration is trying to silence people. And it really does concern me. And I’m just hoping that the public can know that they can trust their independent members of the media to help amplify their voices because everybody needs to get into the fight. You cannot be on the sidelines anymore.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I agree, and as we close out, I agree with that because at the end of the day, we recognize that one thing about this country, we can say what we want to say, but people, we’ve been spoiled and believe that we have our rights. We have a right to self determine. We have an inevitable. So this is something that we’ve been indoctrinated to think. So regardless of how they try to beat us down, know saying, when they go low, we go high. Well, this is our logical battle. And I think at the end of the process, our ideas going to prevail because our ideas is ideas of humanity, our ideas and ideas of inclusiveness. DEI, you doing DEI and you doing the same thing that you opposed to you’re doing in the form of bringing back statues. You’re doing in the form of saying that I’m bringing these South Africans to this country because they’re being, oh, oh my God, it even hard to get out.

    But I appreciate, and you know what I really appreciate y’all my best, my favorite couple. Now when we sit down, we had these conversations. It’s like when I was in the prison in the penitentiary, we used to be sit on milk crazy and we used to do political, have political conversations, but we always had an area where we were always politics. And this is what I get when y’all come, y’all very knowledgeable in what y’all talking about. Y’all very invested in making sure the pigs be held accountable. Y’all very invested in making sure the people rights be recognized and that they don’t be trampled on. This is something that we take for granted, but I think at the end of the day, we’re going to be better off because we got people like yourselves. Thank you. And then you have it real news, rallying the bars. As you can see, I got the heavy hitters on the couch today. We unpacked this police state, this authoritarian state, but more importantly, we pulled back the cover off of so-called Expert Witnesses, and that’s not the last you’re going to hear on that. But we asked that you continue to support the Real News and Rambling Bar because guess what? We are really the news.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • I Am But the Mirror: The Story of American Cop Watching is the first documentary to ever cover cop watchers as a grassroots people-powered movement. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of the Police Accountability Report discuss the documentary, which examines the life and sentencing of controversial cop watcher Eric Brandt, with First Amendment activists John Filax and Otto the Watchdog.

    Credits:

    • Produced by Stephen Janis and Taya Graham
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Taya Graham:

    Hello, my name is Taya Graham and I’m the host of the Police Accountability Report. Today we’re going to be reporting on a controversial topic, the work of a cop watcher named Eric Brandt. Eric is known for his flamboyant, often confrontational style of filming. Police is an approach that garnered attention for his cause, defending Denver’s homeless, but also criminal charges as well. Although he successfully fought over 100 arrests related to his protests, there was one case he wasn’t able to beat in 2021. He pled guilty to three counts of attempted retaliation against a judge through an act of digital harassment. He made statements that were interpreted as threats. These words were deemed disturbing and deeply offensive. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison and he’s still incarcerated. Four years ago, we decided to make a documentary about Eric along with the community of Cop Watchers. We covered on our show, the Film I’m But The Mirror, the Story of American Cop watching seeks to understand Cop watching through the lenses of dozens of its practitioners, one of them being Eric. In today’s show, we will discuss what we learned. We just wanted to warn you, our viewers, that some of what we discuss may be offensive or even uncomfortable to watch, but we never shy away from the truth, good, bad, or ugly, and I hope you’ll join us now onto the show.

    Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to a special Police Accountability Report, a discussion with a special preview of our latest documentary. I Am, but The Mirror, the Story of American Cop watching. And of course, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis. Stephen

    Stephen Janis:

    Aya, how are you?

    Taya Graham:

    I’m doing great. How about yourself?

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah, I’m good. I’m good. I’m just glad to be here with you talking about this film.

    Taya Graham:

    Well, me too. It’s always good to have the intrepid reporter Stephen Janis with me

    Stephen Janis:

    When it can coax me inside. Yeah. But thank you for doing that.

    Taya Graham:

    Oh, absolutely.

    Stephen Janis:

    I would’ve missed it.

    Taya Graham:

    Now in this show, we are going to unpack the result of our four year process of telling a very important story about a very intriguing group of cop watchers. But it’s not just a film about that alone. It’s a tale about exploring the boundaries of the First Amendment. It’s about crime and punishment. It’s about the limits of activism and the impact of YouTube on journalism. Stephen, do you think I missed anything?

    Stephen Janis:

    No, I think you got it. I mean, it’s a broad story about a movement that goes beyond I think the confines of cop watching, and it’s important to remember that we kind of explore the boundaries of digital activism, YouTube, and even YouTube journalism. So yeah, you’re right. It’s not just about cop watching.

    Taya Graham:

    Now we are going to preview some of the parts of the film with you and we’re going to discuss what it means to us, and then we’re going to have a conversation about the First Amendment with two of our favorite cop watchers that happen to have exceptional senses of humor,

    John Flacs and Otto The Watchdog. But first, let’s just give you a little background on our project. Now we have been holding police accountable on YouTube for more than six years, and during that time we have met spoke with and interviewed and covered people known as Cop Watchers. Now, most of you’re familiar with the uniquely chaotic camera people who go out and film cops on a daily basis, YouTube activists who pick up their cell phones and document police in both routine and extreme situations. But for those who aren’t familiar with it, please allow me to give you a brief overview across this country. On any given day, hundreds, if not thousands of people turn their cell phone cameras on police and monitor what they do. These people have colorful personalities and often creative approaches to their work, and many have built substantial audiences of viewers who watch their videos and support their push for accountability, but they’re also controversial.

    There are critics who say they’re often colorful antics and sometimes bizarre behavior is all about attracting clicks and YouTube views. They argue watching Cops has nothing at all to do with a push for law enforcement accountability, but rather it’s just a way to garner attention. Well, me, myself, and my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, as members of the Independent Media, thought this was the perfect opportunity to provide fulsome coverage of a topic that warrants nuanced storytelling and complex investigation to say the least. And we noticed that the rest of the mainstream media was acting as if these cop watchers and First Amendment auditors didn’t even exist. So we knew we had to dig in here. Now, we started covering cop watchers almost from the beginning as we were producing and developing the police accountability report. And today we’re going to talk about how we took that coverage a step further in the form of a feature length documentary titled I Am But Mirror the Story of American Cop Watching.

    Now, I promise you this film is not your typical documentary both in the way it’s produced and the way it’s put together. But before we get into that, I want to discuss the focus of the story and how we chose it. The focus was not just about cop watching, but a very specific cop watcher named Eric Brandt. Now, Brant is a controversial practitioner of cop watching to say the least, his wild antics. And some say his over the top approach brought him notoriety and some people think infamy and the attention of law enforcement. Stephen, can you talk to us a little bit about Eric?

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah, I mean, in many ways Eric is at the intersection of like, we have another show called The Inequality Watch. Now he is kind of crazy to watch. I mean, if you watch his videos, you’re going to be challenged, you’re going to be offended, you’re going to have a lot of emotional reactions. But I think one of the reasons we chose him besides stuff we’ll talk about later in terms of how law enforcement responded to him, was that he marks in a sense where he’s a symbol of the cross between policing and inequality. He advocated for homeless people and he fought the cops. And many times for us, and when we reported inequality, we run into policing. And I think in this sense, Eric’s extremes reflected the extremes of the world that he was living in.

    Taya Graham:

    In essence, we decided to not just make a film about cop watchers, but examine the phenomenon through the prism of Eric’s story. And part of that involved examining Brant’s wild videos and his encounters with law enforcement and how his activism and influenced others. Why don’t we watch a clip now?

    Speaker 3:

    Okay,

    Speaker 4:

    That was awesome. You a happy, happy. I hope you’re watching. Be happy for the cops play every day

    Taya Graham:

    Of the week. Everyone told me I had to talk to this guy Eric Brant,

    Speaker 5:

    And he is an into fatiguable. He’s relentless.

    Taya Graham:

    So I went and checked out his YouTube channel,

    Speaker 6:

    These Are the Children, and Stop using profanity is what this officer incident says. Well, go fuck yourself, Denver Police.

    Speaker 5:

    Wow. He’s obnoxious in the best way.

    Stephen Janis:

    So the first time I heard the name Eric Brent was from Taya,

    Speaker 6:

    Sorry, be mad at RTD shoes on. Come on. I don’t believe that you’re correct on that.

    Stephen Janis:

    And she was like, we need to report on him. And I’m like, okay, what does he do? RTD, stop abusing

    Taya Graham:

    The homeless. So I know Cop Watchers can sometimes be confrontational, but Eric really took it to a new level.

    Speaker 6:

    You’re the warn coming out of the streak. You see me in the streak. You were in the name, the Streak you fat fucking worthless bed. I’m here with the Luminator 64,000. It’s our first prototype.

    Speaker 7:

    That’s the kind of impression that it made to me. It was just like, fuck this guy. Where did my team go? Yelling at somebody is going to only get you so far. He’s going to take your head off that to threaten you because I’m trying. Are you going to? No, because you’re coming at him. I didn’t think that it was actually going to solve anything

    Speaker 6:

    Because I was standing next to Thomas, Dr. Lee Slam a fucking wall.

    Speaker 7:

    I thought that I’m going to watch this poor guy get his ass whipped on tv.

    Speaker 6:

    Yo, shame yourself. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Huh?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I met Eric through YouTube. I really fucking, I really didn’t like the guy when I first saw him.

    Taya Graham:

    Well, it wasn’t just Eric’s extreme behavior that made his story an effective way to explore the broader topic of cop watching. I think it was something else, namely how YouTube and digital activism impacted the real world, the tactile world as well, how and other cop watchers connected through a common cause and bonded and work towards a mutual goal through a platform that is often blasted for being divisive and conspiracy laden. Now first let’s just run a quick clip on how some of our subjects actually get into Cop watching.

    Stephen Janis:

    The police weren’t the message. It was the fact that they were focusing on police.

    Speaker 9:

    I started out watching crash videos and then the auditing videos and the cop watching videos started getting recommended to me.

    Speaker 6:

    Rockwall PD obviously had an attitude from the second he got out of the car.

    Speaker 9:

    I started seeing how the cops were doing people. So about four months later I got a camera

    Taya Graham:

    And one could honestly critique that some of their interactions were intentionally provocative.

    Speaker 6:

    Hi, did you need something? Did I ask for something?

    Taya Graham:

    That’s actually really interesting, and I think that’s a lesson YouTube teaches you also through the algorithm as well. They let you know the moment someone stops watching you. I was fascinated by the role reversal that Cop Watchers often create. And what I mean by that is when they pick up that cell phone camera and they point it at the police, they no longer just become the watch. They become the watchers too.

    Speaker 3:

    Yes, true.

    Taya Graham:

    And if you don’t think that represents a potent inversion of power, just consider how much power government and law enforcement and corporations derive from watching us. Now the other important dynamic is how YouTube offers a platform of equivalence or even democracy for regular citizens. It gives them a means to tell their side of the story to an expansive audience that had not existed until recently.

    Stephen Janis:

    Stephen,

    Taya Graham:

    I think a little bit about that.

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, yeah. I mean, the thing is that one thing you learn as being a former member of the mainstream media,

    That with that media construct comes power. We construct sort of a power perception around us that gives us the ability to influence the actual world. And I think for the first time and maybe the history of humanity, an entirely group of people who weren’t professional journalists or professional media makers were given that same equivalent platform where they were able to tell their side of the stories we like to call it on our show Police accountability report, reverse Cops, the show Cops where they file cops around and they arrest working class people on the worst day of their lives and it turned into television fodder. Well, we’re reverse cops. And I think that is representative or illustrative of the dynamic power shift that YouTube presented for the first time, I think for many of these people, and for the first time I think were a community grassroots movement, had access to the same tools in media that the mainstream media had in some sense.

    Taya Graham:

    Stephen, I think that’s really important context you just added there. And all of this converges in our film as we tell the story of Eric as he attempts to push back strongly against the treatment of unhoused people in Denver, Colorado. Now, Denver is a typical US city that has grown in popularity but has struggled to build affordable housing, and therefore the unhoused population has grown significantly. Eric and his supporters said police harass them, and that the cop watching was a means to push back. Let’s hear it in Eric’s own words. We spent time in Denver and homelessness is a serious issue there. And Eric, like many people has struggled with homeless

    Speaker 6:

    People are coming to me and they’re complaining to me about what the Westminster police are doing to them. And one of the big complaints that I had is that they would be somewhere sleeping and the Westminster Police would roll up on them at two o’clock in the morning and they would get on their bullhorn and then drive off. Well, that’s really shitty, right? So I moved out of my apartment and I moved onto the streets of Westminster in order specifically to address this question.

    Taya Graham:

    And so what we’re seeing here is that Eric and other cop watchers are trying to influence a lived reality by changing the ground rules. He sort of imposes his outrage through an electronic medium that he performs in the real world, but it becomes fodder in the digital world and especially for YouTube. Stephen, can you talk a little bit about the dynamics of digital and tactile worlds colliding while Eric and the other cop watchers are performing their activists?

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, to give the most, I think, direct response to Eric’s art, I guess we could call it for lack of a better word, art, but I think it is art in many ways. His response is as garish as inequality is in this country. And let me just explain that just a teeny, teeny bit. The people on the other side of the inequality equation in this country rarely have their stories told in a way like you see on HBO or other mainstream medias where we have constant fascination with the elites and the people who are rich. And so Eric, I think in some ways created something so outlandish because there was no notice of this great inequality divide that had consumed Denver where there was homelessness and people unhoused in greater and greater larger proportions. And the city, according to Eric, used police to push back on that. So I think it is really essential here that we see the aesthetics of inequality in Eric’s sort of, some people would say offensive, other people say colorful response to this.

    Taya Graham:

    Stephen, I think you’re giving an excellent context here

    Stephen Janis:

    Because

    Taya Graham:

    There are so many layers to what the story that we’re trying to tell. And so we are trying to do this essentially in a feature length film with two distinct stories. And so one is about Eric and the community of cop watchers who embraced him and how their individual styles impacted police reform. And then I would say the second is how YouTube and independent journalism created a different process for storytelling, which resulted in an entirely different audience for receiving those stories. But what I think is really important to note is that the audience didn’t just watch, but they became engaged and activated. Now, there is a lot more that happens in this film

    And Eric is sentenced to what many of his supporters say is an extreme amount of time, a sentence that shocked his friends and his YouTube supporters. Also the cop watchers who created the community around Eric ended up working together in the real world to accomplish something amazing. But to see that you’re going to have to watch the film, which is free on folsome tv.com, which you can find by clicking on the link in the comments. But before we get to our guest, and I really do want to get to our guest, John Flac, I want to let everyone know who is in this film. Now, there are a lot of names and I know I’m going to miss one, but I want to give it a try. Okay, here it goes. Liberty freak, cut, the plastic, all the watch. Dog Monkey 83, Joe, cool Friends and Code, Tom Zebra, Laura Shark, Pikes Speaks, audits, blind Justice, NC Tyrant Hunter, James Freeman, pajama audits, Carol Funk, lackluster DJ Kate out the party, Abdi and Johanna and activist and supporters, Chris Powers and Noli D. Now, this is not everyone, but it’s most everyone, and it was their work along with Eric’s story that we tried to depict and document and portray in a way that was worthy of their efforts. And I have to emphasize that we had Noli D in this film because I think this is the first time a YouTube mod was really given their due and highlighted for their work and their support for their community.

    Stephen Janis:

    Agreed.

    Taya Graham:

    Now Stephen, that’s quite a cast.

    Stephen Janis:

    That is an amazing

    Taya Graham:

    Cast. I mean, do you want to talk about how you approach this story?

    Stephen Janis:

    You start to put the film together. There’s one aspect of the film if people watch it, we’ll see where I tried to give some substance to each person because really you could do a documentary on many of these people. My gosh, when I was talking to Cut the Plastic about his life, his life is so complex and so many things happen that you could literally do a documentary about him. So I had to again refer to or use the technique and aesthetic of technique of accelerated storytelling where I put a lot of people’s lives, which are very complex and very interesting into sort of a condensed version to give people a 12 to 14 minute primer on cop watching and their personalities. So we’re open to doing more on that. And we have the American Cop Watcher Channel, which we try to post other interviews we did that we couldn’t conclude completely in the documentary. So it’s there for people who are interested in hearing about the lives of the people we featured in the film.

    Taya Graham:

    And I’m glad you mentioned that channel because we’re going to continue to add interviews there

    Stephen Janis:

    Because

    Taya Graham:

    There is so much there.

    Stephen Janis:

    So

    Taya Graham:

    Much we had to cut out of the film because otherwise it would’ve been an eight hour long

    Stephen Janis:

    Film. It would’ve been Lord of the Rings uncut version

    Taya Graham:

    Basically. It really would’ve been like a trilogy. So we made a point kind of like how people do DVD extras to put the full interviews there and we’re going to continue to add to them, we’re even going to add people that weren’t in the original film because I feel like this is more than just a documentary that we’re documenting a movement.

    Stephen Janis:

    And so one of them is our next guest who we’re going to go to right now. Right, John Felix?

    Taya Graham:

    That’s right.

    Stephen Janis:

    Okay. Is he here? That’s

    Taya Graham:

    Right.

    Stephen Janis:

    Do you have him?

    Taya Graham:

    Let’s bring on John Felix,

    Stephen Janis:

    Can you hear

    Taya Graham:

    Us? Hi, how are you doing? It’s great to have you here.

    John Filax:

    Thanks for having me.

    Taya Graham:

    It’s really a pleasure. So Stephen, I’m going to give you the first question for John.

    Stephen Janis:

    Okay, so John, so I just want to give you a brief kind of moment to talk about what you think about Cop watching at this particular moment, if you’re still doing it, and if you still think it’s important and how you go about it, if you still do it. I know you do a wide variety of things and we’ll ask you about that. But since this documentary is about cop watching, just give us your overview of Cop watching Now.

    John Filax:

    Cop watching is wonderful. It’s come a long way. It started with about 10 guys. Now there’s so many cop watchers, you can’t even keep track of all of them. And that’s great because we need more than we can count and there’s good that goes a long, there’s bad. That goes along with the good, of course, like the people who take our stuff and repurpose it. There’s so many short videos out there where I’m an FBI agent and I’ve made a million dollars suing people even though I’ve never sued anybody in my life. And that’s the bad part of it. But at the same time, there’s exposure and people start to look you up and can see more about who we are and what we do. And we also have haters, which is fine because in this movement if people don’t hate you, you’re not doing something right. And what I like to say is you get the most flack when you’re over the target.

    Taya Graham:

    It’s really interesting that you mentioned haters because as reporters, there’s the adage we’re supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the powerful and in doing so, and Stephen has a lot of experience with this. Powerful folks do not enjoy being held accountable and they can react in very strong ways. I think how many times has a member of government tried to get you fired from your job?

    Stephen Janis:

    Good deal times

    Taya Graham:

    A few times. But what I wanted to ask you though is for you to share what you think some of the impact of cop watching is. Because one thing that we know for sure and that we’ve learned through talking through so many cop watchers is that it can really have a deleterious effect on your life. You can lose your freedom, you can lose your livelihood, you can lose access to your kids. There’s a lot that can happen to someone when they choose to put themselves on the line for cop watching. So I wanted to know what kind of impact you feel cop watching has, what kind of positive impact it has?

    John Filax:

    Well, the positive impact is that you start to break the conditioning of the normal American because most Americans think that the police are heroes and they can do no wrong, and they deserve all this undeserved respect. Meanwhile, Americans generally speaking don’t know the Bill of Rights. They don’t know the First Amendment. They don’t know that you have the right to say what you want to say whether people like it or not. You’re supposed to be able to say it. And it was created for offensive speech because you wouldn’t need a First Amendment if everybody agreed with everybody. And that’s the cornerstone of this country. Whereas in other countries, if you say the wrong thing, you get locked up in the gulag. Well, our country is kind of going in that direction. And then people like, which I like to say are modern day founding fathers, we kind of sacrifice ourselves to show meanwhile we’re not spilling blood, but we’d still, we put ourselves out there.

    And like you said, like Otto for instance, lost his family, lost his house, and just for doing what? Speaking, putting up a sign. Well, this country has become so tyrannical now, and we have shown the tyranny firsthand with all the shows on tv, the cops, the this, the that. And it wasn’t up until George, George Floyd happened to where people are like, oh my God, maybe they’re not the heroes. We think they are. Maybe we should know the Bill of Rights. Maybe if I could tell you a quick story. I was a restaurant owner and I was talking to one of my servers and I was quizzing her a little bit. Do you know the Bill of Rights? You know what the First Amendment is? So after that she goes out in the dining room and she asks, one of my other servers is John and his mom illegals. And she goes, no, why? She says, because only illegals know their constitutional rights.

    Taya Graham:

    Oh wow. Oh my God.

    Stephen Janis:

    Wow.

    Taya Graham:

    She’s not wrong.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah,

    Taya Graham:

    I mean that’s funny. You’re right. Your average American would fail a citizenship test.

    Stephen Janis:

    That’s

    Taya Graham:

    So funny. That

    Stephen Janis:

    Brings something up. So what do you think about all these ice agents with mass on and no warrants and not identifying themselves? Does that concern you and the cop watcher community?

    John Filax:

    That’s beyond concerning because you let ’em all in here. I understand cracking down on violent criminals and anyone who’s done damage or some actual crime and created a victim, get ’em out of here. But the one you let millions of them in here now you just want to do some blanket sweep with unnamed people. Anonymous guys in groups with masks on and stuff. No, that doesn’t fly. You take the peaceful ones. You work out a system to where they can assimilate and become citizens instead of rounding ’em up and sending ’em to El Salvador. So you could do what score political points because you still have these police forces who think they’re basically a Gestapo of America and that you need to respect them. You need to obey everything they say. And constitutional rights aren’t part of the equation when it comes to police and policing.

    Taya Graham:

    Gosh, you make such excellent points and I want to address each one of them, but one thing that just sort of stuck in my mind is when you said we need the First Amendment, not because we’re always going to agree with each other, but because we are going to disagree with each other. And that I think something you also mentioned that’s really important that I learned from watching Cop watching, which is that it’s sort of deprogramming the public. You mentioned all the cop again that we see on TV and how we’re pretty much indoctrinated from middle school. This police officer’s officer friendly and he’s your friend, but the cop watching showed that you could reverse that power and that was really transformative for me personally. But I did want to ask you to maybe share some of your thoughts on Eric Brandt. Some people said he’s over the top or that even that he’s brought this on himself. Other people think he’s an inspiration and that he helped this grassroots movement. Where do you stand? How do you assess Eric’s actions and his activism?

    John Filax:

    I love Eric. He does get over. Even for me, people say the same thing about me. You’re over the top. You go too far, you’re yelling and screaming. But if I didn’t do that and I wasn’t so brash, nobody would be watching. My biggest video is 20 million views now. It’s because I got stopped for speeding when I wasn’t speeding. I recorded it and then I stood on my rights. I didn’t roll my window down. I followed the law to the letter, but it still wasn’t good enough for the cop. And I got half people are like, you’re a hero. And the other half of 20 million views now are like, you’re horrible. So you got half the population that watched the video, you’re horrible. To me, those are the indoctrinated, brainwashed people who can’t get past the surface level of anything who still watch TV for their news.

    And then you got the other half of people who live in reality and see what the cops are doing to people every day. So I wish he didn’t say the things he said that landed him in jail. He didn’t deserve to go to jail because ultimately it’s just speech. He didn’t have the wherewithal to carry out anything. And if you want to get technical, he really didn’t make any threats. He just said something they didn’t like. He doesn’t deserve to be in jail. He’s inspiration of this movement. Is he brash? Do you have to like his style? No, but he has every right to do what he did and say what he said.

    Stephen Janis:

    Wow. Okay. Well said. John, we’re going to put you on the spot. You watch the film, what do you think? I mean, it’s okay, you can criticize us because it wouldn’t be fair for us to bring you on here and then ask you to give us some sort of snowball review. So

    Taya Graham:

    Well, you don’t want to ask him what does he think? What does he think?

    Stephen Janis:

    General thought,

    Taya Graham:

    But that’s good about it. Not everything. You don’t want him to share all his thoughts, right? Or we want you to be honest. Be honest, be honest. What do you think?

    Stephen Janis:

    I mean, it’s kind of cheesy. I understand, but we were trying to promote the film, so we want to get what your thoughts.

    John Filax:

    I think everyone should watch it. I loved it. Oh good. It was great. I liked that it focused on Eric. I love that you had all them people. I wish I could have been in it. I told Teia that earlier. Me too. It was good. What I don’t like about it is the people that don’t like us in the grand scheme of things, they’re this much and we are the rest. I wouldn’t have put them in there. They work tirelessly to restrict our freedom of speech. They don’t like our style, they don’t like words, but ultimately they can never call us liars. They can never say we’re wrong and they can never attack the actual points. And one of the people you had in the documentary actually came after me and hurt me in real life. And I’ve never that’s

    Met this person. I’ve never done anything with this person. All I did was ask them to debate me on the substance and the merits of what we do. But instead of doing that, they came after me behind the scenes and started contacting YouTube and stuff. But overall, that’s awful. It was a great film. My wife even watched it. She doesn’t watch this stuff. She thought it was great. I thought it was great. I think you guys do wonderful work. And like Taya said earlier, I’m one of the very first YouTubers who discovered you guys and put a permanent link to the police accountability report in the description of my videos for 3, 4, 5 years now at least.

    Stephen Janis:

    Well,

    Taya Graham:

    We appreciate

    Stephen Janis:

    That. We appreciate so much. You don’t know how do tremendous amount wisdom, and maybe what you’re saying is we need to do a sequel and have you start up with your life and some of the things that you do.

    Taya Graham:

    Right? I know.

    Stephen Janis:

    Selfish,

    John Filax:

    Selfish.

    Taya Graham:

    We should do

    Stephen Janis:

    Sequel,

    Taya Graham:

    Selfish. We should

    John Filax:

    I being selfish there, but that’s fine. Yeah. You have enough content to make 17 of these. Honestly.

    Taya Graham:

    We really do. We

    Stephen Janis:

    Really could.

    Taya Graham:

    We really do. I mean each person, there’s a complex story in themselves inside each individual person. One last question. You’re not just a cop watcher. You have more to your activism. I’m curious how you would describe yourself and if you could share with us one of the most important outcomes that came from your cop watching activity. Was there a time that you performed cop watching that you believe you helped prevent arrest or you helped educate the public? Or could you share with us a moment that you said to yourself, I’m really doing the work that I signed up for here that you felt good about?

    John Filax:

    Again, I was going to sound like I’m bragging, but when I got pulled over and I got the video with 20 million views, that’s when my channel really took off. That was like 20 17, 20 18, and I came up with a lot of stuff. You hear the word cops explain. I made that famous, the I don’t answer questions. That was me. The ID crack line, that’s me. The ID thing again, when I first, it was the income tax, and then I started really focusing in on the constitution. And if you read the Constitution, it’s very plain, it’s very simple. It’s very reasonable suspicion for the right to privacy. So when I’m watching police stuff and they’re asking for id, I’m like, what happened to the Fourth Amendment? So the whole ID thing now that came from me because I exposed it and I said, listen guys, every time they ask you for id, they’re literally asking you to surrender your right to privacy voluntarily. And most Americans at that point thought, when a cop asks you for id, you got to jump to it and relinquish your right to privacy because most of them don’t even know that you have a right to privacy. And your right to privacy is to protect you from tyranny in the government. So the ID thing, all the catchphrases, you hear a lot of the accountability when I got that viral video in 2018 that really, if you want to track it back, that really caused a snowball effect in this movement.

    Stephen Janis:

    We are so appreciative that you decide to make an exception to you. Don’t answer questions, to answer questions for us, right?

    Taya Graham:

    Yes, that’s right. You don’t answer questions, but you answered them for us and we

    Stephen Janis:

    Really do

    Taya Graham:

    Appreciate it.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. Yeah. So we appreciate you.

    Taya Graham:

    We want to thank you so much for joining us, and we look forward to doing an interview with you

    Stephen Janis:

    Soon. I met the mayor, part two, starting with him or the story of American Top Watch and part two starting. Can

    Taya Graham:

    I blow a couple things? Absolutely. Go right ahead.

    John Filax:

    Okay, so last year I did Auto Palooza. This is something I launched Auto Palooza 2024. This is the T-shirt. You see, it says suspicious person on the back.

    Taya Graham:

    I can’t see it unfortunately, but

    John Filax:

    It says suspicious person. It was basically an event I had in Pensacola. Lots of auditors came, and a lot of the people who watched us came, they actually paid for tickets. We had a barbecue, live music, comedy, et cetera. It was wonderful. We’re doing it again this year, October 18th. I would love for you guys to show up there and you could get tons of content. Also, I started a Bill of Rights Coalition nonprofit. It’s called Tac Transparency Accountability Coalition, T tac-us.org. And that’s what I got going right now. And thank you so much for having me, guys.

    Taya Graham:

    Cool, man. It was absolutely our pleasure, and we appreciate your work. Catch you later.

    Stephen Janis:

    I find See you. See you guys. Bye.

    Taya Graham:

    See you.

    Stephen Janis:

    Bye bye. I find, yeah,

    Taya Graham:

    No, go ahead. Go ahead.

    Stephen Janis:

    No, I was just going to say, because what I find fascinating is just hearing their personal stories of how they arrived, and he’s the second person who said, or we’ve learned that they started cop watching or the process before the technology,

    Taya Graham:

    Which

    Stephen Janis:

    Is interesting because remember Tom Zebra?

    Taya Graham:

    Yes, yes.

    Stephen Janis:

    Took those videos. Tom

    Taya Graham:

    Zebra has VHS tapes,

    Stephen Janis:

    Who by the way, is featured extensively in

    Taya Graham:

    Film. Absolutely.

    Stephen Janis:

    But he told us that

    Taya Graham:

    Story. He considered one of those OGs cop watching.

    Stephen Janis:

    That’s how he had a VHS in his trunk of his car. So that impulse, it shows the technology, how it melds with human impulse. There has to be human impulse or that human impulse to tell your story or to give your perspective is so innate that people did it prior to the technology existing. I think a lot of people picked up and did it just because the technology existed. But I think there was a human part of this that I want to tell my side of things when I get pulled over. And so it’s kind of fascinating, not the only one who actually did that before there was even YouTube.

    Taya Graham:

    And something that always strikes me is the power reversal. And for me as a Baltimore City resident, my story,

    Stephen Janis:

    I do,

    Taya Graham:

    I grew up here in Baltimore City. I experienced the brunt of zero tolerance policing where I could not leave my house without my driver’s license. Even if I was getting on a bus to go to work, I still had to have my driver’s license on me because at any time a police officer could stop me and ask me for id, and you would say, that’s illegal. Well, in Baltimore at the time, during the odds between 2000 and 2007, 2008, it happened. People would be arrested for not providing ID for loitering, which meant a cop told you to get off the sidewalk and you didn’t move fast enough. You didn’t clear the sidewalk fast enough or spitting in public.

    Stephen Janis:

    Maybe you shouldn’t have been hanging on those corners. Te

    Taya Graham:

    I should have moved faster. I should have moved faster apparently, and I should have been ready to present my papers at all times. So for me, I didn’t even question that police had the right to treat me that way. That’s what,

    Stephen Janis:

    Because if YouTube had didn’t existed in the S when you were dealing with that, I wonder if it would’ve changed your thinking about how, and you see how that becomes a reality in and of itself, right? Because suddenly what a John Lacs or Otto the Watchdog is teaching you about the First Amendment,

    Taya Graham:

    That’s the thing

    Stephen Janis:

    They taught me, would’ve been embedded in the way you approach it and you say, wait a second, these cops can’t stop me on the sidewalk.

    Taya Graham:

    When I would watch

    Stephen Janis:

    Them, you really had no idea person.

    Taya Graham:

    When I would watch them and they would reverse the power in this way, to me it was absolutely unfathomable that you could talk to a police officer this way, that you could refuse their id, let alone use

    Speaker 3:

    Profanity

    Taya Graham:

    And say, I have a First Amendment right to tell you to go F all the way off. I never would’ve crossed my mind because on a regular basis in our city at the time, we had about a little bit over 600,000, 630,000 people, and roughly 100,000 people per year were being arrested during the zero tolerance period. Now, some of them were repeat arrests, but that’s an incredible number one in six people. So my fear of being taken down the central booking because I didn’t provide my ID, was not a stretch of the imagination by any sense.

    Stephen Janis:

    I don’t think zero tolerance could have occurred, could occur in today’s age of people having cell phones and YouTube channels. I just don’t think what they were doing, they were just taking people and putting ’em in the back of a van even though they hadn’t committed a crime. I don’t think that could have occurred without, in this particular era. It just can’t occur. It could not have occurred in an era where people can film police and put it on YouTube, I just don’t think it would happen. Not that bad things don’t happen, and over policing still occurs, but I think it’s much harder to do now without people noticing.

    Taya Graham:

    I wanted to share with you, and actually with everyone, actually, you do know this story, but when I give this example of not being able to leave the house without id, you might think, well, Taya, why would anyone suspect you of doing anything wrong? Well, I agree. Why would you suspect me of doing anything wrong? Well, the problem was, is that I lived and worked in what was considered high crime areas.

    Stephen Janis:

    That was a curse,

    Taya Graham:

    And that was part of the problem. So I’ll give an example. I was working part-time at a music studio, and I was sent to get lunch for the people in that music studio. And a police officer stopped me and I provided my id, but he said, I don’t think you are supposed to be in this neighborhood. I do not believe the information you’re giving me. I do not believe you work here. And that police officer said he was going to arrest me unless I could prove that I had a job. And so that police officer followed me back to where I worked, and he actually came into the building and I had to get the boss’s wife to validate that I did work there and that I was sent to go out and get people’s lunch. I mean, how embarrassing is that? And another place, it could have cost me my job to have a police officer follow me into the office because it would cast suspicion on me. Because people think where there’s smoke, there’s fire. So that’s just an example of how police really overstepped in our city and why it’s hard to break that kind of indoctrination when you grow up with it.

    Stephen Janis:

    So do we have Otto now to,

    Taya Graham:

    I hope we have Otto the Watchdog.

    Stephen Janis:

    Do we have Otto The Watchdog? Yay.

    Taya Graham:

    We have Otto the Watchdog. We are joined by the Incorrigible Irrepressible Otto, the Watchdog. Otto, thank you so much for joining us.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Hi. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here.

    Taya Graham:

    Oh, good. Good. That sounds familiar.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. And actually, oh my God, was he mocking me? Not sure he was mocking me. Are you sure? Stephen Otto, come on. I spent six years outside

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Wearing blue shirts.

    Stephen Janis:

    Wearing blue shirts. Yes, exactly.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Welcome to the air conditioning, Stephen. It truly is a pleasure to be here. It’s an honor. I thank you guys for what you’re doing. I watched the documentary. I particularly enjoyed how you told how you got into this and how that it was difficult for you, just like it was for many of us. Like I said, I didn’t like Eric when I first watched him. I don’t like everything he does. I like some of the stuff he does, but some of it’s, it’s pretty out there. So I totally understand the reservations that you had trying to tell the story, and it is difficult. It

    Stephen Janis:

    It is a tricky story.

    Taya Graham:

    It is.

    Stephen Janis:

    But weren’t you the person who came up with Olay, was that song yours

    Taya Graham:

    Or yours,

    Stephen Janis:

    Happy F

    Taya Graham:

    The Happy F the Cop Day

    Stephen Janis:

    Song? Which one was yours? I can’t

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Remember. So they’re both mine. I write. Oh, wow. And it was kind of a spontaneous thing. We were driving around one day, and I don’t even remember how it happened, but I was like, Olay, and it is so easy to say. And then there’s that soccer song and one thing led to another. I actually drove Liberty Creek. He was in the front seat and Eric was in the back of my truck, and we were driving around downtown Denver from Coing. And that’s where you just wish everybody a happy fuck the cops day. It’s a lot of fun. If you’ve never done it, you should try it. It’s fun. Anyway, I started singing the Olay song, and it was just slowly developing. Every time I would say it, it was slowly developed into what it is today. And it actually drove Liberty Freak out of the front seat into the back of the truck with Eric, because Eric was less annoying than I was.

    Taya Graham:

    I love the origin story there. That’s

    Otto the Watchdog:

    So funny. I absolutely knew I had something when he was like, pull over, I can’t take it. I was like, oh, that’s a thing. That’s a thing now. And it did. It became a thing, and now it’s a phenomenon

    Taya Graham:

    Just for people who are watching. You mentioned that you went out F Cops sing. That’s a verb that people might not be familiar with. Can you explain what that means?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Yes. So it’s exactly what it sounds like, really. We just drive around or you don’t have to drive. We just go around and just wish everybody a happy the Cops day. And they’re like, what? I mean, nobody’s ever heard of it. It’s not a national holiday, but it will be.

    Taya Graham:

    Not yet.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    When I become Emperor of the Universe, it will be, and it’s every day, and it’s twice on Tuesday, Andric on Thursday. And that’s something, yeah. So they’ll be like, what is that? And I’ll be like, oh, well, it’s today. It’s every day. And then they get it. It’s all just a joke.

    Stephen Janis:

    I have to say, when I had to try to put the beeps on one or two of those clips, it was so much, it started to, it was actually

    Taya Graham:

    Hilarious. Shouldn’t bring up, it was like a ten second beep.

    Stephen Janis:

    It just kept beeping and beeping. And then you have your other one. This pretty famous S is fd up and stuff, which we saw covering a protest in dc. Someone had that sign. We

    Taya Graham:

    Saw someone with that sign.

    Stephen Janis:

    They had that sign.

    Taya Graham:

    This system is FD up and stuff. And then there was S is FD up and

    Stephen Janis:

    Stuff, but it was S in F Up.

    Taya Graham:

    And I was like, do you know, out of the watch doc,

    Stephen Janis:

    We get auto twisting us into pretzels with his ingenious work just going Ss, fff and S. It doesn’t make any

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Sense. It makes no sense. Good luck on the transcription of this one.

    Taya Graham:

    Oh, good point. Good point.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    But that’s kind of the point too. When Cohen was going through court, even the justices had a very difficult time even talking about the case because of that one word, and they twisted themselves into pretzels because it’s clearly not dignified speech. This is not appropriate for Portland rings and settings of that sort. And if you saw somebody on TV saying that, it would be like, oh, you know what I mean? But that’s why YouTube is important. And now so many other platforms, each individual can have their own website if they wanted to.

    Stephen Janis:

    Just so people know, just the Cohen case you cited from 70, that’s where the draft protestor put F, the draft,

    Taya Graham:

    Just so people know. Yeah, it was Coen v California, and he was wearing a jacket that said F the draft on it.

    Stephen Janis:

    He was in the courthouse or something. But it’s really funny because Otto has been updating the test on police officers in Texas and they’ve been failing

    Taya Graham:

    Miserably. Yes. You have been performing some First Amendment test.

    Stephen Janis:

    I think Otto is kind of like a weird genius because he comes up with these ways of showing very complex things, very simple ways, and people, because he just,

    Taya Graham:

    And with a bit of humor too, which is what amazes me,

    Stephen Janis:

    Just so people know he was showing the signs of the cop and is this one, okay, is this one, okay. Basically, like you said, giving them street depositions to the point where they violate the law and you trick them into doing that. Was that the intention?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Absolutely. That’s the intention. That is absolutely the intention. I’ve been through this enough times now where I kind of know what their answers are going to be. At least I have a presumption of what I believe their answers is to be. So I lead them into questions because I’ve seen others do it before me. One of the things that I enjoy most about this community is that we are very open and we share things that nobody else gets to ever see unless you have a law degree or you’ve been a victim. And that’s the depositions you never get to see, rarely get to see depositions. And our community posts it on a regular. It’s like that’s the thing, because that’s where the attorney is asking the defendant officer very specific questions about how they came to the conclusion that a person needed to be arrested and against very, very detailed. And sometimes it’s quite uncomfortable for everybody in the room, and I love it. I love that.

    Taya Graham:

    I had a question for you, and I think it ties into Eric, because we’re talking about the use of profanity and how some people are very much offended by it. There are areas where we’re not supposed to use it. The amount of profanity that we’re allowed to use is limited on broadcast tv, let’s say, or in the courtroom. But something that Eric said that really stood out to me is that he was doing his protest against police brutality, but no one really paid attention. He didn’t get any traction until he used the four, excuse me, eight magic letters, which was F-U-C-K-C-O-P-S. And so I’m just curious what you think the role of profanity is in testing the First Amendment?

    Speaker 3:

    Yeah.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well, you said that you can’t use profanity on tv, but you can. There’s just a fine associated with that. It’s not a criminal actor, but there is a fine associated with that. Anything FC, C, the FC, C. And it’s also not illegal to use those words in court. It’s not as example in my cases. It’s required, which is also, that’s also kind of why I use that language, because eventually it anytime that you’re allowed to say things in a courtroom that typically you’re not allowed to say, I get giddy.

    Stephen Janis:

    Didn’t you get in trouble though, for giving the finger to a judge in Denver or something?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I certainly did, and that was a direct contempt of court charge. I disagree with obviously, but I did get in trouble for that, and I don’t recommend it. It’s a most unpleasant experience. I believe that my behavior was justified under the circumstances. And

    Taya Graham:

    You were just flipping the bird leaving, right? It wasn’t like you weren’t approaching the bench, for example.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    No, no, no. I was already out the first set of doors. There’s double doors on these courtrooms. I was already out the first set of double doors, and it was almost an involuntary reaction, if I must say. So I was just disgruntled with the whole situation, asked for an attorney. There was a kerfluffle in the public defender’s office. When I was applying for the attorney, they wanted me to donate blood and bring the receipt back to them to show that I was homeless and poor. Oh my gosh. That’s a real thing. So they literally wanted me to sell my blood to prove

    Taya Graham:

    That you were indigent,

    Otto the Watchdog:

    To prove that I was indigent. So that, oh, gosh. Before qualify for attorney. Yeah. I just couldn’t believe that that was thing. I thought that I would have an attorney when I showed up to court because I applied for one, and obviously I didn’t have the means. So I was upset with all that. And then the judge wouldn’t even hear my argument on that. I’m just nobody. I don’t really know anything. I understand that when I’m on YouTube, the topic I’m covering, I’m well versed in, but that’s a very narrow topic, really just and only in Texas. And if I went to another state, I wouldn’t know their laws as well as I do Texas laws. Right. That’s point. So that’s a complicated thing too. I’m a very narrow window. That’s why I try to stay in my lane, you know what I mean? So that I don’t get in trouble for needing an attorney and flipping

    Taya Graham:

    Up what you do know very well.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I know what, yeah,

    Taya Graham:

    You really do. And I was wondering, you’ve been a cop watcher and involved in this kind of activism for quite some time now. A lot of members of the community. If you had to describe the impact, the real world impact that cop watchers are having, if you had to convince someone, cop watching actually makes a difference, what would you tell them?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    If I had to tell somebody that convince somebody, okay, I got this. All right, here we go. When I started cop watching 10 years ago and producing videos for the internet, it was very difficult and nobody liked it, and I got a lot of hate for it. Five years ago, people started responding positively, and now I’m signing autographs and people are wearing my shirts and they’re bringing me bottles of water on the side of the road. And during that time, I’ve noticed that the citizens have responded by registering to vote, and they turn up. I have a pretty good track record of doubling the people who vote in these small towns after I expose something terrible. Incredible. That’s amazing. So I understand that my signs are offensive and that my language is coarse, and it’s not for everybody. And a lot of people tell me that they don’t want their kids seeing my signs. But the alternative would be that we continue to allow bad government, whether that be police officers, city council or otherwise, to run amuck, unchecked. And that’s far more offensive than my signs could ever be.

    Taya Graham:

    Well said.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. I mean, that’s part of the point we made about Eric, that he was ugly, but he was also exposing something that was ugly too. The ugly side of a country that’s extravagantly wealthy and at the same time has homeless people in abundance. Very true. So it’s ugly, but the underlying reality it reflects is ugly. I guess that’s what you’re kind of saying, right? In a way.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Yeah. Yeah. The alternative, I think Eric said the consequences of silencing speech are unspeakable.

    Stephen Janis:

    And I mean, just so we have an update on his situation, he was just denied parole, I believe Otto and Eric was concerned that the justice system wasn’t going to, even though he is had perfect behavior and his crime was not violent. What does that say to you that the system is trying to keep him in, even though he served his time and the sentence was 12 years, but he’s been good and they’re not letting him out?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well, it speaks volumes on a bunch of different categories. I think. I’m going to have to pick one. So Eric is on violent, he’s never been charged with, he’s never been convicted of violence. He’s been charged with it as many, but we can’t help what we’ve been charged with. All we can do is help our behavior. So Eric has never been violent with anyone, and he is been at this for a very long time. And after a period of time of dealing with these heavy topics, he let it get to him. And he said things, but it was a prayer that was offensive. That gets complicated. So let’s just dodge past that and just assume that what he said was so terrible that he needs to be in prison 12 years.

    That’s a long time. I mean, there are people who do some pretty terrible things to, let’s say children way more offensive than my signs could ever possibly be. Mind you. And they get far less time, and a lot of times they will get probation. Also, they stacked the deck against Eric. He was supposed to get four years on these charges. They were supposed to run together just like anybody else would. So he would serve two to four years and be out and be over with it. They ran them concurrent so that he would have to serve sentence one at a time, which is unusual. And then they deny his parole on top of that. I mean, there’s a lot of things. There’s a lot things to talk about with that. And whether you like the guy or not, I think we can all agree that that’s a lot of time it a lot of time, life changing time, not just for him, but everybody who loves him.

    Taya Graham:

    That’s such a good point. And for the people who’ve only seen videos of him dressed as a Pikachu or the

    Stephen Janis:

    Things that he said

    Taya Graham:

    Or even heard the things that he said,

    Stephen Janis:

    Which more offensive, but

    Taya Graham:

    I would ask you this, what would you tell people to explain why Eric Brandt had a positive side to his activism, that what kind of positive impact did it have? Why when people say Eric Brandt, people know who he is, cop watchers know who he is, and he’s an inspiration to them. Why would you say people should give Eric Brandt a chance?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    So people should give Eric a chance because he legit made a difference. He changed laws, he forced body cameras when they did not want body cameras, he forced them to get body cameras as part of one of his settlements. So Eric was making changes. That’s why he had to go, that’s why you should care, because he didn’t do anything besides upset a lot of people who didn’t want to be upset anymore. And they thought that by sending him into a dungeon, that it would erase his memory and taint his name. And it did. And it did. But what actually ended up happening is it emboldened a lot of people to say, Hey,

    As long as I don’t share my thoughts and prayers, if he can get away with all the things that he had been getting away with, then surely I can go to the council meeting and tell my counselors that I disapproved their behavior. And now people are doing it on YouTube and they’re filming it, and they’re sharing it with others. And every time somebody shares a video, it encourages somebody else just a little bit, maybe. Maybe just a little bit. But it is growing and it grows so fast. Like John said earlier, there’s hundreds or thousands of YouTube channels that I have never heard of with 40 and 50,000 subscribers who are out there exposing their local city. And there’s Facebook pages, there’s more people actively engaged in their government today than there was 10 years ago, at least, from what I can tell. And that is a net positive. And Eric definitely had something to do with that.

    Taya Graham:

    Yes, absolutely.

    Stephen Janis:

    So I mean, last question, ask let’s,

    Taya Graham:

    You had a question.

    Stephen Janis:

    I was just going to say, it seems to me like you’re saying that YouTube changed your life. The algorithm changed your life. I mean, not to put it in that way, but the connections you made. And what’s interesting in the documentary, we go, how those connections went beyond YouTube, they became real Monk. 83 goes out to Denver, you go out to Denver, right. Those connections, this weird thing called YouTube actually put you together in real life, right?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh, for sure. Yeah. So YouTube as a platform where we were sharing all of what we were up to was just a way for us to connect. And then once we connected, we ended up meeting and finding out that, hey, we can do a lot of change if we had just worked together a little bit. And since then, man, we’ve been rolling. So yeah, YouTube did life, but it wasn’t the platform. It was the people behind it.

    Stephen Janis:

    That’s a good point. That’s a

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Good point. And man, since then we have been rolling. We still use the analogy cell phone video, but most of us don’t use cell phones anymore. Right now we’re like, I do interviews and actual reporting on the side I guess, but I wanted to be a reporter that did YouTube on the side and it turned the other way around.

    Taya Graham:

    I think we rubbed off on each other maybe a little bit. Maybe a little bit of our journalism rubbed off on you. You and a little of your cop watching rubbed off on us. Maybe

    Otto the Watchdog:

    You guys are, don’t count yourself short. So Eric pushed the boundaries of what you can say and showed everybody that it could be done. And you guys have led the way on how to bring that to a wider audience because I mean,

    Taya Graham:

    Thank you.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Eric’s difficult to watch. I understand that I’m not everybody’s cup of tea, but if we all share our stories and tell ’em in our own way, then we can get the message across to a wider audience that you guys have been able to bring this to a wider audience that normally wouldn’t appreciate somebody like Eric, or even me for example, but I like Lord of the Rings. But some people prefer dark drama or something like that,

    Taya Graham:

    Or telling the story in a different way. And I’d like to think that we helped give some legitimacy to the community because there were a lot of people who I would say thought the cop watchers were simply looking for attention, looking for cliques, looking for money. And I think we are one of some the first journalists that actually said, Hey, this is a grassroots movement. People are trying to have an impact in their communities. Please pay attention to these folks. You can judge for yourself, but you need to know they exist. Because for years, New York Times, Washington Post local news ignored the watchers existed.

    Stephen Janis:

    I think more importantly, we brought some of our, since we’re mainstream media refugees, we brought some of our techniques to the practice of storytelling on YouTube and tried to make it appealing to an audience so that we could grow. And that’s part of the story in the documentary.

    Taya Graham:

    But I do have just one question for you. I know you might be slightly biased in the film, but what do you think this documentary says and why would you tell someone to go watch it?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Because I like the documentary because it shows a lot of different people who have a lot of different perspectives from across the country who are united very loosely mind you, to toward a common goal that is somewhat controversial. It’s getting a lot less controversial. The more we do it, more and more people understand why we’re doing it and we’re getting more support for doing it. And that’s important. And you guys tell the story beautifully, and I think that your story is intertwined with ours because you are now also cop watchers. Whether you like it or not, you’re part of the story right along here with us, just like our audience is. Because if we can encourage them, if they can watch, for example, if they can watch one of my recent ID refusal videos and be inspired by that to stand up even a little bit, then man, that’s a huge thing. If the officer never knows person, which is the next person that’s going to know their law,

    Taya Graham:

    That’s right.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Then maybe they’ll just stop violating people in general. Maybe, I don’t know. Well, I guess time will tell, check back with me in another 10 years.

    Taya Graham:

    Alright, we’ll do so

    Stephen Janis:

    That’s a good,

    Taya Graham:

    We’ll do that for the sequel. Otto, we appreciate you. Thank you so much, Otto. Thank you so much for joining us.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Thank you guys. I hope you have everything works out for you and you have a fantastic day.

    Stephen Janis:

    You so much, Otto.

    Taya Graham:

    Thank you. You too.

    Stephen Janis:

    Take care. It’s interesting because Otto’s little First Amendment test remind me of, I knew a person who was internal affairs and they would do integrity tests where they’d leave drugs out and see if an officer would take it. So he’s kind of doing an internal affairs integrity and test in some ways there.

    Taya Graham:

    Interesting. I mean, for me, this film has been a very personal journey. And what I mean by that is when I look at the piece, it’s a testament to the people I’ve connected with along the way. That’s because just like the cop watchers who joined together through YouTube, I was connected to them via that same media and that media has engaged all of us. And so the film is an extension of how that connection affected me. I mean, because as a journalist, you’re supposed to be objective about any community you cover. There’s supposed to be a distance, an arm’s length distance. But that idea really fails to comprehend the passion that’s required to cover a community, especially one that’s often ridiculed and objectified by mainstream media if it’s even covered at all. And this movement has democratized media essentially.

    Speaker 3:

    So

    Taya Graham:

    Both of these factors, one technological and one social, have drawn me into this story in a way that’s very new for me and actually quite personal. And as you will see if you choose to watch the documentary, we talk about the challenges we face trying to make an independent show about policing actually work and how we struggled at times and how the pandemic changed everything in ways that we’re still grappling with. But also how covering that community of cop watchers led us to new ways of thinking about journalism and new ways of approaching the process of storytelling and new ways of thinking about how to hold power accountable. But really in essence, what this film is about is telling a story, telling the stories of people who, despite being all over YouTube, are in other ways overlooked. And their work goes unacknowledged, creating a long form story and really delving into the detail of a person’s life in a way that actually changes you as you unpack and try to understand their lives. And that’s what’s been the most astonishing thing for me. The process was genuinely enlightening and the act of filmmaking was communal and therefore it was truly meaningful. So I am thankful for that opportunity for the people who are willing to speak to us and for the honesty and candor and courage of all the people who participated. Thank you all. Now, I do think we should just give a little update on Eric.

    As many of you know, he’s still in jail in Colorado, and despite his excellent behavior, he was denied parole for this year. His next parole date hearing is not until 2026, and we are currently working on a story to try to get to the bottom of the factors that went into that decision. Stephen, I don’t know if you want to mention where you’re going to begin your investigation

    Stephen Janis:

    There. Well, we’re going to look at some of the other parole decisions and see what kind of people were actually allowed to parole. So we’re going to try to go through the records of the Colorado Parole Department,

    Taya Graham:

    And I want to thank Otto the Watchdog and John Felixx for joining us. Two men who have the amazing gift of being able to make you laugh when you feel like you could give up and start crying. So I want to thank them both so much for joining us. We appreciate you and I want to thank everyone who’s been with us since the beginning in the live chat, in the comments section on the police accountability report, or even on our community posts. I appreciate all of you and you never cease to amaze me with your insights, your passion for justice and your kind support. And thank you to my Patreons and thanks to all of you and of course I have to thank MOD’s Noli D and Lacey R for their help and support. Thank you both. Noli D introduced me to my first cop watcher to interview, and it has been a wild ride ever since. I appreciate you and of course I have to thank Intrepid reporter Stephen, Janis for his research writing and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

    Stephen Janis:

    Thanks for having me. I appreciate

    Taya Graham:

    It.

    Stephen Janis:

    Was that accurate?

    Taya Graham:

    That was perfect.

    Stephen Janis:

    Okay.

    Taya Graham:

    That was perfect.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah,

    Taya Graham:

    And if you have evidence of police brutality or misconduct we might be able to investigate for you, please reach out to me on my social media or email us@therealnews.com. My name is Taya Graham and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. And as always, please be safe out there.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Incarcerated people in the US are routinely forced to work for low pay or no pay, while state governments are saving billions of dollars—and private corporations are making billions of dollars—exploiting the slave labor of prisoners. And yet, incarcerated workers have been largely excluded from the ranks of workers the public in general, and organized labor specifically, cares about. What will it take for unions and union members to embrace incarcerated workers as part of the labor movement? In this episode of Rattling the Bars, Mansa Musa explores the history of labor exploitation and labor organizing in America’s prison system.

    Guests:

    Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Mansa Musa:

    Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, around 60% of formerly incarcerated people struggle with unemployment. The ACLU has reported that there are over 800,000 incarcerated workers in state prisons. This does not include jails and detention center in the US. People are exploited for their labor, either working to maintain the prison, or reduce commodities for low pay, or no pay. In contrast, the state saves billions, and multinational corporations make billions. This episode of Rattling the Bars will explore these relations with one of the labor organizers of the year for Indy’s Times Magazine, Katherine Passley, a grad school organizer and co-director of Beyond the Bars in Miami, Florida. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, Katherine has ran successful campaigns in Florida prison system to lower the cause of phone calls and assist formerly incarcerated people in obtaining employment. Her efforts have saved millions of dollars for loved ones of incarcerated people.

    Katherine Passley:

    We managed to pass free phone calls inside of our jails, and not just free phone calls, but we wanted everyone to have tablets so that way they have unrestricted access to calling their family members, access to the libraries. We ended up getting pushback from our commissioners because we wanted movies for them. Like, come on now.

    Mansa Musa:

    And in the later segment, we will speak with author Kim Kelly about her book, Fight Like Hell, which brings to the forefront workers who have generally been left out of the history and imagination of the labor struggle.

    Kim Kelly:

    I’ve been heartened to see labor unions, some of the unions whose members have been trapped in these drags, speaking up for farm workers, for grad student workers, for people that are just being disappeared saying, “You can’t do that to our members.” There are people.

    Mansa Musa:

    But first, my conversation with Katherine Passley. Welcome, Katherine.

    Katherine Passley:

    Thank you so much, Mansa Musa. It’s amazing to be here.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I open up by acknowledging that you was Labor Organizer of the year. How did you feel about that? How did you receive that?

    Katherine Passley:

    I mean, I’m just grateful to all the folks that allow me to be a leader in their space and developing leaders as well. So, it came as such a joy, but also bittersweet, because it’s just like, we’re just scratching the surface, there’s so much left to do.

    Mansa Musa:

    The reality is that when our peers acknowledge our work, our work is the reflection of our work, and it’s a reflection of how we doing our work that get us these accolades, these boots on the ground. This ain’t you wrote a poem, or you wrote an essay. This is labor. So thank you for your contribution.

    Let’s talk about how do you look at the correlation between the prison movement, labor, and social conditions that exist in society today?

    Katherine Passley:

    Yeah, I think it’s really interesting to know, this system is working exactly as it’s designed to do. When we think about converse leasing to what we’re dealing with now with modern day slavery, and that clause in the 13th Amendment that allows for people to become slaves once they’ve been convicted of a crime. And even folks that haven’t been convicted of a crime. Right now in Florida, in my city, in Miami, 60% of our jails haven’t even been to pretrial yet, they’re in pretrial. And they’re the ones that are the trustees that are giving out the place, that are doing all of this cleaning the jail and all of this labor for free, and they’re still innocent of what they’re being accused of. So, we understand jail to jail and prisons to be a form of labor control. They’re incarcerating surplus labor, for anyone that is politically attuned, understand, this is also a way to cheapen labor. The moment you get out, your labor isn’t valued as much because of your record.

    So now you’re forced into temp industries, you’re forced into accepting minimum wage. Your disadvantages are similar to our brothers and sisters that are immigrants. And as a child of immigrant parents, my father who’s currently incarcerated, I understand that when we talk about abolition, we need to talk about labor. We need to talk about that intersection. And also, we need to bring to the forefront the fact that most of the struggles for folks that have been inside, and out, when we think about Attica, the revolt, we’re talking about people that were fighting for better working conditions. It was always about labor, and our time. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was also like, “These corporations are exploiting us. Let’s attack their money.”

    So, it is always going to be about how we can take back our power from the current political structure, and the current economic structure. So it’s like, how do we fight capitalism, basically? So that’s what we’ve been doing here at Beyond the Bars, is trying to bridge these two movements, bridge the abolition movement with the labor movement. And there’s so many challenges, right? Because if you are convicted of a crime, you also can’t hold union leadership for 13 years and have legal standing. So it’s just like, okay, we want unions, but our voices can’t be represented in unions because of our record, but we know that that’s the only way for us to get upward mobility. And so it’s like, how do we get unions to now fight for our interests, knowing that that’s also in the best interest of unions that need density. They need us as well in order to… So it’s really marrying these two self-interests to get to that class union that we need. We need all of us together.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. For the most part. Your major unions don’t look at prisons as an entity when it comes to labor movement or union. Do you have a view on that?

    Katherine Passley:

    Yeah. I think a good chunk of that is education. We need to educate and bring our union brothers and sisters into the mix to understand that historically temp workers, prison labor, like you’re mentioning cheap labor, has been used to kind of bust union strikes. So it’s just like there’s that tension of like, oh, these people have been used against us for so long that there isn’t this realization that, well, what would it look like if we were to bring those people into the union so that they can’t bust these union efforts?

    So I think it’s going to take some creativity, and just the will to actually bring in our incarcerated brothers and sisters into the union fold in ways that just hasn’t been done before. And I think it’s hard for people to reckon with something that they haven’t experienced, or haven’t even tried. And I think we have the conditions now, and that are getting worse, where it’s just like, “We need to.”

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. And we look at the latest assault on labor workers from this government, and we recognize that in a hundred days, this government been in existence for a hundred days, in a hundred days they have managed to take people’s jobs, force people out of work, they decimated the middle class. Now most people got PhDs and certain skill set, they’re trying to get jobs at basically anywhere. My question here is, how do we make the connection between that right there and the fact that on top of that people are going to be released, and going to be put in the same pot competing for jobs with other workers, and are unskilled? How do you look at that?

    Katherine Passley:

    That is quite the question, because it’s just like when we talk about competition within the working class, the reality is it’s like, this many folks at the top that are making these rules and making these jobs, and then there’s thousands, millions at this point, of job opportunities for folks. And so it is just like, we really have to fight for not just any kind of job, but it’s just like, how do we shift who’s making the amount of money? And the reality is these heads of these corporations are making billions of dollars, millions of dollars, and then saying, “Okay, you are in competition with that person because that person is an immigrant and they’re trying to take your 725 job.”

    So it’s just like we need to actually know who the actual culprit is. And this is why I say union is important, because bargaining is important. So it’s like, when folks come out, it’s just like, how do we fight for good jobs? And folks that are currently unemployed, all of folks that are looking for jobs, it’s not that there aren’t jobs available, it’s just that there aren’t good jobs that pay living wages. And it’s not to the fault of the working class. It’s really to the fault of the ruling class, the capitalist class, that are putting profit above all things. And it’s just like, well, we actually need this competition, because we want you guys to keep fighting amongst yourselves, versus actually turning and trying to fight us for better working conditions, and for better pay, and for livable wages, and for all of these things that are due to us if we were able to get together and actually fight for them.

    So I think, if anything, we all need to strengthen our organizing skills, and bring in our folks, because it just doesn’t make sense for us to fight each other for what these bad bosses say we deserve. I think we need to start coming together and fighting for better jobs, better conditions. And we can get it. If we fight for it, we can get it.

    Mansa Musa:

    In March, I went to the University of Massachusetts Amherst to speak on a panel after a screening of the film Strike, with the filmmaker and one of the elder revolutionaries in the movie, Bobby Dellelo. Strike was a film and a documentary about how California prisoners struck using the hunger strike as a means to get the solitary confinement as it was being used in California prisons to become no longer used.

    JoeBill Muñoz:

    One of, I think, the dynamic things about the moment in time that we’re in, that the film really brings to light, but it’s oftentimes overlooked, is really the past 15, 20 years has been a real dynamic moment of prison struggle, beginning with a statewide prison strike that was called in Georgia back in the mid-2000s onto several rounds of national prison strikes that have been called really by different sensible organizations. We’ve seen really a heightened level of strikes and other forms of collective action behind bars. And the Pelican Bay hunger strike is kind of a signal example of that, but it’s unique in a lot of ways in that many of those strikes have also been work stoppages. They’ve been strikes where folks have refused to leave their cells.

    Mansa Musa:

    General practicing prison. Once you call a collective action and it’s understood that’s what it’s going to be, there’s consequences for calls in the picket line. There’s consequences, because you’re not arbitrarily calling an action saying, “Oh, oh, we want to call the strike because we want to enjoy it.” The issue that we calling this strike about is life and death. So if you cross this picket line, then you’re saying you with the enemy. And it’s understood, and it’s not a matter of everybody, people will be running around like, you cross the picket line like, no, it’s an understanding that the conditions are so bad that it’s behoove you to understand this, that people dying in the medical department, the garbage we’re being served, we ain’t making parole, we’re not getting out here, and we’re trying to get this changed. So we are saying the peaceful resolution for this is, don’t go eat.

    Bobby Dellelo:

    What struck me was the attitude that I’m dying here, so it don’t matter what I do. And I’ve escaped three times with a bunch of almost, and each time that I went over that wall, I took my life in my hands and said, “I’m going to be free, or I’m going to be dead, but I ain’t living like this rat hole.”

    JoeBill Muñoz:

    This is our 75th screening, in-person screening, which has been amazing. The film came out last April at a film festival, and then since then you make a film and you’re like, “Man, I hope my parents show up to watch it.” But the way it’s been embraced by folks of all stripes, we’ve been in churches, we’ve been in film festivals, we had the opportunity to take the film into Sandpoint in state prison and screen it there, into juvenile detention centers in California. And that work is just expanding.

    Mansa Musa:

    I highly recommend that you review this documentary and make your own determination on how effective this strike was, but more importantly, how simple it was to organize and get something done when the problem seemed insurmountable.

    Recently, I sat down with labor journalist Kim Kelly, author of the book Fight Like Hell. I spoke with Kim about her chapter on incarcerated workers and other workers who I generally undermined as organizers and leaders in the labor movement. In this segment, I explore how the prisoner rights movement and class struggle connects as a social issue. You took the position that in your book primarily about labor, that you going to specifically put a section there about the prisoners, but more importantly about the prisoners, and you looking at them as workers. Why was that? Why did you see the need to do that?

    Kim Kelly:

    Because for some reason that I don’t really understand, not that many other people who’ve written labor books have. It makes the most sense in the world to me. Of course, if we’re going to talk about not only workers, people performing labor, my book focuses on marginalized workers, vulnerable workers, workers who have not been given the respect and the treatment they deserve throughout the centuries. Of course, I would write about incarcerated workers. They’re part of the movement, they’re part of the working class, they’re the most vulnerable population of workers we have. And it always sort of rankled me that I didn’t see that expressed in a lot of the writing about labor, and the books about labor that I was reading.

    And of course, there’s some people like Dan Berger, for one, has done a lot of incredible work. Victoria Law too, incredible work talking about incarcerated workers. But it seemed like incarcerated workers in prison, that whole subject was kind of kept in its own little bucket, much like how we see, I think there’s this impulse to silo out different struggles, like women’s rights, and queer and trans rights, and labor rights, and racial justice, and prison issues. But they’re all connected, because sometimes the same person is experiencing all of those struggles at once.

    And so when I got the opportunity to write this book and to do it the way I wanted, I was like, okay, of course I’m going to write about auto workers, and farm workers, and so many of the people that are in the book, but I’m also going to specifically make sure that I’m able to include people like disabled workers, who are also kind of siloed out in a complicated situation, and sex workers who are criminalized, who are also dealing with all these different layers of oppression. And incarcerated workers, because not only are they part of the working class that doesn’t get their due and doesn’t, I feel, get the level of solidarity and support that other workers do, it’s also just not telling the real history of labor in this country if you’re not focusing on the organizing efforts and the labor of people who are in prison. That’s just not the whole story.

    Mansa Musa:

    And you know what? I want you to unpack that, because you’re making a nice observation on how we look at labor movement. But more importantly, unpack why you think that we don’t have that, we don’t have a general attitude about labor. When we say union, we say AFL-CIO, we say certain, it’s the hierarchy, the union hierarchy. When we say labor, we got a certain attitude on what that institution look like. But as you just said, we got sex workers, you got disabled workers, you got, like before the United Farm Workers became unionized they call them migrant workers. And then when they became unionized, they got their just due in terms of who they were, and they were. Why do you think that in this country, because it’s in this country in particular, why do you think that in this country we had this tendency to put things inside, mainly around labor?

    Kim Kelly:

    So, I think there’s a lot of reasons, some more understandable than others. First, I think a lot of folks in this country just don’t know that much about the labor movement in general, right? Unless they’re part of a union, part of a union family, unless they go out and seek that information. Because as much as it’s this crucial aspect of our lives, of our society, union density, only about, I think it’s down to 10% of workers are in a union in this country, down from much higher percentages in previous decades. So, already there’s fewer people that have real life experience with unions.

    And then, how many of them are reading history books, are looking into the political and cultural aspects of the movement? How many people are going to their middle school, or their high school, and learning about this history? Not that many. Even when I was getting interested in it as I was organizing with my first union, I come from a union family. I’m third generation. And even I, and I am a big history nerd, even I didn’t really know that much about it until I went looking for it. And then I kind of had to take what I could get, because I wasn’t approaching it in an academic sense. They’re obviously labor historians, and researchers, academics. That’s a whole different ball game. They know more than I ever will. But there’s only so many of them.

    All that to say, I feel like the labor movement is just not as well known in general. And then on top of that, the labor movement itself, especially when we’re talking about these bigger bureaucratic kind of entities like the AFL-CEO, and its predecessor, the AFL, sometimes they were perpetuating some of this exclusion, this oppression. I mean, for a very, very, very long time. Unions were segregated in this country. Black workers were not able to join unions. And there have been these threads of exclusion going back to the 1800s when the AFL supported the Chinese Exclusion Act, they intentionally decided they didn’t want to organize Latino workers. Women weren’t allowed to unionize for a very long time. There’s all these different aspects of the labor movement that are exclusionary. So that’s also kind of part of the stories that are told.

    So now when you see a politician going on, whatever, news, and saying, “Oh, the working class,” they mean a guy like my dad: a white guy with a beard and a hard hat, and bad political opinions. They don’t see someone like you or someone like me as part of the working class, as part of labor. Even though if you look at the actual data and the actual reality, the person who is most likely to be a union worker in this country is a black woman who works in healthcare or the service industry. That’s what the present of future looks like. And that’s what the past has looked like too.

    When I was writing the book, and even in just the other work I’ve done, I was always so interested in finding out those stories of the people that didn’t fit that stereotype, that easy stereotype, because that’s where the real stuff was happening. Back in 1866, I believe, when the Washerwomen of Jackson, one year after emancipation, a group of black washerwomen in the south, they organized the first labor organization in Mississippi. That is labor history, and that’s black history, and that’s women’s history. And that’s just one story. How many other stories are like that? I packed a bunch of them in the book, but there’s so many more out there. And if you want to understand labor in this country, you have to look below the surface, because otherwise you’re just not going to get the real story, and you’re going to not care as much about the people that have done all the work.

    Mansa Musa:

    How did you see that, the impact that had on the prison populations throughout the country? Because you cite some marquee cases. And I remember, we attempted Eddie Conway, we attempted to unionize in the Maryland system. And all this came from the attempts that was being made throughout the country.

    Kim Kelly:

    Yeah. As you know, California is kind of where it kicked off in Folsom with the PU, Prisoners Union. So obviously, prisons have been a site of rebellion, and resistance, and dissent organizing since people started being thrown into these places. But it was really in the 1970s when organizing just kicked off in a big way. Like I said, California, it kind of lit that spark with this push to unionize, to push for better working conditions and higher wages at all, right? But better wages as workers. And as you know, it spread throughout the country. And there was just this really dynamic and widespread effort, and an amount of interest around unionizing specifically. And there were in a variety of institutions across the country, incarcerated workers organized their own unions. And this was happening at the same time that a ton of people organized around black power, and brown power. Outside the walls, there was women’s lib; there were the first stirrings of the liberation movement; there was Vietnam, anti-war movement. There’s all these movements happening at the same time.

    And of course, people, even if they’re inside, they still know what’s happening outside. Just seeing the way that organizers connected those issues inside and outside, I mean, one of the most consequential rebellions in prison history, Attica, when I was researching this, I learned that the year prior to that rebellion, there had been a strike in the machine shop of that facility that was led by Jorge Nieves, who was a brown panther. And throughout that organizing, that organizing takes a while. A place doesn’t just erupt. Throughout the organizing those conversations about the way they’re treated, the working conditions that are happening in that machine shop, it seems pretty clear that, cause and effect, that first strike led to a much bigger rebellion. And that’s a little piece of the history that I think is lesser known, that a strike led to this kind of monumental event. And it just makes you wonder how many other labor-focused, work-focused bits of organizing, bits of rebellion, led to these bigger events.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. Rattling the Bars was intentional about showing the labor movement and its relationship to the prison industrial complex. But more importantly, we were intentional in bringing real life people into this space. People that are in this movement, people that are organizing, people that are moving around the country trying to abolish the prison industrial complex as we know it, by removing the 13th Amendment is one of the ways they’re trying to do it. But we’ve seen from these segments how labor, the prison industrial complex, prisoners has come together to eradicate the prison industrial complex and the 13th Amendment.

    We ask that you look at these segments and make your determination on how you think this reporting was, how important this information was, and more importantly, what views you had on expanding or offering your critique on what we can do to improve this reporting. We ask that you continue to support the real news in Rattling the Bars, because guess what? After all, we are the Real News.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • This story originally appeared in Mondoweiss on July 24, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    Israel is accelerating its efforts to cement its permanent control over the West Bank through a number of sweeping legal and institutional changes, according to a new report from Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.

    The 87-page report, Legal Structures of Distinction, Separation, and Territorial Domination, describes the ways in which the Netanyahu government is rapidly building on a long-standing legal matrix that further threatens Palestinians’ right to self-determination. 

    “These developments are not something new to us,” Dr. Suhad Bishara, Legal Director of Adalah and lead author of the report, told Mondoweiss. “All eyes are on Gaza, justifiably so,” she said. “However… it is important to highlight the intensity of the structural changes that have taken place since the current government took over in December 2022.”

    “What is happening in the West Bank is dangerously fast-forwarding annexation policies in a blatant violation of international law,” Bishara said. “Israel is intensifying measures to change the status of the West Bank, the status of many Palestinians living in Area C who are subject to intensified displacement induced by settler violence and Israeli policies.” She said, “This is in addition to settler expansion and further restrictions on Palestinian development in the area.”

    Thoroughly researched and footnoted, the report documents how the current extremist government has built on what Adalah describes as “foundational mechanisms through which Israel has entrenched a land regime that facilitates territorial domination and racial segregation.” 

    Area C comprises over 60 percent of the West Bank, and is under full Israeli military control. 

    Here are the mechanisms of territorial domination Adalah examines in these areas.

    Civilian governance for Israeli settlers; military rule over Palestinians

    Beginning in the late 1970s, Israel abandoned its security-based justifications for approving settlements and adopted a policy based on civil, not military grounds. The report describes how, soon after, the Civil Administration — the Israeli body governing the West Bank — was established to formalize the division between military and civilian affairs.

    As a result, “Israel has steadily transferred governance over Israeli settlers in the West Bank from military to civilian control, entrenching permanent territorial dominance and greatly expanding the settlement enterprise,” according to the report.

    Most recently, structural reforms — such as the appointment of Bezalel Smotrich to serve as both Finance Minister and a Minister in the Defense Ministry — have resulted in increasing legal authority for the pro-settler civil servants working with Smotrich in the West Bank. These reforms have cemented the two distinct legal structures that govern life in Palestinian villages and Israeli settlements: the former, in which the military rules, and the latter, administered according to Israeli law. 

    1. Administration by local authorities

    Adalah’s report dives into the weeds as it describes one of the more concerning mechanisms that reveals Israel’s intent to annex the whole of the West Bank. Having transitioned the settlements from military administration to civilian rule — and having handed over significant legal and administrative decision-making to pro-settler civil servants — Israel can argue that the settlements operate now under Israeli sovereignty. But applying Israeli law in occupied territory, Adalah maintains, is a violation of international human rights law and constitutes “a measure of de facto annexation.” 

    2. Financial incentives for settlements 

    Readers of the report won’t be surprised to learn that, as Adalah writes, “Israeli settlements receive extensive financial benefits through direct government subsidies, preferential policies, and financial incentives… [covering] multiple sectors, including land allocation, housing, infrastructure, and agriculture.” 

    Still, it is remarkable—as documented in the Adalah report—how in contravention of international law, Israel continues each year to pour billions of shekels into the development of settlements in the West Bank. Readers of the report will learn of “the legal mechanisms behind these incentives and how Israeli law facilitates their distribution.” 

    3. Declaring State land 

    According to Adalah, Israel’s designation of State Land in the West Bank is “the primary legal mechanism through which Israeli authorities have taken possession of Palestinian land since the late 1970s.” Those already familiar with Israel’s use of this means of de facto annexation will be surprised by the extraordinary amount of Palestinian land so designated. The report includes information obtained by Peace Now through a Freedom of Information Act request that shows a shocking fact: in under a one-year period, Israel has designated more Palestinian land as State Land than it had in an 18-year period.

    From 1998 to 2016, just over 21,000 dunams were declared as State Land. But in just over nine months (from the end of February 2024 through early December 2024), over 24,200 dunams were declared as State Land. This acceleration is historically unprecedented.

    The planning system in Area C

    Adalah includes an entire section on the legal and structural framework in place in Area C to further expand Israel’s settlement project, fulfilling one of the Netanyahu government’s guiding principles shared the day before his swearing-in as Prime Minister in December 2022: “The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel,” promising to expand settlements throughout “Judea and Samaria,” the Israeli term for the occupied West Bank. 

    Paralleling the judgments of the ICJ, UN experts, and international, Palestinian, and Israeli human rights groups, the report ends by listing the five international crimes that Adalah finds Israel guilt of: violations of International Humanitarian Law; the deepening of the illegal mechanism of de facto annexation; the denial of Palestinian people’s right to self-determination; the deepening of the apartheid system in the occupied Palestinian territory; and the commission of war crimes and crimes of aggression on the part of Israel.

    The most recent newsletter from Ir Amim, an Israeli NGO, describes Israel’s expanding control over illegally annexed East Jerusalem. Asked to comment, Tess Miller, Public Outreach staff at Ir Amim (“City of Nations” or “City of Peoples” in Hebrew) told Mondoweiss that “the mechanisms of displacement that we monitor and advocate against within Jerusalem are not separate from the mechanisms seen today in Gaza and the West Bank.”

    “What we are witnessing,” Miller said, “time after time, place after place, is violent control granted to those willing to advance the state’s agenda of expanding Jewish presence and diminishing Palestinian presence.” Ir Amim’s newsletter documents home demolitions, evictions, and starkly discriminatory housing and land confiscation policies.

    “Together,” Miller said, “they all contribute to the accelerating erasure of the Palestinian people from their own cities, neighborhoods, and lands — enabled by the complicity of an increasingly radicalized Israeli public and the international community’s persistent refusal to take meaningful action.”

    According to Adalah’s Dr. Bishara, it is hoped that the Adalah report, read by advocates for Palestinian rights, stakeholders, and states alike, “will generate international pressure against these long-term changes in the West Bank that violate international law and threaten the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on July 24, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    A Trump administration appointee has been going hard after demonstrators in Los Angeles who in recent weeks have been protesting against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations—but it seems like he’s having a hard time getting grand juries to go along.

    The Los Angeles Times reports that Bill Essayli, who was appointed by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi earlier this year to serve as the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, recently became “irate” and could be heard “screaming” at prosecutors in the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles when a grand jury declined to indict an anti-ICE protester who had been targeted for potential felony charges.

    And according to the LA Times’ reporting, this failure to secure an indictment against demonstrators was far from a one-off.

    “Although his office filed felony cases against at least 38 people for alleged misconduct that either took place during last month’s protests or near the sites of immigration raids, many have been dismissed or reduced to misdemeanor charges,” the paper writes. “In total, he has secured only seven indictments, which usually need to be obtained no later than 21 days after the filing of a criminal complaint. Three other cases have been resolved via plea deal.”

    It is incredibly rare for prosecutors to fail to secure indictments from grand juries, which only require a determination that there is “probable cause” to believe a suspect committed a crime and which do not hear arguments from opposing counsels during proceedings.

    Meghan Blanco, a former federal prosecutor and current defense attorney representing one of the anti-ICE protesters currently facing charges, told the LA Times that there’s a simple reason that grand juries aren’t pulling the trigger on indictments: Namely, prosecutors’ cases are full of holes.

    In one case, Blanco said she obtained video evidence that directly contradicted a sworn statement from a Border Patrol officer who alleged that her client had obstructed efforts to chase down a suspect who assaulted him. When she presented this video at her client’s first court hearing, charges against him were promptly dropped.

    “The agent lied and said he was in hot pursuit of a person who punched him,” Blanco explained. “The entirety of the affidavit is false.”

    One anonymous prosecutor who spoke with the LA Times similarly said that ICE agents have been losing credibility when their actions and statements are put under a legal microscope.

    “There are a lot of hotheaded [Customs and Border Protection] officers who are kind of arresting first and asking questions later,” they said. “We’re finding there’s not probable cause to support it.”

    Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, was floored by the failures to secure indictments against the anti-ICE demonstrators.

    “Incredible,” he wrote on social media website X. “Federal prosecutors are seeing many cases of people accused of assaulting Border Patrol agents being turned down by grand juries! Los Angeles federal prosecutors are privately saying it’s because CBP agents are just ‘arresting first and asking questions later.’”

    Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) similarly bashed prosecutors for using easily discredited statements from ICE officers to secure indictments.

    “I’m a former prosecutor and can confirm that any prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich,” he wrote. “Except the top prosecutor in L.A. Why? Because this article points out ICE AGENTS ARE MAKING SHIT UP. You want your agents respected? Tell them to stop lying.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • This story originally appeared in Truthout on July 17, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    The Trump administration is reportedly handing the personal information of all 79 million Medicaid enrollees to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), giving vast power to the rogue agency as it ravages communities across the U.S.

    The data includes names, addresses, ethnicity and race, birth dates, and Social Security numbers of Medicaid enrollees, per an agreement signed between Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Homeland Security. The agreement was reported by the Associated Press.

    The deal stipulates that ICE will not be able to download the data, and will only be allowed to access it between 9 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday, through September 9. However, the Trump administration has previously faced lawsuits from states over the sharing of Medicaid data with ICE, saying that the laws providing for the protection of such data are clear cut.

    The agreement says that the information sharing is meant to help ICE track down “the location of aliens” in the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin said that the agreement exists for the purpose of “exploring an initiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans.”

    Crucially, undocumented immigrants are not allowed to enroll in Medicaid, and other immigrants in the U.S. have to meet certain qualifications in order to be eligible. Conservatives have long made claims of widespread fraud within Medicaid and other welfare programs, but there is no evidence to back them up.

    Further, there is no reason to give ICE access to the data to investigate fraud, as there are already Medicaid fraud investigators in every state and territory tasked with doing just that.

    But, using fraud and unauthorized immigration as excuses, Trump administration officials have worked relentlessly to expand the police state — replacing public services meant to help working class Americans with law enforcement officers who enjoy anonymity and impunity.

    Republicans have used lies about fraud and immigration to help push their marquee budget bill, which will force millions of Americans off of Medicaid coverage when the bill’s cuts take effect in 2027. In other words, some Medicaid recipients may be targeted by the Trump administration as a result of the data-sharing agreement and later kicked off of their life-saving benefits anyway.

    At the same time, fear over being racially profiled or surveilled by the data-sharing agreement may prevent people from enrolling in Medicaid to begin with.

    By targeting Medicaid, the Trump administration is targeting some of the poorest Americans in the U.S. Medicaid provides health care coverage for households making around or under the poverty level, as well as people unable to work like those with certain disabilities.

    “It’s unthinkable that CMS would violate the trust of Medicaid enrollees in this way,” said Hannah Katch, a former CMS adviser, to the Associated Press.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on July 15, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    In yet another controversial move from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons recently told officers that immigrants who arrived in the United States illegally are no longer eligible for a bond hearing as they fight against deportation and should be detained “for the duration of their removal proceedings.”

    The Washington Post first revealed Lyons’ July 8 memo late Monday. He wrote that after the Trump administration “revisited its legal position on detention and release authorities,” and determined that such immigrants “may not be released from ICE custody.” He also said that rare exceptions should be made by officers, not judges.

    The reporting drew swift and intense condemnation online. One social media user said: “Unconstitutional. Unethical. Authoritarian.”

    In a statement shared with several news outlets, a spokesperson for ICE confirmed the new policy and said that “the recent guidance closes a loophole to our nation’s security based on an inaccurate interpretation of the statute.”

    “It is aligned with the nation’s long-standing immigration law,” the spokesperson said. “All aliens seeking to enter our country in an unlawful manner or for illicit purposes shall be treated equally under the law, while still receiving due process.”

    The move comes as President Donald Trump and leaders in his administration, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, attempt to deliver on his promised mass deportations—with federal agents targeting peaceful student activists, spraying children with tear gas, and detaining immigrants in inhumane conditions at the so-called “Alligator Alcatraz.”

    In a statement about the ICE memo, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that “President Trump and Secretary Noem are now enforcing this law as it was actually written to keep Americans safe.”

    “Politicians and activists can cry wolf all they want, but it won’t deter this administration from keeping these criminals and lawbreakers off American streets—and now, thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill, we will have plenty of bed space to do so,” she added, referring to $45 billion for ICE detention in Republicans’ recently signed package.

    According to the Post:

    Since the memos were issued last week, the American Immigration Lawyers Association said members had reported that immigrants were being denied bond hearings in more than a dozen immigration courts across the United States, including in New York, Virginia, Oregon, North Carolina, Ohio, and Georgia. The Department of Justice oversees the immigration courts.

    “This is their way of putting in place nationwide a method of detaining even more people,” said Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “It’s requiring the detention of far more people without any real review of their individual circumstances.”

    Rebekah Wolf of the American Immigration Council told NBC News that her group has also received reports of some immigration judges “accepting the argument” from ICE, “and because the memo isn’t public, we don’t even know what law the government is relying on to make the claim that everyone who has ever entered without inspection is subject to mandatory detention.”

    The Post reported that “the provision is based on a section of immigration law that says unauthorized immigrants ‘shall be detained’ after their arrest, but that has historically applied to those who recently crossed the border and not longtime residents.”

    The newspaper also noted that Lyons wrote the new guidance is expected to face legal challenges. Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda—like various other policies—has been forcefully challenged in court, and there has been an exodus from the Justice Department unit responsible for defending presidential actions.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • After being stopped for an alleged traffic infraction, 29-year-old Timothy Michael Randall was shot and killed less than a minute after stepping out of his car at the request of an officer. Cop watcher Otto the Watchdog arrived on the scene in Henderson, TX, to protest and was promptly arrested for disorderly conduct related to alleged profanity on his signage. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of the Police Accountability Report engage the officer’s credibility issues as a state trooper, the dismissal of his criminal charges for the death of Randall, and the potential loss of qualified immunity for the shooting.

    Credits:

    • Produced by: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
    • Written by: Stephen Janis
    • Studio Post-Production: Adam Coley
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Taya Graham:

    Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video of a deadly police shooting. It is a questionable use of force that raises multiple questions about if American law enforcement is properly trained and if they have knowledge of the law itself. But we’ll be discussing the aftermath of the shooting by showing you this video of what happened when a popular activist tried to protest against it and what happened when he did. Only makes my initial question more relevant and in need of an answer. That’s because after the body camera was released, a well-known cop watcher named Otto the Watchdog, decided to protest the killing and test if a few of those police officers actually knew the First Amendment at the same time.

    And what happened when he did so is something you’re going to want to see. But first, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter at tes Baltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. And please share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show off what a great community we have. And we do have a Patreon called Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do it. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

    Alright? Gotten all that out of the way. Now, one of the most important reasons we have to hold police accountable is because our government bestows upon them a unique and terrifying power. The legal authority to take a life. It’s an extraordinary exercise of state authority that should come with unique obligations for transparency and when warranted criminal liability when misused. But that’s not what happened in Henderson, Texas just two years ago, not hardly there in Henderson, a police killing occurred That was so terrifying and disturbing. We are going to break it down for you today. This troubling case started How many police killings begin with a routine traffic stop in this case in Henderson, Texas. There, Sergeant Sheen Iversson of the Russ County Sheriff’s Department alleges he saw Timothy Michael Randall, age 29 roll through a stop sign. That’s right. Failing to completely stop on a deserted road in the middle of the night. That was it. But even if that was true, what happened next is more than troubling because for this heinous crime, Sergeant Iverson not only pulls Timothy Michael over, but he immediately escalates. Take a look.

    Deputy Iversion:

    Good evening. How you doing, sir? Good. I’m Sergeant Iverson, the Russ County Sheriff’s Office. Yes sir. The reason I pulled you over is he blew that stop sign back there.

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    No, I didn’t. I came to a complete stop with that stop sign.

    Deputy Iversion:

    Alright.

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    I mean I did. I came to a stop.

    Deputy Iversion:

    No, you didn’t. What do you mean? I mean, what do you mean step out of the vehicle for me? Okay. I mean,

    Taya Graham:

    Now I just want to take a second to note how quickly the officer asked him to get out of the car if indeed this was a traffic violation when the officer first asked for his driver’s license or insurance. The only reason I can imagine is that this stop was purely pretextual, meaning it had nothing to do with the stated reason for stopping itself and overuse of law enforcement power that becomes obvious when the situation quickly unravels. Just watch.

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    Can you show me that I put step

    Deputy Iversion:

    Out of the

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    Okay. What? I’m just wondering.

    Deputy Iversion:

    Turn around. Put your hands right there real quick. You got anything on you? You should keep your hands out of your pocket. I

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    Wasn’t.

    Taya Graham:

    Now I am going to ask you to watch carefully here as I replay the video. Notice that the officer makes physical contact with Timothy thrusting his hand down into Timothy’s pockets and in the front of his pants. This is not a pat down. This is a physically obtrusive use of force. I say that because the officers essentially trapped him and in that sense arrested him almost within seconds of the stop. This is law enforcement overreach, but it gets worse. So much worse behind your back. I don’t have anything on me. Officer

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    Hand behind your back. Officer. I don’t have anything on me behind your back. Officer, why are you? Can you just tell me, officer, please, can you tell me what I’m under arrest for? Please, please,

    Taya Graham:

    Officer, please. So a man is driving home from work, not accused of any crime. Suddenly finds himself trapped in police restraint with the officer’s hands rummaging under his clothing. And like any normal human being, he pushes back not because he doesn’t want to comply, not because he hasn’t tried to comply, but because the officer’s actions are so aggressive and so invasive, he instinctively responds. In other words, all of this, every move up until now is caused by the officer and just watch what he did next. That’s right. In a horrifying move, the officer shoots him while he is running away after a stop for allegedly running a stop sign in under two minutes. Deadly forces used tragically Timothy Michael Randall died after collapsing about two blocks from the scene and the bullet slashed through his lungs and his heart. Now, as you can clearly see it on the video, Timothy is running away, but Sergeant Iversson told investigators he thought the victim was running towards him. I want you to watch the video closely to determine if that is true, because it is critical to what we will be discussing later. It’s also important to note that officers do not have the right to shoot someone who is simply running away to avoid arrest. They can only do so if they feel the suspect is an imminent threat to themselves or others. And it’s hard to conjure any sort of real threat from Timothy, a man simply driving home from work. Let’s watch a bit as the officer responds.

    Deputy Iversion:

    Dude, you Okay? Five 17 County, Hey, I need an ambulance. Call everybody. I’ve got a shooting.

    Taya Graham:

    But here’s where the story really becomes dicey and leads us to the next chapter of the saga that perhaps we’ll call the trials and tribulations of holding police accountable. That’s because after the case was brought to the grand jury, the judicial body which heard the case declined to indict Sergeant Iversson. Even with clear and compelling evidence on camera, there were no charges for what we just witnessed. And that’s when one of our favorite cop watchers sprang into action. His name is Otto, the Watchdog, and he is one of the most innovative and confounding YouTube activists we know. And like his fellow professional law enforcement documentaries, Otto finds creative ways to protest and hold police to account. In this case, he chose to give the officers in the same town where Timothy Randall was killed a bit of a law, review, a test while he protested the killing, and perhaps expressed his displeasure with a department that would kill an unarmed young man during a traffic stop.

    Or maybe there was more to it. Maybe he wanted everyone to know that a police department with the legal right to kill didn’t even understand the first Amendment, let alone when it is authorized to use deadly force. And to make that highly relevant point, Otto decides to stand on a public sidewalk with a series of signs that have a variety of intriguing messages. Some could be considered obscene, some are not. Some call out bad cops, some do not. Again, like I said, the perfect test for law enforcement’s understanding of the First Amendment and likewise, a more telling assessment if the officers from the department who killed Timothy understood the law at all. Just watch.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh yeah, they parked. Oh shit. Nope. Nope, I’m leaving. Why not?

    Police Officer:

    Because you got profanity on your sign.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Am I being detained right this second?

    Police Officer:

    Yes you are.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh boy. Okay. What do you want to do?

    Police Officer:

    Well, I’m just trying to figure out what’s going on. Why are you out here? Because you got that profane sign. We’ve had multiple calls.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh, I’m so sorry about that.

    Police Officer:

    You got your idea

    Taya Graham:

    That guy’s being disorderly. So just to be clear, it is not a crime to say an obscenity or hold a sign with an obscenity That has pretty much been case law since an appellate court ruled in 1971 that a man could not be charged with a crime for wearing a jacket that said, and I quote F the draft, but apparently the Henderson police are not aware of that law. Take a look. Okay.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well you’re being detained and you’re, am I under arrest?

    Police Officer:

    No, but you’re required to identify yourself.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Am I? Are you sure about that?

    Police Officer:

    Yes.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    It’s Texas penal code 38 0 2.

    Police Officer:

    The proclaimed language is cause disorder of the

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Conduct. Is it? Are you sure about that?

    Police Officer:

    Yeah. We’ve got multiple calls.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Are you a hundred percent sure about that? Yes sir. So I’m standing on the sidewalk, you know what I mean? So I’m standing on the sidewalk,

    Police Officer:

    Right? But

    Otto the Watchdog:

    When

    Police Officer:

    You’re

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Inside and breach of the

    Police Officer:

    Piece, you got multiple.

    Taya Graham:

    So the officer seems to double down on the premise that holding a sign that he or someone else finds offensive is a crime. Interesting. So governments get to editorialize on what we say and how we say it. That sounds rather authoritarian to me. But Otto lays an interesting trap for the officer and another cop who joins him. A clever on the spot. First amendment aptitude test that has some interesting results. Take a look.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Am I under arrest? Okay, well I under Texas penal code 38.02, I do not have to identify unless I’ve been lawfully arrested. Okay. That’s not how that works. That’s exactly how it works. I can give you

    Police Officer:

    The, you required, hey, look it up once you’re detained. Okay. Is

    Otto the Watchdog:

    That true?

    Police Officer:

    A video camera across the street?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh no,

    Police Officer:

    He couldn’t help.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh no, that’s terrible. Is that about me? What’d they say? Can I get back to what I was doing or am I still detained? No, you’re still detained. Can I hold my sign right here while you figure it

    Police Officer:

    Out? No, sir. Not the profane one.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Not the profane one. Is that a content view and viewpoint restriction that you’re issuing to me right now? What are talking about? I’m talking about what you’re doing to me. I want to stand over here and hold my sign without you standing here saying things You can’t. I can. Oh, yes I can. Oh, yes I can. Yes I can. As a matter of fact, do you like this one?

    Police Officer:

    I got my supervisor on the way.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Okay, good. Do you like this one? Can I hold this one? Okay, I can’t hold this one. You said I can’t, I’m not going to run or nothing. I’m just going to step over this metal thing so I don’t fall. Can I hold this one? Okay. How about this one? This one’s okay too? Yeah, this one’s fine. Okay, how about that one? Not this one. This is the one disorderly. Oh no, this sign is being disorderly. You can have it. You can arrest this sign. I didn’t mean to hit you. I’m sorry. Please don’t shoot me. Please don’t shoot me. How about this one? So which one of these are you? Are you this one put the signs? Well, I don’t want to put the signs down. So if I do that, it’s because you’re going to order me to do so, not because I really want to. Are you going to arrest me if I don’t put it down?

    Taya Graham:

    Okay. So if I were to interpret the law based upon the officer’s decision to become a free speech arbiter, the police accountability report would pretty much be shut down. I mean, it is really hard to understand how the cops are so unfamiliar with the law that they actually deem themselves legally empowered to tell us what we can and cannot say on a public sidewalk. I guess this is their stop the presses moment when we have to check in with the cops before we release our reports. And this particular cop not only seems comfortable with that state of affairs, but is joined by another impromptu speech arbiter. Just watch

    Otto the Watchdog:

    What if I sneak one of these other ones in here? I’ll do this one. I’ll do it like this. That way the sign can say whatever the people think it says, and then if they think it’s offensive, then that’s on them. Right? So I would definitely just me, honestly, me personally, I’d prefer to stand right here on this public sidewalk and do exactly what I’ve been doing. Okay. Without now two police officers showing up. I told you he was coming. Yeah.

    Police Officer:

    So we do have city ordinances

    Otto the Watchdog:

    As

    Police Officer:

    Well as state statutes.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Correct. Okay, fantastic.

    Police Officer:

    So as part of that,

    Otto the Watchdog:

    If you

    Police Officer:

    Are in violation of one, which we are investigating because we’ve received three complaints about your son.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Okay.

    Police Officer:

    Okay.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    This one?

    Police Officer:

    No, the other one, obviously the other one. The one with the propane

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Language? Yeah.

    Police Officer:

    Okay. Which is a violation of our city ordinance

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Where

    Police Officer:

    You are required to identify yourselves due to fact a criminal offense has occurred.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    A criminal offense. City ordinances are usually civil offenses where I could get a ticket or something. You

    Police Officer:

    Could, but you could also be arrested for violation of city

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Ordinances. Okay. So you might want to make sure that the city ordinance applies to a sidewalk.

    Police Officer:

    Okay.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Underneath an American, it’s not a public. You see that flag right there? Yeah, exactly. That’s why it’s a public place. I’m not arguing about where you can or, well, I don’t care what you think you’re doing, you are arguing.

    Taya Graham:

    And so rather than realizing their erroneous read on the law, the officers doubled down on Otto, both seem to embrace the idea that they can on the spot deem a sign. A sign no less illegal. And that seems to be the impetus behind this statement. Just listen,

    Police Officer:

    I don’t mind that you’re doing it. They don’t mind that you’re doing it. They just don’t want the profane

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Language. Oh, well

    Police Officer:

    That’s

    Otto the Watchdog:

    What

    Police Officer:

    It comes down to.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Tough titty. I’m sorry that they don’t like it. That’s on them. If they don’t like it, they can look away way. There’s a whole lot of things I don’t like.

    Police Officer:

    I understand that. But as for being civil,

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Yeah, I think so.

    Police Officer:

    Yeah.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I’m going to stand right here and continue to do exactly what I was doing.

    Police Officer:

    Okay. Do you mind identifying yourself?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Am I under arrest? Have I been arrested? Am I simply being detained for an investigation

    Police Officer:

    At this time? You are being detained for an investigation,

    Otto the Watchdog:

    But

    Police Officer:

    You could escalate to arrest.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well, when you guys decide to arrest me, I’ll tell you my name. But until then I would like to continue standing right here and doing exactly what I’ve been doing. If you don’t mind,

    Taya Graham:

    The officers seemed confused and they should be because Otto has led them into a quandary of their own making. In fact, they have literally revealed in front of not one, but two cameras, just how little they know about a basic constitutional right. But I think one of the most crucial moments of this entire encounter, the most important interaction towards understanding why this matters and why the work of cop watchers like Otto matters is what happens next. Just look,

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I told you, you said to wait until

    Police Officer:

    You’re

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Arrested. Yes. When you’re Yes, there’s a prerequisite there. That’s not a refusal. If you arrest me, I will follow the law and identify once I’ve been lawfully arrested Texas penal code 38 0 2 as dispatch to look it up. So once you’re detained, you’re required to id. Am I driving? It doesn’t matter. It does. What you’re referencing is traffic code.

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    I need that damn call. Thank

    Otto the Watchdog:

    You, sir. I appreciate that. How is that guy smarter than you? Are you big dummy? Jesus, this guy, this guy, this guy. You know how much this lady pays each year to have you guys here? $109. It looks like she can care less. That’s fine. I’m standing up for her rights too, because one day she might get a little bit pissed off and want to say something that somebody

    Taya Graham:

    Might find offensive and there you have it. One day she might want to exercise her rights one day she might be a victim of police overreach. One day she might want to protest. And as Otto encounter reveals, in order to preserve that, right, you have to be willing to stand up for it. And that’s what he’s doing and that’s why it matters. But I will have more to say about Otto’s work later because this is not the end of Otto’s push for justice for the family of Timothy Michael Randall. And for more than that, we will be joined by the man himself who will tell us what happened and why he continues to hold cops accountable in such demonstrably revealing and unique ways. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Steven Janice, who’s been researching the law and reaching out to police. Steven, thank you so much for joining me,

    Stephen Janis:

    Dave. Thanks Harvey. I appreciate it.

    Taya Graham:

    So first, Steven, what does the law say about profane signs or the use of expletives in general? I mean, how deep is the case law?

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, the case law goes back for decades. There’s really no government agency, no official in any capacity who can tell you what to say or how you can use the First Amendment. Absolutely nothing that supports it goes all the way back to the seventies when a veteran was wearing a jacket that said, fuck the draft. And the court ruled that that was okay, that it wasn’t up to the government to tell you what or what not to say. So clearly there is no law or no legal basis to tell Otto what to say or what sign he can hold.

    Taya Graham:

    So you’ve reached out to the Henderson, Texas police. What are they saying about Otto’s protest and how their officers responded?

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, I reached out to ’em. I’ve not heard back. I think the department is pretty sensitive right now because of the pending lawsuit. And in those kind of cases, departments don’t comment. I think in Otto’s case, because he was not arrested, they really don’t have much comment. So really nothing said right now, but they’re under a lot of scrutiny and I think Otto is really testing the department and maybe they’re having First Amendment training right now because of it.

    Taya Graham:

    So back to the police involved shooting, is Timothy Randall’s family planning to sue or take some other action against the department or the officer? Have they even received an apology from the department?

    Stephen Janis:

    I’ll tell you, this is really interesting. The family did indeed sue in federal court. And what came up was, again, qualified immunity, which we know police use to shield themselves from liability and lawsuits. But of course, qualified immunity means that the right has not been established in that district. In other words, the right not to be shot when you’ve done nothing wrong and you’re unarmed has not been firmly established. Well, the judge said that is just not the case in this case. And in fact, the judge said the fact that he didn’t really give him warning where he just shot him almost immediately disqualify any right of the officer to be shielded from liability in this suit. So this suit is moving forward and we will update you when we hear more, but really this officer will probably have to pay in court for what he has done

    Taya Graham:

    And now to break down his efforts to push back against police violence with his own unique form of activism. We are joined by Otto the Watchdog. Otto, thank you so much for joining us.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh, yes ma’am. Taya, it’s always a pleasure to be here. Thank you.

    Taya Graham:

    So you recently decided to go back out onto the street and protest. Tell us why you made that choice. Was there an incident that made you say to yourself, I have to get back out there and protest?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    What made me decide to go back out and protest was that people never stopped sending me their stories. So people kept reaching out to me and telling me what happened to ’em. And sometimes they were just so egregious that I wanted to go out, but things were going, were not situated in my life well enough to be able to do that. So I situated things in my life so that I could go back out and do that. And now I am. And now I’m here.

    Taya Graham:

    Otto, you sent me this body camera video, which honestly really upset me. Can you describe what happened in that encounter with the young man and the police? What are we seeing in the body camera footage? I mean this traffic stop led to his death in just under two minutes.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Yeah, so you’re talking about the Michael Randall story. He was a young man that lived in Rains County and he was coming home at the end of the day and a police officer claimed that he ran a red light or well, it was a stop sign with a blinking red light. And then he was pulled over and ordered out of the car and then shot almost immediately. And that story touches me because it was completely unnecessary. It was a minor traffic violation if the allegations were true. And there there’s some legitimate questions on whether or not the young man actually did run the red light to begin with. And then everything that happened after the vehicle stopped is very telling in my opinion, because the officer walks up and puts his fingerprints on the license plate, which or on the brake light, which we’ve seen a lot. And it’s like they do that so that if they happen to not survive the encounter, if the vehicle’s found again, they can prove that it was that vehicle which gives them the mindset going in that something bad is about to happen. And in this case, I think that he invented a reason to do so.

    Taya Graham:

    Now, Otta, we watched a horrible death on camera. What happened to the officer involved in this case?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh, so Officer Iversson quickly resigned right after the incident with Michael Randall. And so he was charged, which is kind of amazing given the circumstances that he was charged. But when those charges went to the grand jury, they no billed him. So he will never go through the process of court, which for so many Americans is a punishment in and of itself. And in my opinion that is a miscarriage because at least, at the very least we should have that due process. He should have to go through the process just like anybody else. And for it to be no build. I mean the rest of the community is outraged, is absolutely outraged. Local citizens are outraged as well as people around the country because we all see ourselves. And Michael Randall, he was just going home one day and he got pulled over and things escalated very quickly.

    Very quickly, an officer immediately tells you to get out of the car and then you comply. And the first thing he does is put his hands down your pants up to his elbow. That would be offensive for anybody. And then he got thrown to the ground, not once, but twice. And just because Michael Randall happened to be in better physical shape than Officer Iversson does not mean that you get to shoot him dead. And Iversson said that he was reacting because of his experiences in the military where he was an active duty combat veteran. But I’ve spoken to his service buddies and they say that he never fired a shot and that he was never in combat. So he may have been combat adjacent, but that does not make you a combat veteran suffering from PTSD. So this whole story to me shines a light on a whole bunch of different issues and the police officer and his behavior is just one minor facet of what’s going on here.

    Taya Graham:

    Now you had an encounter with police that went viral. You were holding a series of signs with a variety of messages. Can you explain why you did this and why you chose the signs you did?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I do have a variety of signs. I have a ton of signs and some of them are more intriguing than others, but most of them don’t get any attention whatsoever. There’s only a certain very few signs that get posted on Facebook. For some reason I don’t really quite fully understand why. Actually, I do understand fully why, because it is surprising and shocking and because it gets posted on Facebook, people want to know what is wrong, what is this guy doing? What would cause somebody to do that? Can he do that? There’s a lot of questions that come up with that. And I can’t put all of these things on a sign. And when I ask the citizens what their problems are, they always say the same things. It’s the roads, our justice system, our local justice system, not some abstract thing that we can’t identify exactly. We’re talking about the local courts are screwed up, our local cops are screwed up. And then they’ll tell me, well, this is the most corrupt town. This is the most corrupt city in the state, and it might be in the country. Well, that can’t possibly be true because every single town that I cover, the citizens there say the exact same thing.

    This just happened to be in one small town in Texas, but this is every town that I’ve been to. So it makes me feel like it is the ones that I haven’t been to also, I just don’t know about that yet. So I go out there to protest Michael Randall. What am I supposed to put on that sign that draws that attention? Well, I mean, I know what I would put on that sign, but if you don’t, I have a sign for you too. If you don’t know what to put on your sign, you can put whatever you want to on this one right here and that’s fine with me.

    Taya Graham:

    Do you know why the police in this situation decided to approach you?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I mean, the police say that they were called. I have no doubt that that is true. I don’t know who called or why I could get that information if I really wanted to, but it’s not super important to me why I was approached. I really don’t know why I was approached. Do you’d think that somebody would’ve heard the call go out over the radio and advised someone that nothing was actually going on there and they had plenty of time before they showed up that they could have called somebody, but that, I mean, clearly it’s because the first officer that showed up didn’t know. And then obviously the second officer that showed up didn’t know. And apparently, and I’m just assuming here, that none of the officers listening in on the radio knew so and the dispatcher didn’t know and nobody in that office knew. So I’m guessing it’s because they thought that they could take somebody to jail. I only assumed that they thought something terrible was going on some sort of a major crime and they came out there to stop me and that didn’t work out so well.

    Taya Graham:

    So what crime did they accuse you of and did they ever formally say you were detained?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well, they alleged several crimes and they always do. Once you shoot down one, there’s always another one. And then when it gets past crimes, now it’s in ordinances. And then once you spill all those, it turns into public decency or something like that. Why don’t you be civil about it or whatever. So the officers initially said that they were called out there because of the profane language on the sign, which is exactly, I’m sure that’s exactly what the caller said, that he’s out here holding profane language, which I mean to in the common tongue that would be accurate. But legally speaking and a police officer should know that my signs are not profane. They’re merely vulgar. They’re also not obscene because these words have very different meanings in the common language than the legal ease of things.

    That’s the crux of it. Then it was failure. I have to ID and then it’s failure to id. I don’t think they tried to. Oh, and then I think it was blocking the sidewalk or something like that. I hope you understand. I have these interactions quite often and not always with police. So sometimes I get these things mixed up a little bit, but that’s generally the way it goes. And again, once you dispel all of their initial concerns, they just make up another one. So I do the best I can. I don’t want to talk to ’em. I really don’t. My whole purpose is not to talk to them. I’m here to talk to the citizens and I’m just shaking a tree for information because when somebody sees a guy out there who’s mad or madder than they are at the same things that they’re mad about, oh man, I got to talk to that guy. They will bust a U-turn. They will look me up, they will send me an email. And I appreciate every one of you. I read your comments, I read your emails. I respond to as absolute many of them as I can. And if I can’t help you, I try to find somebody that can. I’m just one guy. Well, I do have a team now, but we can’t do it.

    Nobody, I don’t think that there’s enough reporters on earth that can cover the amount of corruption that’s going on. Just, I mean, pick a spot. Just pick a spot. If we were to tell every story, there would be nothing else ever talked about. So we do have to find the most compelling stories for the widest possible audience. And I think Michael Randall’s a good story because everybody can identify with just trying to get home at the end of the day, maybe he oozed through the red light and the blinking stop sign. Okay, it’s just a blinking stop sign in a podunk town with basically no one in it. So maybe he did blow past the stop sign. I don’t think he did. I don’t think he did. But I’ve grown up in the country my entire life and there’s just some places where you don’t stop for that stop sign.

    Nobody stops for that stop sign because there’s only three cars that come by there in a seven day period and you just happen to be the one of ’em if you meet another car at the stop sign, sometimes we stop, but everybody just knows. And that’s what we do out here. So because that becomes a pattern and practice for the citizens, the police start knowing that because sometimes they live here and then they set up a trap to catch you. The same thing that they do when you’re traveling across and you come up to a small town, you better slow down. You can bet your ass that there’s a cop sitting there ready and waiting and just itching at the bit to write you a ticket for going five miles over their tiny little town. Why? Because you’re leaving and you’re never coming back. You’re never coming back. So you’re just going to pay that ticket because they scare the hell out of you. They’ll send you notices and they start out just a plain piece of paper, oh hey, just want to let know you got a ticket. You should take care of that. And then it’ll be a different color. It’ll be yellow, right? And then it’s yellow with red letters saying You got a warrant. They scare the hell out of you until you pay it.

    Taya Graham:

    Okay. So there was this brilliant moment when you asked the police if one sign was acceptable and if the others were not and he fell for it first. What did he get wrong with their choices and why did you ask him to be judge and jury on the sidewalk for your signs?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh yeah. So I carry a couple different signs and I do that because as the series goes, I’ll show the back the blue sign and then no matter what the person who sees it reaction is, whether it’s this or they just ignore it, then I’ll whip out the other one and then they read that one. And then it’s usually either a laugh or absolute disdain. And either one is acceptable is an acceptable reaction to me. And I do that because if you’re going to back the blue, then we have to get rid of the bad ones. But I wrote the bad one, very small because it’s supposed to be only just a few of them. And it is fun. It’s funny, objectively in my opinion, it’s funny. And I asked him which one he liked because that’s exactly what my attorney asked the other officers in their depositions.

    So I didn’t come up with that. My attorney did, and he’s a smart man. So I thought that it was a good idea to continue doing that. And this officer had no idea. He had no idea what was going on there, which is a problem because when the government is very restricted on how they can limit speech and a content and viewpoint restriction is the most obvious thing that they’re not allowed to do. That’s like the first thing that they should know about the First Amendment. The very first lesson should be content and viewpoint restriction issued by the government. And he had no idea. He didn’t even understand the phrase. So either he had never heard it or he hadn’t heard it enough to know what I was talking about. And then of course they do like the back, the blue sign, but they don’t like that.

    I disagree with you signs. They don’t like those. And that’s exactly what he said. And that just adds clarity to the fact because when you get into court, it’s very difficult to prove what was in somebody’s mind unless you get them to express what was in their mind. So if the whole point of them coming out there is because of an actual disorderly conduct, which is very specific behavior, incitement of violence causing alarm, intentional infliction of terror, that kind of thing, then you have to get them to say so. And that just happened to be what that particular officer did that day.

    Taya Graham:

    What do you think their actions say about law enforcement’s concept and understanding of the First Amendment?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well, those officers showed that they clearly do not understand the First Amendment. And for some reason they believe that because somebody called then they have to do something. And by doing something, that means that I have to do something, whether it is stop using those particular signs or I need to leave or I need to go to jail or I deserve a citation of some kind, it falls upon me. And if I don’t know the law, I go to jail. Okay, alright, let’s get that right. And if they don’t know the law, the officers that show up don’t know the law, I also go to jail. Okay, so I’m the only one here that has anything to risk by this. They’re protected by qualified immunity unless they somehow trip themselves up by answering questions that they shouldn’t have been answering.

    Even a dumb attorney, even a dumb attorney will tell you, don’t talk to the police. Okay, well, when an officer shows up and he sees me, I’m miked up with a body cam. I got freaking five microphones and I’m holding signs expressly devoted to him. Well, maybe not him specifically, but somebody that dresses exactly like him. And you think that, I mean, what did he expect? What do they expect when they show up? Do they think that I’m just going to apologize for hurting? I mean, I guess I’m hurting their feelings, but what am I supposed to do there? What do they expect me to do? I guess that they’ve gotten so used to people just folding and leaving that the moment somebody puts up the slightest bit of resistance, well now I need backup. And they do need backup. They need a lot of backup.

    I can’t believe that they only show up at two officers. They should wheel out the Texas State penal code, which would take multiple dollies. So as a common citizen, I should not have to have a law degree to stand out there and express my displeasure with the government. I should be able to be a lowly common peasant with no education, and my sign could be misspelled, and that should be fine too. And I should be able to protest something that nobody else cares about, nobody else cares about, and I should not, no one should be fearful that they’re going to be taken away and not be able to go home to their families that night for expressing an opinion. And the place in which I was doing so on a public sidewalk underneath an American flag in front of a clock, it’s just the most iconic possible place in my opinion, that I could have protest. I was going to go down the street to the courthouse, but it wasn’t near as majestic as the place where I chose. So I have no idea what they were expecting when they showed up. But what they got is a face full of watchdog.

    Taya Graham:

    Now, they did not arrest you, but they also became aware of your cameras. How were they tipped off and do you think your cameras prevented your arrest?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    So these officers did become aware of my cameras because somebody called dispatch and told them that I had been setting up cameras before they showed up. And it would be very difficult for me to set up my camera equipment without being noticed, especially on a very busy corner. And the equipment that I currently use while I was setting up my first camera, people were asking me if I was with the news because I’ll use professional equipment. So it was already kind of rumoring around the local area that something was going on and then something went on and then they called. So it would be very difficult to not notice me setting up for one of these protests. Obviously I use multiple cameras up, body cammed up. I’m hard to miss what I mean I’m, it’s very hard to miss me. So obviously somebody saw me, this is a busy area in the neighborhood, and somebody saw me and just wanted to let the police know that they were being filmed, why that was an important thing for dispatch to let the police officers know.

    I’m not entirely sure. I mean we can make our own conclusions upon that, but if the police officer’s being recorded or recording me, what are they so concerned about? I guess it would be important information. I mean, I guess I understand why they told them because that does kind of add a level of complexity to the whole situation, doesn’t it? It’s not just a guy out there holding a sign, it’s also a guy holding a sign with a bunch of cameras. That’s funny. Anyway, and do I think that the cameras prevented my arrest? No. No. I absolutely do not think that it prevented my arrest. I think that the verbal judo prevented my arrest. I talked those officers out of taking me to jail. I talked them out of violating my rights and forcing me to id. So the standard is not going to jail. Your rights are not violated just because somebody took you to jail unlawfully. Your rights are violated when you are unlawfully stopped. And any reasonable officer in their positions should know that I was engaged in a first member protected activity on a public sidewalk. I was not inciting violence. I was not causing fear or alarm. So there was nothing for them to do.

    Taya Graham:

    Otto, what do you think finally prompted the officers to give up? I mean, why did they finally leave you alone?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    So one of the officers wisely decided that he was going to make a phone call after he informed me of a city ordinance. And I asked him if that applied to a sidewalk, which one? I know that there is no ordinance because such an ordinance would be unconstitutional. Two, if it did apply to a sidewalk, then that would also be another added level of complexity to the lawsuit at the end of it. So if they did take all that was just in case they made a bad decision that day, all those questions and all that was just in case they made a bad decision, which should have been a fricking clue. They should have been a clue to these officers that something was going on and wisely. The second officer that showed up decided that he was going to call somebody, and whoever was on the other end of that phone was obviously better educated than he was. And I’m certain that they told them that there was nothing that they could do and to disengage, which they did. Thankfully, very thankfully, I do not want to go to jail even for a moment.

    Taya Graham:

    So based on this encounter, do you think police are worse or better at understanding the Constitution than they were when you first began your activism over 10 years ago?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    So I’ve been an activist for 10 years officially, and probably longer than that unofficially. And in that time I’ve noticed that police officers understanding of some constitutional rights have improved. For example, we don’t see anybody, very rarely do we have anybody arrested for merely filming in public like police departments or even anywhere in public, from public publicly accessible spaces. But we do still have people being Now the big thing is arrested for walking the wrong direction to traffic. So if you’re walking the wrong direction on traffic, you’ll be arrested for that. Is that a constitutional violation in and of itself? No, but the purpose behind that arrest is a constitutional violation, which is something that we’re going to have to work out in the courts somehow because if the courts don’t say that they can’t do that, then they’re going to continue to do so.

    So I guess in that part, it’s a necessary evil. I think that police officers in general are being better trained on constitutional rights, but it’s such a complicated issue from their perspective that it’s going to take decades of dedicated study for these guys to have a proper understanding of it. I’ve studied a very niche corner of constitutional law, first Amendment, basically First amendment with that 38 failure to identify disorderly conduct and those things. And I don’t know everything about that. And I’ve been studying that hardcore for over a decade. So I can’t imagine what it would be like if every day I was faced with the opportunity to violate somebody’s rights. And I genuinely care about not violating other people’s rights. And I am certain that I would do so on accident if my job was literally to try and circumvent people’s rights to get them in trouble for things.

    Taya Graham:

    I know you have risked a lot and endured personal sacrifice and hardship to protest the police and advocate for the First Amendment. I mean, you were jailed, you went through intense court proceedings and intimidation, and you were even separated from your children for a period of time. You’ve sacrificed a lot and you’ve had friends and other activists who have endured a great deal of hardship. Do you have any fear of going out and protesting again? And is it worth it? Is it worth the risk because you know the price it can be paid. Why are you doing it again?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well, that’s a heavy question. So I certainly have endured a lot. I personally have been through a lot. I’ve been through a lot adjacent, meaning that a lot of the people around me have been through a lot and are going through a lot as a direct result of what we do. We’re not just reporters, we’re also activists, which is a very dangerous line. It just being an activist on its own is dangerous. And then reporting on some of the things that we report on and the people that we report on is dangerous sometimes, especially when they’re known for making threats of violence. And some of these cases, that’s exactly what they’re being accused of. Is it worth it? I guess time will tell. I certainly hope that all these sacrifices and pain and suffering wasn’t for naugh. I can only hope. But what I know for certain is that the alternative is worse than doing nothing.

    If we continue to let this happen, somebody has to do something and I wish that it would be somebody else, but I’m the one that, I’m one of the ones that has been tasked with this and I don’t really have a choice in it at this point. So I’m going to have to continue doing what I’m doing. And it’s not because I do enjoy, I love protesting. I think it’s fun. And I think if you don’t enjoy it, then you couldn’t do it at least as frequently as I do because it is scary. And I’m terrified every single time, every time I see a cop go by, you don’t know if the guy inside that car is going to think it’s funny or if he’s going to hate it. Just like you don’t know if the guy that pulled you over is having a fantastic day or if he’s maybe not.

    And then they might take it out on you and they might take it out on me. And if somebody calls and they’re sufficiently upset, then they might also take it out on me. They might take somebody else’s frustration out on me. They could just have a complete misunderstanding of the law. And nothing that I say or do convinces them that they should call somebody and then here we go again. And I don’t want that. I sincerely do not want to go to jail or getting in any kind of trouble. And I shouldn’t. I shouldn’t, but I don’t do this because I enjoy it. I enjoy it, so I do it, but I don’t do it for those reasons. I do it because at the end of a protest, mothers and fathers email me and message me and contact me and thank me for what I’m doing.

    And other citizens in the town email me and message me and let me know that they’re also going through a very similar situation and they tell me what else has been going on that I’ve never heard about and nobody will ever hear about because nobody ever said anything. And that’s exactly what I want to do. I want to go out there and fight and shout for the little old lady who owns the barbershop or the ice cream parlor or the coffee house who has to make a living in these towns. And they’re not going to go out there and hold these signs or any signs because their livelihood is inextricably based on the community around them. And any perceived, even if it’s Ill-gotten any perceived slight, could be devastating to a business in one of these small towns where they might have 1500 or 15,000 people that can be rough. So they don’t want to say anything. And then you get the judges and the cops not liking you, and you have to drive through this town every day with the heightened risk of being pulled over and harassed and ticketed into oblivion. So they’re not going to say anything either. So that’s why I do it for them.

    Taya Graham:

    Okay, there is a lot to unpack here, and I want to make sure I talk about what we’ve just seen in a matter that is insightful, compassionate, and hopefully adequate to the task at hand. What I mean is ultimately this entire story is not just about one man’s life, but how his death affects all of us. It’s about a country where a traffic ticket can be a death sentence. An ordinary and routine disagreement over a stop sign can turn into a profound and life-altering event that consumes all of us. And what’s most important to realize about this is that we have in part accepted it as normal order of things. In other words, police violence has become so routine that a man dying during a traffic stop, a man who was provably unarmed, doesn’t really seem as disturbing as it actually is. Now, there’s an idea that some used to explain this phenomena, an idea that highlights how an uncommon event can seem common depending on the way it’s portrayed and how often we encounter it.

    Some people describe this as a process of normalization, meaning we become accustomed to police violence because we see it so often. In other words, there’s nothing unusual about dying during a traffic stop because it happens all too often. And it is in some case, understandable. As the guardian reported in 2023, since 2017, 800 people have died during routine traffic stops by police. Now, that’s an appalling number of deaths when you consider that police are generally only authorized to use deadly force in response to deadly violence from a suspect. But I have a different idea of why the death of a young man perhaps goes without much pushback except for activists like Otto, perhaps a more illuminating way of comprehending why police killing seem so unexceptional and almost inevitable to understand this idea, let’s turn around what we just witnessed and consider another aspect of what it means if we are indeed willing to accept it.

    Throughout the roughly two minute video depicting the killing, there is one aspect of it that predominates that is the unremarkable and unquestionable exercise of police power. And by extension state power, I mean the officer doesn’t hesitate to begin giving orders. When Timothy exited the vehicle, he was almost instantly manhandled without any obvious recognition of his rights. It’s like from the second the officer engages him, he controls him. And so when he is shot running away, it is like the state has extended its authority to the even most human form of dissent, protecting one’s body and one’s life. But like I said, I think there’s a reason for this, something beyond the confines of a traffic stop that pretends a more disquieting aspect of American policing that we rarely dissect, namely its role in projecting state power and quashing dissent. So what I mean is that the officer’s action and lack of legal pushback amount to a stunning and symbolic display of government power.

    And when that dark theater of power is performed over and over again, the message is both appalling and subliminal. Do not resist, do not dissent because the government has both political and legal authority to take your life. Do not push back or run away obey at all times. Now, I know this might seem like a bit much like what does police authority have to do with state power? How can a car stop over traffic violation have anything to do with the expansive powers of government? And most importantly, how can a police killing be related to the way power is exercised in other facets of our lives? Well, please let me explain. There are obvious symbols of state power like a flag or a monument or a seal that are fairly common and seem unexceptional. These are static portrayals of state authority intended to create a sense of the ubiquity of government as if it were everywhere all at once.

    But there are also more active demonstrations like a military parade or a televised session of Congress or even the simple presence of police on patrol. But what we saw in that video and the way police push back on Otto is a different way to project power. It is inherently active and it is inherently more potent and disturbing. What it does beyond causing the unnecessary and unjust death of a young man is show that the process of state power is as extreme as it is routine. It reveals, and most importantly projects that we are subject to extraordinary force and provocation in the most ordinary circumstances. That if we at any moment, if at any moment we dissent or refuse a lawful order or otherwise do not comply with the power of the state, then needless to say, the state can act without limit to ensure we obey.

    And that’s the point. Unfortunately, that’s why a routine car stop turns into a deadly tragedy. Why police officer can escalate an encounter from a traffic infraction to a death sentence in a split second. And why even with a video revealing how unnecessary Timothy Michael Randall’s death was, a grand jury decides not to indict, I simply don’t understand how anyone could watch that video and hear his last words, officer please and not feel compassion and want his family to have justice. But as much as we protest and push back and recoil from the use of force like we just witnessed, we are also inured to it. Remember, American police kill 1000 people a year. Not all are unjustified and not all are avoidable, but many are like Timothy Randall’s, which are stunningly excessive. But we watch and I think we’re supposed to learn, I think we’re supposed to be indoctrinated.

    We’re supposed to internalize the idea that what the officer did was legal. We are expected to absorb the fact that a formal process was followed and then unbiased legal system came to an objective conclusion that fatal force was necessary. This is what I mean by projection of power. And these are the consequences of its symbolic strength, which means what we all need to do is what Otto did, reverse the symbolism and take back the power and put it where it belongs in the hands of the people. I mean, that’s why YouTube activists are actually so powerful. They challenge not just a narrative but the symbolism of power. In videos like Ottos, we see police put on the spot, not just us. We see a digital expose of the inner workings of state power, and in Otto’s case, the absurdity and the extremes that Ibu Street cops with the supposed ability to judge whether your First Amendment rights can be exercised.

    That’s why cop watches armed with cell phones and cameras are actually so important. Why subjecting police to on the spot? Accountability is so essential to preserving our rights because without their perspective, without their ability to convince truisms about police power, we would have the symbolism of police power that is absolute without their constant presence and their commitment to the constitutional rights of everyone. What other narrative would we have that tells us their use of power is not always justified? What other symbolic reveal what exists from the perspective of the people, not just law enforcement? This is a critical idea to understand that the symbols of the state power and dominance are often crafted to deceive us and make us compliant to rhetoric that argues against our own best interests. Just look how mainstream media continue to show the same images of unrest and pepper spray and the same darn car burning while people protested peacefully against federal power, noticed how the CNN anchors showed up wearing goggles and helmets while a little more than four blocks, four blocks in a city of 500 square miles was engulfed in what could be described as a low intensity standoff with our soldiers.

    It is symbolic state power at its best images to justify using the military against its own people were conjured and cooked up by network, staffed with multimillionaire anchors, the forward guard of inequality, stoking passions with exaggerated reporting so the armed forces of the United States of America could be manipulated into going to war against own people. That is not a democracy. We are a democracy. We the people who stand up for each other and the people who stand up to power, the people who refuse to relinquish their rights no matter who is trying to persuade us that we should. I would like to thank Otto the watchdog for speaking with us, sharing his video and standing up for the First Amendment and for Timothy Michael Randall. Thank you Otto. And of course, I have to thank Intrepid reporter Steven Janis for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you Steven

    Stephen Janis:

    Te thanks for me. I really appreciate it.

    Taya Graham:

    And I want to thank mods of show Noli D and Lacey R for their support. Thanks Noli D and a very special thanks to our accountability reports, Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally. In our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny, David, k Louis P, Lucita, Garcia, and Super friends, Shane b Kenneth K, pineapple Gold Matter of Rights, and Chris r. And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate. Please reach out. You can email us tips privately@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on X. And of course, you can always message me directly at tia’s Baltimore on X or Facebook. And please like and comment, I really do read your comments and appreciate them and I think we have a fundraiser link on the screen somewhere below. And we also have a Patreon link pinned in the comments. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham, and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Labor Notes logo

    This story originally appeared in Labor Notes on July 08, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    It was the morning of June 9, and Genie Kastrup, president of Service Employees Local 1, stood in front of Chicago’s Daley Plaza and bellowed into a microphone. “What is happening right now is about silencing voices,” she said, flanked by members of her union holding signs that read “Free David Huerta.”

    “It’s about dividing working people,” she continued. “It’s about dividing our communities against the have and have nots. It is abusing power.”

    The demonstration was one of 37 taking place that day across the country to protest the June 6 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) assault and detention of Huerta, the president of SEIU California and SEIU-United Service Workers West. Huerta had shown up to defend members of his Los Angeles community from federal raids. Images of the long-time labor leader with his head pressed to a curb by ICE agents touched off anger—and mobilization. Huerta was released after three days and hit with charges of felony conspiracy.

    Facing an emboldened Trump administration, union members across the country are in an intensifying battle to keep their members—and all workers, whether or not they are in unions—free and safe from federal immigration authorities. They are holding emergency rallies, organizing in their workplaces, knocking doors in their communities, using contracts to defend members, and building coalitions that can respond rapidly to detentions and raids.

    While unions cannot guarantee workers’ safety, many are mobilizing to protect them against an administration that is increasingly targeting workplaces and labor leaders themselves.

    “We’re on the line, we’re targets,” Minnesota AFL-CIO President Bernie Burnham said about labor leaders and organizers. It was June 9, and she was addressing a rally on the steps of the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul. “They’ll come after anybody if you disagree with them. I think it’s just a matter of time. Watch where you’re at. You’re stronger in numbers than you are on your own.”

    David Huerta is not the only unionist who has been targeted by ICE. At least three other people affiliated with SEIU were also recently detained, though have since been freed: Lewelyn Dixon, a member of SEIU 925; Rümeysa Öztürk, a member of SEIU Local 509; and Cliona Ward, a member of SEIU 2015. Alfredo “Lelo” Juarez Zeferino, a farmworker and leader in the militant union Familias Unidas por la Justicia, is still in detention, as is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a member of SMART Local 100, and Maximo Londonio, a member of Machinists (IAM) Local Lodge 695.

    The vast majority of workers targeted by ICE have no union. They are day laborers, textile workers, and caregivers, or work in other parts of the informal economy.

    But some unions are mobilizing to defend not only their own members, but non-union workers and communities that are under attack. SEIU, for example, is calling for an end to “the brutal ICE raids terrorizing our neighborhoods and tearing families apart.” This points to the underlying reality: Whether the Trump administration is targeting labor leaders or workers who are perceived to be powerless and unable to fight back, their attacks intimidate workers and undermine their fights for better wages and conditions.

    At events across the country, union leaders and members have emphasized that detaining workers—whether or not they are union members—is unjust. But the Trump administration’s targeting of organized labor might reveal something about how it is trying to consolidate power.

    “It’s not a surprise to me that a fascist government starts their crackdown by going after labor first, undocumented workers, and going into work sites,” Sheigh Freeberg, secretary-treasurer of UNITE HERE 17 told the crowd in St. Paul. Freeberg’s union represents hospitality and food service workers in Minnesota. “They know the real power in this country is labor, and they’re afraid of us.”

    ‘KIDNAPPED OFF THE STREET’

    On June 30, SEIU members and Starbucks baristas gathered from across the country to protest outside of the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center. “We cannot wait for things to be happening to us to start fighting, because when we wait for that level, then we’re left with no one to fight with,” said Siti Pulcheon, a barista and shift supervisor who attended the demonstration.

    In response to immigration raids across the country, Starbucks Workers United recently offered a Know Your Rights training open to all Starbucks baristas. “A lot of really important questions were asked, like ‘How can we protect not just the baristas in our store, but also our customers?’” Pulcheon said.

    The Trump administration has portrayed its widening ICE dragnet as targeting dangerous criminals, but that has turned out to mean legal permanent residents with traffic citations, nonviolent crimes committed 20 years ago (like Londonio), misdemeanors like vending too close to the curb, or no record at all. And with no opportunity for detainees to make a case before a judge, and an ICE quota of 3,000 arrests a day, no one is safe.

    “Anybody who thinks we have to ignore certain issues or avoid certain political conversations in order to grow the base, they don’t understand what it means to grow the base,” said Ryan Andrews, an English teacher and member of the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA). Organizing around immigrant justice has actually pushed some members to engage more closely with their union, he said.

    Andrews pointed to a student walkout in February protesting President Trump’s immigration policies. After protesting students were assaulted by two adult men, teachers and students met to discuss a path forward. Teachers circulated a petition demanding that the district denounce the attacks, meet with students and their families when attacked, ensure the safety of students at student-led actions, and provide mental health resources for affected students.

    “Almost every co-worker signed the petition,” Andrews said, including those who felt left behind by their union. “After careful organizing conversations, those co-workers signed because they care about their students and are open to perspectives that differ from their own.”

    Andrews’ union is now building on past contract wins. UTLA’s 2019 strike resulted in the creation of an immigrant defense fund. Workers are now trying to further expand collective defense, said Andrews: They’re fighting to protect members who need to take a leave due to their immigration status and pushing the district to invest in legal and mental health support for immigrant students.

    MOBILIZING AGAINST THE RAIDS

    Beyond organizing on the job, workers are joining mass mobilizations in the streets. UTLA members have been canvassing their neighborhoods with door hangers informing residents of their rights if ICE agents come to the door. “Teachers are connected to the very fabric of the communities where we work,” Andrews said. “These things are not abstractions. We are seeing our students and their family members kidnapped off the street.”

    Workers in major cities across the country are organizing against workplace raids. After the Trump administration set an aggressive new quota late May demanding that ICE officers arrest 3,000 people per day, agents began flooding federal buildings, said Ben Mabie, a staffer with IFPTE Local 98 in New York City. “It was horrific to watch the [lack of] of personal dignity [afforded to] the people that were getting caught up, and it was also a really grave safety issue. These people weren’t identifying themselves as law enforcement,” he said.

    On June 25, federal workers in New York, Chicago, and Seattle held informational pickets demanding an end to ICE’s workplace raids.

    “It is a profound attack on our civil institutions,” said Colin Smalley, president of IFPTE Local 777 and a co-founder of the Federal Unionists Network who attended the ICE OUT demonstration in Chicago.

    Smalley’s job at the Army Corps of Engineers is to ensure environmental compliance. He said that ICE’s presence in federal buildings affects his work: “If we have ICE agents that are conducting these raids without identification, without showing their face, without warrants, that makes it more risky for me to do my job,” he said. “If folks feel like submitting a permit application to us makes it more likely that they’ll get targeted in a raid, they’re not going to do it. Then, by not engaging in our permit process, they are less likely to do the work in a way that balances the needs of economic development with the best practices for environmental protection.” Smalley stressed that he was not speaking on behalf of his employer.

    UNIONS FIGHT FOR IMMIGRANT WORKERS

    Even as the Trump administration cracks down on immigrant workers, union members continue to face the day-to-day challenges of organizing against the boss and fighting for a good contract. And sometimes that includes fighting to protect immigrants in the workforce.

    More than 100 Teamsters Local 705 members at Mauser Packaging Solutions in Chicago are on strike, supported by fellow union members in Los Angeles and Minnesota. Protections for immigrant workers are part of what they are fighting for. The Chicago workers want contract language that protects immigrant workers from intimidation, modeled on language Seattle workers won three years ago. “Local 705 is fighting to win similar protections for our immigrant brothers and sisters that live in the very community where Mauser’s Chicago facility is located,” reads a press statement from the local.

    In Chicago, labor, community groups, and workers’ centers have been holding “Know Your Rights” trainings since before the Trump administration came to power, prompting Trump’s “border czar,” Tom Homan, to complain in late January that Chicagoans were too well educated “on how to defy ICE.”

    This work is more critical than ever, says Shelly Ruzicka, communications director for Arise Chicago, a workers’ center. “One of the biggest things we’re telling people is to be informed and be connected,” Ruzicka explains. “Know what your rights are, have conversations with your family, and practice so that if there is an altercation, you are prepared.”

    CHICAGO’S COORDINATED RESPONSE

    The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened to target Chicago, because it is a sanctuary city, where laws restrict collaboration between the police department and ICE. Labor has been part of the effort to defend the city’s sanctuary status, established in the 2006 Welcoming City Ordinance, against recent attempts to weaken its provisions.

    Chicago has an extensive network of labor and community groups that rapidly respond to the presence of immigration authorities in the city. “We are trying to deepen and strengthen our capacity to do coalition work here in Chicago,” said Jackson Potter, the vice president of the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU). “Labor and the community are coordinating responses to ICE in real time, because the attacks are becoming heightened, and putting a drain on our existing infrastructure and resources.” The coalition includes elected leaders, like Alderman Byron Sigcho Lopez, who serves in the 25th Ward, often a port of entry for migrants and refugees.

    In recent months, these coalitions have been tested—labor has had to quickly mobilize in response to reports of ICE. In late February, parents reported that they had “witnessed law enforcement agents… arrest a father in front of his children as he dropped them off for school at Idar Elementary,” according to a CTU press release. Parents had already been planning to hold a vigil to oppose the proposed closure of three schools. But after the alleged detention, the vigil expanded to incorporate opposition to ICE, and CTU members and elected officials joined in the demonstration February 26.

    Potter said that the rally was intended to provide a layer of safety in case ICE carried out more raids in the area. “We had multiple conversations with a number of moms expressing fear, and they decided along with us that we should move forward to make sure people felt defended and protected in this terrifying incident and the aftermath,” he said.

    “I don’t care what agency they turn out to be, targeting a father as he tries to provide an education to his children at their place of learning is a deliberate act of terror on behalf of this government,” said CTU President Stacy Davis Gates in a press statement about the vigil. “Chicagoans have already shown that we are who keep each other safe by knowing our rights and by organizing to have each others’ backs.”

    The aim of ICE’s dragnet is not to deport every undocumented worker: Trump himself has acknowledged that many industries rely on their labor. The aim is to spread terror, and in the process, scare workers from pushing back against the boss. The Trump administration’s strategy is poised to intensify. The president’s budget bill, signed into law on July 4, allocates $170 billion towards the immigration crackdown, an amount that exceeds the funding of most of the world’s armies.

    The labor movement can keep its head down, as the Trump administration hopes it will, and watch standards for every worker erode. Or it can fight—and grow stronger in the process.

    A WIN FOR IMMIGRANT STREET VENDORS

    In one case, that fight looked like winning legislation that reduces interactions between a largely immigrant workforce and law enforcement, a reduction that keeps workers safer. In 2022, 800 NYC street vendors discussed their shared struggles through the Street Vendor Project. After six months of discussion, they voted on issues they wanted to see addressed through legislation, creating the Street Vendor Reform Package, bills that would help protect NYC’s 20,000 street vendors.

    For years, street vendors have reported abuses at the hands of the NYPD: from being ticketed hundreds of times in one year to having their food carts illegally crushed before their eyes.

    Criminal charges for minor violations like standing a few inches too close to the curb can have life-altering immigration consequences, and fear of deportation has pushed many to cease vending altogetheroften with no back up plan.

    In May, more than 100 vendors and advocates gathered on the streets of City Hall demanding that City Council advance the reforms. On June 30, New York City Council passed a key part of the reform package which replaces criminal misdemeanor charges for street vending with civil penalties.

    “I’m so thankful that this new law passed,” said Ahmed Fouda, a halal food vendor who organized with other Midtown Manhattan food vendors who felt beleaguered by constant police presence in the tourist-heavy areas they serve. “I hope that the police will respect the law and respect the vendors and treat us for who we are.”

    This article is a joint publication of Labor Notes and Workday Magazine. Amie Stager contributed reporting.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • “What Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s family is going through is just unimaginable,” says Baltimore-based journalist Baynard Woods, “but it is also what we’ve all allowed to happen over generations of letting the drug war and our deference to police departments erode the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which should protect us all from illegal search and seizure, such as these seizures that ICE is committing all around the country right now.” In this episode of Rattling the Bars, Mansa Musa and Woods discuss the US government’s case against Abrego Garcia—whom the Trump administration finally returned to US soil from El Salvador in June—and what the government can do to citizens and non-citizens alike when our right to due process is taken away.

    Guest:

    Additional resources:

    Credits:

    • Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Mansa Musa:

    Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a household name, and what makes him a household name is the manner in which he was kidnapped from this country and taken to El Salvador prison under the pretense that he was a gang member.

    Where did the information come from to say he was a gang member? You’ll be surprised. Joining me today is Baynard Woods, a writer and journalist based in Baltimore. His work has appeared in the New York Times, the Guardian and the Washington Post, Oxford American Magazine, and many other publications.

    He’s the co-author with Brandon Soderberg of I Got A Monster: The Rising Fall of America’s Most Corrupt Police Squad.

    Thanks for joining me, Baynard.

    Baynard Woods:

    Great to be here. A long-time fan of the show.

    Mansa Musa:

    And so, you heard when I opened up. And the reason why I opened up because you was the one that reported on Garcia, Kilmar Garcia and the pretext that was used to initially say that he was a gang member. Talk about that.

    Baynard Woods:

    Yeah, so it was a couple months, actually, I think already into early May after he was first taken in mid-March off the streets, leaving a work site in Baltimore, headed down home to Prince George’s County. Pulled over into the Ikea right by the Ikea down there, parking lot. And then his family never saw him again.

    And the federal government was citing a 2019 case in which he was pulled. He was stopped with three other men at a Home Depot. And one of the cops, Ivan Mendez is his name, identified and claimed that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was a gang member of MS-13.

    And that was the case that banned him from being sent to El Salvador. The judge said that he couldn’t, and this was months later. He was locked up for months before the judge ruled that he couldn’t be sent back there because there was a good chance he could be tortured or harmed by a gang that he had refused to join there. Another irony of the story.

    But three days later, it was only three days after writing that report that Ivan Mendez remained a police officer. He was suspended after those three days. He had already committed a crime in giving information about an investigation to a sex worker that he had a relationship with to help them avoid a police sting.

    And so, he was ultimately criminally charged. The New Republic did some great reporting that revealed his name. And so, once we had that name, I was able to go in and find the do-not-call list of the Prince George’s County [inaudible 00:03:15]-

    Mansa Musa:

    State’s Attorney, yeah.

    Baynard Woods:

    … Prosecutor, State’s Attorney, and his name was on that list as someone that’s not allowed to testify.

    And what that means is if they stop you for a traffic stop or anything else, their word isn’t good enough to hold you on or to be used in court. And so, the federal government was using the word of this cop that couldn’t stand up in traffic court to justify sending a man with no due process whatsoever to a offshore Gulag in the CECOT prison in El Salvador.

    Mansa Musa:

    And so, do you think it was in terms of that right there, because this was public information, so do you think that this was premeditated on part of federal government, one? And two, in your investigation, did they ever contact Prince George’s County State’s Attorney Aisha Braveboy to see why she put him on do-not-call list? Because they’re relying on the report of this officer. To your knowledge, one, why did they ignore it? And two, to your knowledge, did they ever contact Prince George’s County [inaudible 00:04:31]?

    Baynard Woods:

    I don’t think they did contact Braveboy or, I tried to speak with her and got a comment from her office, but I did get a copy. Part of it was one of the charges was redacted, but with Brandon Soderberg, who I wrote the book with, got a copy of his disciplinary, Mendez’s disciplinary charges from before.

    And so, we do know that was why he was put on the do-not-call list. I don’t think that Homeland Security looked at that at all. I think they were all covering afterwards. I think they were just, we’ve over the last decades, as you well know, we’ve given up the Fourth Amendment in this country in many ways by allowing a racist drug war, making the worst assumptions about people that are arrested, newspapers running police allegation. Police say stories all the time.

    And so, we have so little transparency around policing and so little accountability that I don’t think they ever bothered to look at who the cop was who wrote this. They had on paper that he was a gang member, and that’s all they wanted or needed.

    Mansa Musa:

    And let’s talk about that, because United States Senator Van Hollen, he had went to Visit Garcia. But he said, initially he went down there and tried to find out why, try to get them to send him back. And they pretty much ignored him because they saying, “Well, this is under Salvadoran jurisdiction. United States don’t have nothing to do with this no more.”

    As it worked its way out, they just became more and more ridiculous in how they dialed down on hold on to the abuse. But he said, and I want you to address this, he said that Garcia’s, this is not unique case, that this is a particular practice that’s going on in the United States as they round up and kidnap people that they consider illegal aliens or undocumented workers.

    In your investigation, have you seen that or have you maybe get a sense of that this particular mythology, and the mythology being, “Oh, you’re a gang member. You got locked up for and because of that, we can send you out.”

    Not saying how the resolution of the case nor the fact that they saying, “I’m going to take you before the court and let the court, was supposed to make the determination on whether or not you had probable cause to proceed with this act.”

    Have you in your investigation or do you see this as something that’s developing as we speak?

    Baynard Woods:

    Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it’s both a new strategy and the same old strategy of criminalizing street culture and street fashion. One of the reasons he was deemed a gang member was because he was wearing Chicago Bulls hat and jacket. And there’s been some great reporting on all of the Venezuelan… The signs of Venezuelan street culture that don’t necessarily have anything to do with gangs have been used as evidence to deport the hundreds of Venezuelans that have been just snatched up in exactly that same way.

    The real difference with Abrego Garcia’s case is that there was a protective order prohibiting him from being sent to El Salvador. So, when they sent the Venezuelans to El Salvador, many of them thought they were being sent home, and so their mothers were preparing their rooms for him. They called, “I’m coming home,” and then they get sent to a prison for indeterminate length of time in El Salvador instead.

    The reason that we know Abrego Garcia’s name, one of the main reasons is that it was illegal to send him to El Salvador, which was his country of origin because he had to flee from threats on his life for not joining a gang.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I read in your article where you cited that his family had a business. The gang was extorting them. They was paying. The gang wasn’t satisfied with that. They wanted the family members to join. Eventually he wound up in the United States. And Garcia, they paid to try to prevent him from being recruited by the gang.

    When that didn’t work, they sent him them to the United States. So, all this information came out. All this was evidence initially, but let’s talk about now fast-forward. Okay, so after all this, they finally, in the face of being cited for contempt and possibly being the consequences of that being more severe than maintaining this farce, they finally sent him back. Where’d they send him back to?

    Baynard Woods:

    So, they sent him back to Tennessee, central Tennessee district, which is a pretty white and very conservative district, federal court district, much more so than Maryland where Judge Xinis is the one who’s been really at war with the administration to make sure that they facilitate his return. The Supreme Court agreed with Judge Xinis. So, the last thing they wanted to do was give him a fair due process in Maryland.

    He was pulled over and videotaped in Tennessee in 2021 with a car of people. And the troopers believed that they were undocumented and that he was transporting them. They’re now using that. Just the same way that they used his earlier encounter in Maryland, they’re now using that as part of a two-count criminal indictment, charging him with trafficking. With transporting, not trafficking, they keep using the word, but of transporting undocumented people.

    What they did, though, as they do in so many federal prosecutions especially, and they made it a conspiracy case, so it’s much harder for him to beat, and then they threw out all of these allegations and the indictment that they’re not charging him with, which means that they don’t have the evidence. They claim that he was transporting children. So, then they bring up both, child trafficker. They say that he was alleged to have abused women.

    No evidence for any of these things. And this is what they do, as you know, in so many, especially in federal conspiracy cases, they’ll just load the indictments with other information that the press can pick up and use. And it colors our understanding of not only the individual case, but the way that justice works.

    And so, it’s a real miscarriage. And they say they’ll be trying him in Tennessee, and they want him to remain incarcerated there until the trial.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. And that right there, to your point, that discourages people from wanting to participate in the process. That discourage people from supporting people like Garcia because the arbitrary nature of the charges, one. And for the benefit of our audience, it’s standard procedure in this country that you be having the right due process of the law, the 14th Amendment.

    It’s standard procedure that once you’re allegedly charged with something, then in order to be charged, they have to bring evidence, information to support those charges. This is standing practice in the country. You can’t just come up and say, “Oh, a person is a pick-pocketer or a shoplifter,” and then put me on a plane to El Salvador or put me or take me to a prison in California.

    You have to have bring me before someone that’s going, and the accusing party got to submit their information to say, “This is why we believe that he fit this criteria to be sent to El Salvador.”

    But they avoided that and avoided detention because they could never present that information. So, going forward, how do you think it’s going to play out now? Because now seem like, well, initially the reports were, and President Trump and the president of El Salvador, Bukele, I think is, pronounce his name, they was in the White House. And both of them was like, “Well, he not coming back,” or, “He’s not a United States citizen.”

    I mean, so therefore we’re entitled to it. But going forward, how you think it’s going to play out in terms of what I just said? Because now it comes down to, okay, he had a day in court where he pled not guilty, but now it comes down to is he going to be allowed to submit information to exonerate him of this? Is the information that they had going to be looked at in order to exonerate him? Or are they going to still play this tape out and just keep throwing paint at the wall, and paint at the wall in this case be just different narrative, different charge narrative. What you think?

    Baynard Woods:

    I think they’re going to do the latter there. I mean, his lawyers are really fighting here in Maryland to have the case that they sued the government to bring him home not dropped, and to have sanctions brought against the government because of discovery violations, not giving them the information that they need to be able to work on their client’s behalf.

    And I suspect, as is so often the case in our criminal system, that there will continue to be discovery violations. But it’s ultimately to say when they’re charging him simply with transporting undocumented people, I think they’ll be able to prove that relatively easy, that he had a car that had people in it, including himself, that were undocumented.

    And so, they made it a charge that would be a really difficult charge for him to beat while then making all of these other unfounded insinuations. And so, I think what they’ll try to do is, especially with probably a white conservative jury in central Tennessee there, and then I think they will try to just deport him. And instead of deporting him to El Salvador, because there is that rule against deporting him there, I think they’ll try to deport him to-

    Mansa Musa:

    Somalia or something.

    Baynard Woods:

    Yeah, one of the other places that they’re looking to prisons that they’re setting up. And I think it’s a really good example of how the xenophobia of this administration is really mixed with some of the worst surveillance state techniques of the Bush administration with extraordinary renditions and sites that are off the country to use for all kinds of torture and stuff.

    And so, I know his family are still quite concerned about his safety.

    Mansa Musa:

    As they should be.

    Baynard Woods:

    And there was, in Tennessee, there was a riot in one of the private prisons there last week because people were being on lockdown for 21 hours a day because they’re not paying enough guards to be there, COs to deal with the prison conditions. The food is terrible. And so, there was a big protest last week. So, it’s another prison for profit system just like Bukele is doing in El Salvador with the Trump administration that’s happening to him in Tennessee.

    Mansa Musa:

    And even further, these private prisons, all of them have always been cited for being inhuman and dehumanized. And because the prison industry is heavily regulated in this country, they were taking shortcuts.

    But now because of this roundup call on behalf of the president saying that he want over 3,000 undocumented or illegal aliens or whatever he called them, locked up. He want ICE to lock up 3,000 of them a day. And he targeted New York, California and Chicago as blue states saying that that’s the area he going to go in.

    But even with Trump doing what he doing, Obama was considered, he was the forerunner for Trump because he was sending people out left and right. And it was like it’s a standard practice. I think with this administration recognized because it was done, I think this administration and Trump being a lightning rod, I think this administration’s position is not going to, it’s no pretense, “We are not pretending that we are doing anything other than what we’re doing. We’re arbitrarily rounding people up. We are sending them to where we want to send them at. We investing a lot of money in private prisons.”

    In theory it’s a private prison, but in fact it’s a place where they’re warehousing people, and because they don’t have no oversight, they’re able to get away with it. But talk about when they initially got, because I was reading an article about how when they got him at the Home Depot. Talk about who was in the car with him when they initially arrested him and how that played out so we can give our viewers a sense of how vicious this whole thing is. It’s not just no, somebody just put handcuffs on and round them up.

    Baynard Woods:

    Yeah. So, the initial case goes back to 2019, and he was going to the Home Depot to do day labor, wait out, and get picked up for a job. And so, he was standing with four other guys. And the same as they’re doing now, like you say, and it was in Trump’s first term, but they came through and just rounded these guys up and then brought them in and started questioning them.

    As so often happens, an unnamed confidential informant was the person who said, “Oh, he’s a high ranking member of a gang.” His hoodie and hat linked him, they said with a clique of MS-13 that operated in upstate New York, where he’d never been before. So, not a very good informant there.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, right.

    Baynard Woods:

    But as so often happens, whatever you get someone to say, that’s all you need is to have someone say it. In this recent case, they say they have six co-conspirators that they have their word that I guess they’ve been talking to, but of course none of them are named.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, right.

    Baynard Woods:

    So, in both cases there’s no ability to face your accuser. And that’s just a problem that is so, about law enforcement in general of course, is the reliance on confidential informants in which you can basically make up what they say.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, right, right.

    Baynard Woods:

    If you’re the officer because there’s so little scrutiny if you just say they’re a reliable confidential informant. So, they held them for, he was held at that time for a number of weeks in prison waiting to finally get this trial. His son was born. He got married. His wife was pregnant. They got married in the Howard County Detention Center so that they would be married before the son was born.

    And so, he wasn’t able to see his son. His son has special needs and is nonverbal. And the most heartbreaking thing, in his wife’s court documents is that the son is not being verbal, hasn’t been able to express how much he misses Abrego. And so, he just holds his shirts up to his face to smell them and get the scent of them.

    And that’s his son who’s now not seen him since March the 15. So, it’s been three months now. And people who’ve never been taken away from their families and stuff might think, “Oh, only three months.” But that’s a tremendous amount of time.

    Mansa Musa:

    Nah, trauma.

    Baynard Woods:

    And tremendous number of things can happen within your life in that amount of time that you’re not there for, and you’re not able to help your family in any of the ways that you need to.

    And so, yeah, that one allegation by an officer that was only going to be an officer for three more days, acting as an officer, has trailed him now for six years and has led to all of this, which just gave them, and the gang databases, they do this in so many cities all the time. They’ll come through, take pictures of people. And then if you’re seen with another person that’s in those pictures, then you have gang affiliations.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, right.

    Baynard Woods:

    Then if someone else is seen with you, then they have it, even if it’s never been proven that you were a member of a gang in any way. And so, we’re really using that as a way to just criminalize entire populations.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I was reading in the article when they arrested him for this or kidnapped him for this, he had his child with him in his car. And he told ICE, said, “Look, I’ve got my kid in the car with me. He’s special needs.”

    So, they called. They in turn called the wife and gave her a timetable, “You’ve got five minutes to come and get your kid or we going to send them to protective services.”

    This right here, okay, you are locking someone up for allegedly being in this country illegally. This is what you’re saying, that they’re in this country illegally or they’re affiliated with element that this country don’t recognize. You’re not saying nothing other than that. And so much so you’re saying that, “Because of this we’re going to send you up to another country.”

    But you’re not saying that this person represents that much danger, that you can’t allow for his wife to have ample enough time to come and get their child and find out what’s going on with him. You made it where as though, and this is the attitude that I think they’re creating in this whole system, is the fear mechanism, where, “I’m coming ti your neighborhood, I’m coming deep, I’m taking whoever I want to take. I’m going to the elementary school, I’m grabbing the elementary kid. I’m going to the church, I’m grabbing your grandparents, whoever I got to grab to put the fear of you all in to be more inclined to cooperate with us,” as opposed to giving me due process of law.

    But closing out, what do you want to tell our audience about this system? Because you done did, you dealt with the police, you’re real familiar with the lack of what they call law enforcement. But I’m calling it the lack of enforcement. And you deal real well with that. Talk about what you think about that.

    Baynard Woods:

    To me, this case hits at a lot of the problems with policing and authority and authoritarianism, which policing is a variety, in America because we’re so used to, we see it here in Baltimore all the time where the police say, “If I have to follow the Constitution, then everything’s just going to be crazy. Everyone will kill each other.”

    And they take their violation of the Constitution as a minor matter. They’re broken windows on everything else except the Constitution. And then you can violate it with impunity. And that’s what the Trump administration did here, violated the most foundational principles of this country of due process. And snatched people up without any due process, without even habeas corpus and send them away.

    And you act like the issue of coming here to save your own life is a worse crime than you kidnapping someone and sending them away to a concentration camp in a country where they’ve been prohibited by a judge to go, then defying a Maryland federal judge and then defying the US Supreme Court, while joking with the proud dictator of El Salvador, who called himself the world’s coolest dictator.

    While you all joke about how neither of you can bring him back, it’s a special atrocity. And what Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s family is going through is just unimaginable and irreducible, but it is also part of what we’re all facing here and what we’ve all allowed to happen over generations of letting the drug war and our deference to police departments erode the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which should protect us all from illegal search and seizure such as these seizures that ICE is committing all around the country right now.

    Mansa Musa:

    There you have it. Illegal search and seizures. We look at this case of Garcia, and we think that, oh, that’s just his situation. But the reality is that this president unleashed the ICE and weaponized the Justice Department to go out and round up anybody and everybody, regardless of what your situation is, and not allow you to have a right to a hearing before you’re being punished.

    Because this what’s happening now. You’re being punished, and then you had to fight your way back to get a hearing to undo what they did to you. We ask that you look at what’s going on, Garcia. Garcia is just, not the case in of itself. You’ve got Garcias throughout this country that they rounding up. You’ve got Garcias throughout this world that they rounding up. The xenophobia mentality of this country has become indefinite.

    We ask that you look at this and you evaluate. We thank Baynard for coming in to educate us on this issue. Get up, stand up. Don’t give up the fight. Get up, stand up, fight for your rights. That’s what we ask that you do today.

    And guess what? We ask that you continue to watch and listen to the Real News and Rattling the Bars because after all, we are the real news.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • After being abducted from his New York apartment building by plainclothes agents and locked away in an ICE jail in Louisiana for over 100 days, Mahmoud Khalil has been freed and reunited with his family. A federal judge ruled that Khalil’s detention was unconstitutional and that he was neither a flight risk nor a threat to the public, and the Syrian-born Palestinian activist, husband, father, and former Columbia University graduate student was finally released on June 20, 2025. But the fight for Khalil’s freedom is not over, and we have by no means seen the last of the Trump administration’s authoritarian attacks on immigrants, universities, and the movement to stop Israel’s US-backed genocide of Palestinians. In this exclusive interview, TRNN Editor-in-Chief Maximillian Alvarez speaks with Amy Greer, an associate attorney at Dratel & Lewis and a member of Mahmoud Khalil’s legal team, about the epic legal battle to free Khalil.

    Guest:

    • Amy Greer is an associate attorney at Dratel & Lewis, and a member of Mahmoud Khalil’s legal team. Greer is a lawyer and archivist by training, and an advocate and storyteller by nature. As an attorney at Dratel & Lewis, she works on a variety of cases, including international extradition, RICO, terrorism, and drug trafficking. She previously served as an assistant public defender on a remote island in Alaska, defending people charged with misdemeanors, and as a research and writing attorney on capital habeas cases with clients who have been sentenced to death.

    Additional resources:

    Credits:

    • Studio Production / Post-Production: David Hebden
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    After being abducted from his New York apartment building by plain clothes agents and then locked away in an ice jail in Louisiana. For over a hundred days, Mahmud Khalil has been freed and reunited with his family. The Syrian born husband, father Palestinian activists and former Columbia University graduate student played a key role in the 2024 Columbia University Palestine solidarity protests mediating between student protestors and the university administration after a federal judge ruled that Khalil’s detention was unconstitutional and that he was neither a flight risk nor a threat to the public. Khalil was finally released on June 20th, but the fight for Khalil’s freedom is not over, and we have by no means seen the last of the Trump administration’s authoritarian attacks on immigrants universities and the movement to stop Israel’s US backed genocide of Palestinians. The country watched in horror as Khalil and other international students and scholars like Ru Meza Ozturk at Tufts and Bader Kuri at Georgetown were openly targeted, traumatized, and persecuted by the Trump administration for their political speech and beliefs. Here’s a clip from the Chilling video of Khalil’s abduction in March taken by Khalil’s wife, no Abdullah that we republished here at the Real News Network.

    Amy Greer:

    You guys really don’t need to be doing all of that. It’s fine. It’s fine. The opposite. Take Amy. Call Amy, she’ll be fine. Okay. Hi Amy. Yeah, they just handcuffed him and took him. I don’t know what to do.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Okay, I, what should I do? I don’t know. Now as Mahmud is being dragged away in handcuffs by those plain clothes agents, in that video, he turns to his wife noir and he says, call Amy. And you can actually hear in that video no’s terrified voice saying over the phone to Amy that she just doesn’t know what to do as her husband is being dragged away. Joining us on The Real News Network today is the Amy who was on the other end of that phone call on the fateful day when Mahmud Khalil was abducted from his apartment building on March 8th. Amy Greer is an associate attorney at DRA and Lewis and a member of Mahmud Khalil’s legal team. Amy is a lawyer and archivist by training and an advocate and storyteller by nature as an attorney at DRA and Lewis. She works on a variety of cases including international extradition, Rico, terrorism and drug trafficking. She previously served as an assistant public defender on a remote island in Alaska, defending people charged with misdemeanors and as a research and writing attorney on capital habeas cases with clients who have been sentenced to death. Amy, thank you so much for joining us on the Real News Network today. I really, really appreciate it. And I just wanted to kind of start by asking how is Mahmud Khalil doing? How is his family doing? How are you and the rest of the legal team doing after this long, terrifying saga?

    Amy Greer:

    Yeah. Well, I think for many of us, including Mahmud and Ur, the reunion and knowing that Mahmood is free was just a huge relief. Seeing him detained, watching that experience of that family being separated from each other was incredibly challenging to watch as attorneys, and I can only begin to imagine what that felt like for Mahmud and nor themselves. So having them be together is so critical, and you’ll see every time you see photos of them in public, they’re holding hands or Mahmud’s arm is around North. So just that physical proximity I think has just been really powerful and important for the two of them, the legal team. The fight continues, but I know for many of us, the relief that course through our own bodies, our own hearts as people who love and have loved ones bearing witness to their reunification was really special, really important. And now it’s galvanizing for the fight to continue.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, and good news is in short supply these days, and I can genuinely only imagine what it is like for you and folks in the legal world to be navigating the reality of this new administration. I mean, because the law fair that is unfolding, the fights over the future of this country and the Trump agenda, so many of those fights are happening in the courts, and the law system itself is a key player in how the Trump administration is trying to execute its authoritarian excesses. So it is, I think, gratifying and energizing for so many people. And we’ve heard that from our own audience that amidst all this darkness and these onslaughts from the administration to have a victory, like seeing Mahmud, Khalil walk free from the ice detention facility in Louisiana reminds people that the fight is not over. And we are going to talk in a little bit about where things stand now with Mahmud’s legal standing in the case that he’s fighting for his freedom. But I wanted to ask if we could go back to that fateful day in March when you got that call from No Abdullah. Can you talk us through what it’s even like to get a call like that? Is this a call that you’re used to getting? And what was the process of responding to that call? What were you guys doing in the hours after Khalil was abducted?

    Amy Greer:

    Sure. So actually the first call I got was from Mahmood himself, and that wasn’t on video. Mahmud called me at around eight 30 ish on March 8th, and I was embarrassingly, I just poured a glass of wine and was sitting down to a Ted Lasso episode, which is what I watched. It’s like the equivalent of sucking my thumb. It’s like how I chill out sometimes. I have some episodes that I like to rewatch, and it was a Saturday night, and so I was relaxing and the phone rang and I saw that it was Mahmud, and it’s very unusual. Even though we’d been working together for a few months, it’s pretty unusual that he would call me outside of business hours. So I knew that something must be going on, and I picked up the phone and he told me he was surrounded by ice and that ice agents in plain clothes and that they told him that his student visa had been revoked.

    We knew that he was not on a student visa, he was a green card holder or lawful permanent resident. And so the agent asked to speak with me because Mahmud introduced me as his attorney. I had some words with the ice agent asking him if he had a warrant, what the basis for the arrest was, which again, they repeated that the Secretary of State had revoked Mahmud’s student visa. When I informed the agent that Mahmud was actually a lawful permanent resident, he said, well, they revoked that too, which is not a thing actually. There needs to be some due process that happens in order to revoke somebody’s lawful permanent residency. And when I demanded again to have the agent show Mahmood or to send me a warrant, the agent hung up on me. And that’s when Nora’s video picks up because no had gone upstairs to get the green card to show ice that Mahmood was a lawful permanent resident.

    And so when she came back down, that’s when the filming began that that has become so famous now. And so nor then called me back. However, I will say there was about a five minute or three to five minute gap between when Mahmood hung up or when the agent hung up on me and when Nora called. And that’s the thing, I am an attorney. I am cool head in a crisis, but even people like me have human feelings. And Mahmud is a student that I had been working with along with numerous other students for protecting their speech rights on campus protests regarding Palestine when it became clear what was happening, that he was being taken by ice. And it seemed to me that that was not going to be stopped. You know what I mean? That showing the green card wasn’t going to stop that process.

    I cried. I mean, when that phone hung up, I’ve never felt so helpless because, and we can get into this a little bit, but the reality is that law enforcement takes people, ice takes people, police take people, many in our communities, many that are connected to your network know this, and then lawyers have to undo it, right? We can’t prevent it from happening always. We have to undo it on the other side. And that revelation and that realization really struck me and I burst into tear as if I’m being totally honest. And then I called my colleague who was on the phone with me when no called back, and then we talked nor through, and you can hear no in that video, you can hear her asking, what’s your name? Where are you taking him? And you can hear her speaking to us as we’re asking her, telling her what to ask and how to gather that information.

    I mean, it’s one of those situations where you have to suppress all your natural human reactions, which is fear and anxiety, and where are they taking him and deep sadness and all of those things. And so between Lindsay, my colleague and myself, we tried to stay calm for no, who I had not met yet. So she’s also talking to a stranger as this horror is unfolding in front of her. And she was eight months pregnant at the time as well. So there was a lot happening there, both what you can see, which was you can hear the fear in her voice, although she is remarkable. And while you hear the fear, you can also hear her strength. She spoke with such clarity, her voice shook. But like Rashida Taleb said, I’m speaking even as my voice shakes and that has been nor through this entire ordeal is speaking even as her voice shakes. And so that’s what you hear in that video. And I’m sure my voice was shaking as well as I was listening to this beautiful woman trying to fight for her partner, her husband, who’s being taken away right in front of her. So it was a pretty intense experience, and it’s not one that I’ve typically experienced even as a criminal defense attorney. I’m more used to the call from the jail as opposed to the call happening during the taking itself. So that was a first for me.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Yeah, I mean, my God, I can really only imagine what it’s like, but sadly in this country I find myself imagining it a lot more frequently than I used to worrying about my own family being abducted by immigration, being racially profiled and disappeared from the streets, and then having to begin that process that you just described of figuring out where my loved ones are and how I get them back. Like you said, this is what law enforcement does in this country, and the taking of people from their homes, from their job sites, from their campuses did not begin with the second Donald Trump administration. But I wanted to ask, what about this case and this call and this fight is new. Can you impress upon folks watching why this is such a marked escalation of what law enforcement and immigration enforcement typically do in this country?

    Amy Greer:

    Sure. I mean, I think there’s a few layers on a very sort of visceral, tangible layer. These people are showing up masked, they’re not identifying themselves. And so in the case of Mahmood, and this is also true with Rusa Ozturk, both of them have spoken on the record in court or publicly about they thought they were being abducted and then taken somewhere to potentially be executed. I mean, I know that I am sure that that’s not original to many people in communities around this country, indigenous communities, communities of color. And also I do think that there is a little masked men in plain clothes arriving on college campuses or their surrounding housing may be new. I think it’s new, it’s my understanding that it’s new where, this sounds like a strange example, but a very amazing advocate around the heroin and oxycodone crisis that it was talked about as a crisis, a public health crisis a number of years ago spoke about how it’s been a crisis for many, many years, but when it started impacting middle class white folks, then it became a public health crisis, not a criminal issue that needed to be prosecuted through the courts, but something that needed to be mediated through mental health care, addiction services and other public health framing.

    I think what’s happening here is college students, graduate students, people who have no criminal records or no even association or affiliation with anything that we would necessarily conceptualize as criminalized. And again, I’m not saying that any of those labelings are okay, are being taken by masked people who refuse to identify themselves and basically disappeared for 24, 36, 48 hours where nobody knows where they are and even their families aren’t entirely sure who is taking them. And where Rua was on the phone with her mother in Turkey when she was taken and the phone was cut off, the phone call was cut off, and nobody heard from Rua again for quite some time. And similar in Mahmud’s case, we didn’t hear from him from Saturday night until Monday morning. And so these things I think are escalations because of who the people are that are being taken and the attention given to college and graduate students as unlikely people to be abducted in this way.

    Again, not agreeing with any of the framing of people having been taken previously, that they deserve any less of an innocent explanation of who they are and where they’re from and what they’re about. But that’s not the narrative that’s coming out. In this particular case, it’s students speaking against a genocide taken by masked men and then detained. I think that’s the other piece is immigration detention has been an issue for a very long time. There is no question particularly around the border, but I think internal, internal to the United States, the access to parole and having to do regular check-ins, but being able to live out in the community has been general practice for a long time according to many of my immigration lawyer colleagues. So this is also new, is the actual detention of people as opposed to processing them and then allowing them to be free in the community while their case is processed in the administrative immigration side.

    So that’s also a new aspect to all of this. The last thing I’ll point out is the statute that’s being used and weaponized against the students like Mahmud and Rusa and others, is an old statute where these students for speaking out against a genocide have been determined by the Secretary of State. Their presence in the United States is adverse to American foreign policy and American foreign interests. And I think that’s a statute from the 1950s that was actually weaponized against people who were accused of being associated with communism and in particular Jewish Americans who are accused of being associated with communism. And it’s being weaponized now again for people speaking against genocide. So these are some of the layers of things that are at play here that make it different, but I think what it is is it’s just they’re going for people in the United States that they assumed many people with power, with money, with privilege would not speak against, they would not speak against their taking. But what they’ve discovered is actually people have been really horrified by these abductions in a way that we should be for everybody else who’s abducted but haven’t been.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    I think that’s beautifully and powerfully put. It’s not national news in years prior when immigrants from Latin America who raise issues on a farm that they’re working on about unsafe working conditions, and then they get abducted and disappeared by ice. No one bats an eye, but when graduate students are targeted, and then it gets a little more real for a lot more people. And of course, our aim and the necessity here for everyone watching is to care equally about both and to care about the rights of all humans. That’s why we call them human rights. And to tug on that thread a little more, talking about the sort of intricacies and the vagaries of immigration detention, can you tell us a little bit about what it was like trying to free Mahmud from this ice detention center in Louisiana for over a hundred days?

    Amy Greer:

    Right. Well, and I think this is where I get a little nerdy for people because I think it’s really critical, and this is where our lack of civics education in the United States is really coming back to bite us in so many ways. But I think what’s really critical to point out here is immigration court, as it’s called immigration judges, as they’re called, are actually administrative employees of the Attorney General of the United States. They are not. When you think of a judge, most people I would think of the people that they see in Maryland State Court or even the Supreme, the US Supreme Court, that people who have been vetted by the Senate or even voted into office in certain parts of the country by their constituents, they are typically lawyers. They are people who have some experience and then rise and get promoted into judicial roles.

    And most of them think the people we’re thinking of are Article three, meaning in the Constitution, article three judges that were conceptualized at the framing of the Constitution, but immigration court and immigration judges, that’s actually a misnomer. They’re administrative employees. And this is an administrative process. And what that means is, for example, the immigration judge in this case said this exactly on the record, the rules of evidence, the rules of civil procedure and certain other protections and due process protections that would exist in a constitutional Article III court do not exist in the immigration process. And so really, immigration court per se, and that process is an administrative process. So for example, people have watched the procedural shows where they talk about hearsay. And in a regular court, for example, if something can’t be substantiated or corroborated in some way, it’s considered hearsay and it may not be allowed into the court in immigration proceedings, it can.

    So in mahmud’s case, the government could use a New York Post article with anonymous sources as evidence against Mahmud, right? So we don’t know who the speakers were, we don’t know who the sources were. We have no way to verify that. But because the rules aren’t the same in immigration proceedings, things like that are allowed in. And so I think I say all of that just to say that people undergoing these immigration proceedings do not have, if you hear the term due process in regard to immigration, it doesn’t mean the same thing that it does in a criminal court, for example, where we already know that that’s a struggle. We already know that that’s a struggle over on that side. But believe it or not, the protections are significantly greater. So people like Mahmud and that the thousands of men that he was incarcerated with in Gina, Louisiana are going through these administrative processes.

    What happens a lot of the time, and this has been so important to Mahmud highlight whenever he speaks out, is also a lot of people don’t have access to attorneys through this process, don’t even know how to reach an attorney and don’t know what their rights are. They don’t know if they can speak or not speak what they’re allowed to say or not say. And so they’re flying blind through an administrative process with very few and rights. And that’s been the case with Mahmood as well. But the difference for him is that he had access to me initially to hunt down where he was, to figure out how to find him to call attorneys in the Department of Homeland Security in the Department of Justice to find him. But so many other people don’t have that. And so people are being disappeared. The inmate locator as it’s called, or the detention locator that ICE has isn’t being updated and people don’t know where their loved ones are.

    And then they also don’t have access to phone calls necessarily to be able to even find or locate an attorney. And they imper in front of these employees of the Attorney General who have clear directives from the Trump administration that people are not welcome here. This is a great sort of white supremacist project that’s being undertaken to make America white again, and therefore these processes are being truncated. Some people aren’t even seen by a judge at all or an immigration administrator at all. In Mahmood’s case, we have been able to litigate a case, but it’s been on an extremely expedited schedule. We had very little time to prepare. And so even though he’s had really good legal support, the case has been jammed through as fast as possible. And one thing that I think is really critical is the immigration administrator determined that she does not actually have the authority under the Constitution to question the Secretary of State.

    And his determination that Mahmud is his presence in the United States is adverse to American foreign policy. And as a result, his case could have fallen into no man’s land, so to speak, where nobody really had authority to question the Secretary of State. But that’s where the federal habeas case comes in, the Article III constitutional court, which we can get into if you want. So that immigration case is proceeding rapidly in an administrative process. It will eventually potentially rise to the Fifth Circuit, which is an Article three appellate court, but by then the record that that court will be reviewing will be complete, and what they’re allowed to review is actually quite limited. So the process is really very remarkable on many levels, and I think it’s important for Americans or people residing in the United States, however they choose to identify, are aware that this is truly an administrative process without bumper guards or some of those procedural rights that people associate with terms court and judge,

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And I really appreciate you breaking that down for us. Get nerdy sis, because we need your nerdiness to educate us. And I want to end on talking about where things stand now, but I guess by way of getting there, like you said, civics education in this country has failed us and to the point where so many of us don’t even fully know or appreciate what something like due process is. But I have this terrifying feeling that we’re going to know what due process is because we’re going to remember what it was. And I wanted to ask if just really quickly, you could talk to our audience about just clarify what is due process and why should you care about it.

    Amy Greer:

    Sure, yeah. And yeah, there’s a couple of layers to that, but I, I’ll keep it short. I mean, the idea of due processes is chronicled in the United States Constitution, and the idea is that you cannot have your rights infringed upon your property taken, et cetera, without being heard by a neutral arbiter and having some procedural opportunity to be heard, to present evidence in a criminal situation. If somebody’s testifying against you, you have the right to cross examine that person. These are the types of things that are due process and that are associated with that. The parameters of due process have largely been carved out by case law through the United States Supreme Court. And what’ll be interesting for your listeners, because I know that a lot of people, the genesis of the Real News Network and other things that you’re covering, labor, et cetera, is that there were all these push for rights in the early part of late part of the 19th century, early part of the 20th century that became codified into law and then also codified through the United States Supreme Court.

    And due process was part of that do process, procedural and substantive. These ideas of what kinds of processes have to happen for your rights to be taken away, your liberty to be taken away, and also what the standards are that the government has to meet in order to do those kinds of things. All of that has been litigated for many, many years. And what we’ve seen since the Earl Warren Court of the 1950s and sixties is an erosion of those things over time, to your point, which is what we’re seeing now are actually the fruits of that erosion that has already been taking place. And so what I want to make a plug for people is lawyers in law school, people in law school and citizens in general. I think laws are talked about as if there’s something that are static that come down from above are carved into stone, and that’s that.

    But what I want to really leave us with is laws are made by humans to protect wealth and power and as a reaction to fear and anger. And so we, as the people in this country, we can be part of crafting those laws or blocking laws that are very harmful to our communities and encouraging that our systems adhere to our values and not to values of protecting wealth and power and racial privilege as well. And so what we’re seeing here are the fruits of 50 plus years of erosion of rights, 50 plus years of white supremacist structures, really taking root in the law in new shape shifting ways because obviously it’s always been the law. That’s how the law was made in the United States, starting with the doctrine of discovery, et cetera. But we are moving into that space where we are really seeing the harms and the pervasive harms that these laws have in that now everybody’s vulnerable.

    It doesn’t matter who you are now, you’re vulnerable unless you’re like Elon Musk or somebody like that. And so this erosion, because many of us have remained silent as these erosions have taken place because it’s not been us who’ve been directly impacted many people who look like me. This is the case now. We’re seeing that people like us can actually be impacted as naturalized citizenship is being challenged. I wouldn’t be surprised if even native born citizenship gets challenged in some ways depending on what your speech is. And so we’re really learning that these erosions will come for all of us eventually, and so we should speak up sooner. But what we’re seeing now, unfortunately, I think is the fruits of many years of the hard right labor to erode due process, to erode free speech rights, to erode citizenship rights, to erode the amendments that were passed after during reconstruction after the Civil War, to the extent that we’re moving into and are experiencing authoritarianism.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, and I guess on that heavy, but I important note, I wanted to remind people, like I said in the intro, this fight is not over for Mahmud Khalil and for all of us and our rights as such. And I wanted to ask if in the final minutes that I’ve got you, if you could just let us know where things stand right now with Mahmud Khalil’s case. I know there are multiple cases, some that you can talk about and others you can’t. But I guess for folks watching just where do things stand now and what can they do to be part of that change that you talked about, to ensure that the law is not weaponized against us, but in fact is serving us and our needs, the people’s

    Amy Greer:

    Needs? Sure. Yeah. So for Mahmud’s case, what’s happening now is in the federal District court of New Jersey, we have a habeas petition, habeas just means of the body. So we’re basically challenging his detention and deportation as a retaliatory move by the administration for Mahmud’s speech against genocide, and that they’re trying to remove him from this country as a retaliation that that’s the retaliation. And so the fight continues there where we will continue to litigate that habeas claim and to try to, the judge has so far found that Marco Rubio’s determination that it is likely unconstitutional the use of this statute as applied to Mahmud, and that it is likely retaliatory or likely it’s vague that people can’t really know what standard is being applied here and therefore it’s chilling speech because nobody really knows what the standard is. So that fight continues and will continue litigating for the first Amendment rights and against the retaliatory actions of the administration there.

    And the immigration proceedings, the court on April 11th did find that Mahmud was removable from the United States, and an order of removal has been issued. However, because people panic at that, the federal district court has said that he cannot be removed from this country unless, and until that judge says that it’s okay. And so there is a court order in place to the extent that the administration adheres to that is a whole other thing, but there is a court order in place. So basically these two lanes are being litigated now, and we are trying to basically say that this government, this administration, should not be able to detain or remove Mahmud from this country for his protected speech rights. And that’s the fight that continues. What people can do is, it’s challenging because I think the public support for Mahmood and saying that we as a nation are not afraid of him, that no matter how they frame him or try narrate him as somebody to be feared, I think we can choose to not fear each other.

    We can choose not to fear Mahmud, and we can choose to speak as one voice that the weapon, the murdering of women and children and men and women, Palestinian people in Gaza is not something that we support, that that is a mainstream position, not a dissident one. And while it may be adverse to this administration’s foreign policy, it is adverse to our moral compass as a nation and making that very clear that we do not stand for genocide as a nation. And even if we are on the border about whether Israel has the right to defend itself or not, or wherever people stand there, I think it’s important for them to also say that we refuse to see our immigration laws weaponized to shut down an important debate of great public concern, that we refuse to do that. So people, wherever they are on their spectrum, I think all of us should be against what’s happening here.

    And the last plug that I’ll just make is on a local level, I think that a lot of us pay attention to the federal structures, and that’s certainly important, but where we can really start to make a difference is in our city halls and in our city councils and in our state legislatures, because over the last 15 to 20 years, we have seen really damaging laws against boycott, divestment, and sanction, adopting very restrictive definitions of antisemitism that encompass any criticism of Israel at all, or any engagement in questioning us, involvement in providing financial and financial support and weapons to Israel. And these are being weaponized now in these other, in immigration, et cetera. And so from a local perspective, we can say no to laws like that. We can ask our cities to be sanctuary cities. We can ask our cities to not allow, there are police forces to be used to aid and abbet ICE and NDHS abductions.

    I mean, there’s a lot of ways, and Baltimore, of course, is being really proactive on that front. So I know this work is already happening in Baltimore and in Maryland and have had the honor and privilege of working with and talking with a lot of people doing that work. So keep doing that. I mean, I think that really matters. I do think that these kinds of policy shifts trickle up and then our national delegation, here’s what’s happening on the local level and brings that up to the national level. So I think we just have to stay engaged even when it’s overwhelming and we have to step away for a few minutes to do something that’s beautiful, that’s joyful, that laughter refilling our tanks is necessary, but we cannot afford to turn away right now. And people like Mahmud, people from our own communities who are being disappeared, they need us to show up now and in these varying ways. And I think we are, and we need to continue to do that.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • The Louisiana State Penitentiary (commonly known as Angola), which sits on the site of a former slave plantation, has long forced incarcerated people, primarily Black men, to work on its prison farm under “inhumane” and dangerous conditions, including extreme heat. In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa speaks with Samantha Pourciau, senior staff attorney at The Promise of Justice Initiative, about the slave-like conditions of prison agricultural labor and a groundbreaking lawsuit that could bring an end to Angola’s notorious “Farm Line.”
    Guest:

    • Samantha Pourciau is a senior staff attorney at The Promise of Justice Initiative, which serves incarcerated individuals and families in Louisiana and represents more than 7,000 clients in 57 of Louisiana’s 64 parishes.

    Additional resources:

    Credits:

    • Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Mansa Musa:

    Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars, I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Last year incarcerated farm line workers at Louisiana State Penitentiary filed a lawsuit for better working condition. Louisiana State Penitentiary is commonly called Angola. In the suit. The prisoners was alleging that the conditions they’re now working under are so inhumane that between the heat and the inadequate prevention for the heat caused them to have suffered massive heat strokes or just can’t continue to work. If they don’t work though, however, under these conditions, then they’re threatened with either going being put in solitary confinement if they don’t meet the quota that they’re given, they’re threatened with solitary confinement. If they quit, they’re threatened with solitary confinement leading up to the high heat conditions of the summer. Their attorney filed a mercy appeal in hopes of seeing some of the reforms out of the litigation. Here with us today is one of the plaintiff’s attorney Samantha Pourciau, who is a senior staff attorney with the Promise of Justice Initiative in New Orleans. Thank you for joining me today, Samantha.

    Samantha Pourciau:

    Thank you for having me.

    Mansa Musa:

    So as you see, I unpacked some of the things that’s going on so we know that one, the conditions in Angola Prison, Louisiana State Penitentiary, we know that the work conditions as it relate to the farm line is inhumane and causes massive health problems for the workers. We know that from looking at the litigation in and of itself that the threat of not working is real and if you going to work or you going to solitary confinement, but more importantly, introduce yourself to our audience and then give us some insight to what’s going on with the lawsuit

    Samantha Pourciau:

    My name is Samantha Pourciau. I’m a senior staff attorney at the Promise of Justice Initiative where we represent VOTE, which stands for Voice of the Experienced as an associational plaintiff in this lawsuit. In addition to seven individual incarcerated men at Angola who are seeking to represent a class of all individuals incarcerated at Angola, who currently are or may in the future be assigned to the farm line. And so the crux of a lawsuit is to get the inhumanity of what’s known as the farm line, which is the forced labor in the fields of Angola, which are known as the vegetable picking lines, where mostly black men are forced to use their hands to pick, to weed, to water vegetables, to harvest vegetables. And it’s called a work assignment. But at the heart of the lawsuit is the fact that it isn’t really a job. It’s distinct from other work and other job assignments at the prison.

    It is used basically as a tool of social and punitive control, punitive control. It’s the first job assignment most people are given and it is our understanding that it is the first job assignment to essentially break people and train them into realizing that they no longer have autonomy over their physical body because if they stop to break when they no longer can physically labor, they are, as you mentioned, liable to be written up and sent to solitary confinement. So it’s used at the entrance of one’s time at Angola to train into how one needs to behave in order to make their way in the prison system. And then over time people often get off the farm line and get other job assignments that are safer, that are compensated more, that are perhaps more meaningful and an ability to learn a trade and learn a skill that could be used if someone were released in the free world and then at the end of the day they could be sent back to the farm line if they get a disciplinary writeup. And so there’s the threat always of the farm line being sent back to the farm line as a tool that is kept used to keep people in line in how the prison wants them to behave.

    Mansa Musa:

    And so even by your own acknowledgement that, so the institution is using, basically using the farm line as a form of control for the prison population in terms of when you come in, you going to find yourself on the farm line, if you meet the security criteria or whatever the case may be, or you meet the need of labor, you are going to find yourself on farm. But answer this question. Okay, so I ain’t going to been in existence forever. This practice of the farm line has always been in existence. You go back and look at some footage from the thirties, you go back and look at some footage from the forties, any period, you can always find that the agro aspect of Angola has always existed. So why now do they bring this litigation? When this practice been going on forever, what made the prisoners come to this point where they feel like it’s now that they have to do this or to your knowledge had they filed previous litigation, they just wasn’t successful And this is a continuum of their advocacy.

    Samantha Pourciau:

    I think people have always fought against the farm line in the ways that they’ve had the ability to, by choosing to not work, even knowing that it was going to put them in solitary confinement. Decades ago there was a protest where people cut their achilles tendon and protest of being forced to work in the field. We aren’t aware of any litigation on this issue prior to the instant lawsuit, but I think that over the past decade or two, criminal justice reform has become more widespread. People, the public understands that not everything that happens in our prison system is okay. And there is I think more openness to examining that. And there is also more openness into learning and tying the direct through line between us chattel slavery and our current system of mass incarceration. We saw the new Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander really was the first big text that came out that educated the public about that connection and how our current system of mass incarceration is the new Jim Crow.

    And so I think that now is the time for the courts to hear this argument, to understand that the farm line is operating on top of a former plantation. Louisiana state Penitentiary was a plantation, it’s known as Angola because the plantation owner thought that the best slaves came from that country in Africa. And so this litigation really seeks to connect the dots and talk about how part of the psychological harm and the dignitary harm of the farm line is that it is purposefully simulating chattel slavery. And I think the public and the courts are ready to hear about that. I don’t know, I don’t think the case law has been established on that point, but this is a landmark case seeking to make that argument and show that it is cruel and unusual punishment to force people to basically replicate chattel slavery on the grounds of a former plantation.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. Okay. Let’s unpack some of the things that goes on on the farm. One, how much money are they being given? What’s the rate? And two, do they get days off? What’s the hours that they work? And more importantly, do they have the right if they are sick, do they take that in arbitrary, say they’re trying to get off the farm line and put ’em in solitary confine. In your investigation, have you noticed the abuses to the extent where you don’t have a right to nothing other than come out, go to work and go back into your cell?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    So on the issue of pay, when someone first enters the prison system, they aren’t paid anything at all. And because the farm line is the first work assignment for the majority of people, that means for the most part, when people start working on the farm line, they receive no pay at all. Eventually they can start earning between two and 4 cents per hour. It tops at 4 cents an hour. So no one on the farm line will be making more than that. And in terms of the hours that people are forced to labor, they usually call work call at around 7:00 AM and bring men, line them up out the gate to bring them to the field starting around seven 30 or 8:00 AM in the morning. In the past there were two shifts in the morning and in the afternoon since we started this litigation, they’ve not been bringing out the afternoon shift in the summer and recognition that it is dangerously high heap during that time that isn’t technically in their policy that they don’t need to do that. And so that is part of what an argument we make in the litigation that all of the changes that they have been making in response to this litigation need to be documented in their policy so that they don’t just change ’em back at the lawsuit is over, but they work a full day during the non-summer. Then during the summer months it’s usually half of a shift. In terms of the, I think you were asking about medical care,

    Mansa Musa:

    Right? And what type of, because we already, it’s evident that they want to make sure that the men are always working and the threat of not working is solitary confinement. But I want to know in your investigation, have you seen where people have actually had medical problems but they still was forced to go out there and work? Or do they all lot for a person to say, I got a medical condition, I can’t work this day, or I’m unable to work at all even though I might have been working like a month.

    Samantha Pourciau:

    So the men are able to make what’s called a self-declared emergency in the field. If they are saying they can’t work because they’re having some medical issue and a medical provider will come out to assess them, what we’ve seen is that the majority of people who make those sick calls one are charged for them. It’s not free, it’s supposed to be free under their policy if it’s an illness related to your work assignment. But

    We haven’t been able to get any evidence to show that they’re actually categorizing these kinds of sick calls as related to work assignment. And so people think that know that when they call for that medical call, they are liable to get charged for it. And so even if they end up not charging them at the end of the day, that is a barrier to calling for sick call when you make 4 cents an hour at most. And the sick call costs $2 and so they can make a sick call and if the provider comes out and believes them then they don’t have to continue working. But in the majority of cases we’ve seen the notes reflect that the person was assessed and the provider said they were fine and they could just take a quick break and then go back to work. And it does seem like the mentality of the providers is to get people back to work and not to issue what’s known as a duty status that it can accommodate some issue that they’re having so they aren’t forced to go out and work.

    Mansa Musa:

    Alright. Talk about the products. Where do the produce go that they manufacture? Do they go to feed the prisoners? Do they go to feed the guards or are they being sold in society or is it a combination of all three?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    So the farm line, that’s the subject of the litigation. The prison’s stance is that it only goes to feed the people in prison. It’s not sold on the open market. There are other agricultural operations at Angola that are run by the Department of Corrections for Profit branch known as prison enterprises. And those are more commonly sold crops in the open market that usually are used for animal feed. And so that’s the market that they’re looking into. For the farm line, it’s all vegetables that are harvested that are used in the kitchens at the prison. There’s a processing facility that it’s sent to onsite that other incarcerated people work to freeze some of that to build up the storage for over the winter months. But we’ve also heard reports of some of the produce going to the guards. There’s an area at Angola known as the Beeline, which is also very reminiscent of its plantation history. It’s a section of the prison where people who work there can live and they have homes, parks, recreation centers. I think at one point they had a school, I don’t think it’s operating currently. And there are reports that the Bline folks can access the food that is harvested on the farm line. Though we haven’t discovered that in this litigation

    Mansa Musa:

    Yet. First of all, did they get class, did they certified as a class action or is it still the seven plaintiffs and whoever else was in there? And second, what are they asking for if you can list some of their demands or the cause of actions?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    Sure. So the case has not yet been certified as a class action. We just had last month from April 22nd to 24th, a three day evidentiary hearing for the court to hear evidence about why we believe it should be a class action. And the court has asked for us to summarize and put in writing post that hearing why it should be certified, which will be due on June 2nd, 2025. So we hope and anticipate that the court will make a ruling on that during the summer of 2025 and the ability to make it a class action obviously as a huge change of the relief we can seek in that case. Although we do have an associational plaintiff vote, which stands for Voice of the Experience, they’re a local nonprofit at the organization in Louisiana founded by formerly incarcerated people from Angola. And so even if for some reason the class isn’t certified, they still represent their members who are currently incarcerated at Angola. So we still can seek relief on behalf of a group of people, but we hope that the court will certify the class this summer. In terms of the relief that we are seeking, the case is broken down into two primary claims. We have an eighth amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim and within that we have theories of harm related to the heat. And then we have theories of harm related to the psychological harm and dignitary harm that is happening on the farm line all of the time, not just in the summer.

    And then the second claim we have in the case is that the operation of the farm line violates the Americans with Disabilities Act or the A DA and that is on behalf of a subclass and a number, not all seven of the named plaintiffs fit into that category, but some of them do. And that is for folks who have medical conditions or prescribed medications that make them even more susceptible to heat illness. And so we are asking the prison to provide further accommodations for them to be brought in once the heat index reaches 88 degrees and to be given what the prison calls a heat precaution duty status. So those are some of the specific reliefs we’re requesting.

    Mansa Musa:

    And you know what, I’m listening to what you’re saying and I recall I did 48 years in prison prior to getting out, but in the summertime and in the wintertime they had the heat index. They wouldn’t let us go outside if it was a certain degree, it was automatic, y’all was suspended because of the heat. And then in the wintertime, same thing. If the temperature dropped below a certain degree, we couldn’t go out and this was something that was state regulated. But they don’t according do they have that same mechanism? Do they have a heat indicator that say that under these conditions can’t nobody go out in the yard or work or they do the exclusion or exception when it comes to the farm line?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    So before we filed the lawsuit, there was no upper limit when they would not make people go out to work in the high heat because of the litigation. The prison has updated what they call the heat pathology policy

    And they have created that upper limit of 113 degree heat index. We think that’s far too high. And so we are seeking for that number to be brought down to 103 degrees, which is still very high. But within the scientific literature is a more reasonable number that we think would provide safety and take down the risk of harm that people would have being forced to go out at that high heat. In terms of a lower limit, the prison has said that they don’t send folks out if it’s below freezing, but that isn’t written anywhere in policy. So that is also something we would want them to put in policy to put in writing.

    Mansa Musa:

    To your knowledge, is this something that y’all would want to include? Did they be given minimum wage for the work that they do on the farm line? This is the reality of prison. Prison’s going to work, prisons want to work, they give in prison, they give different incentives to work. Unlike Louisiana, like in Maryland, they give you incentives and you working just as inhumane conditions as anybody else, but they give you the incentive is that you get an extra five days off your sentence a month. I can break that down to less than four and a half years or four years or three and a half years. And I’m saying all that to say if the litigation is survived and y’all get the belief that y’all want, will it eliminate the farm line or will it make the farm line more, give it more regulatory, which would be still up to them to enforce the regulation. Talk about that.

    Samantha Pourciau:

    Yeah. We are seeking an end to the farm line because of the non heat related claims, the claims around the psychological harm and the dignitary harm, we think there really isn’t a way to reform the farm line. It is a message of US child slavery that just needs to end. And so that’s the relief we are seeking. I can speak to the Louisiana incentive pay system if you want to hear about that, but we aren’t seeking a change in the incentive pay

    On the farm line and part of that is based in the claims that we are bringing. And then also part of that is in the ability to succeed on those types of claims because the reality is the 13th amendment exception clause makes it so that you don’t have to pay anything to incarcerated workers. And so the incentive pay system that exists in Louisiana today is designated by statute and it would be legally very hard to be found unconstitutional because it is above nothing. And for that reason, we aren’t attacking the incentive pay system directly. We are attacking the overall farm line and how it operates within the system. And the lack of compensation beyond pennies is a part of how it works as a whole. But we aren’t attacking exact that specific provision within the lawsuit it

    Mansa Musa:

    And that rightly so. Right, because slavery by any other name is slavery and they use the 13th Amendment to rationalize and justify getting slave labor out us without giving us dignity and wage. But talk about the stats of the case now, did y’all file a TIO temporary restraining order? What’s the status of the temporary restraining order?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    Yeah, so we filed a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction last summer in advance of the high heat season and we were able to get it granted in part we had asked for the court to just bring in order the prison to bring in the farm line anytime the heat reached or exceeded 88 degrees. And the court did not go that far. But he ordered the prison to put up shade structures, make sure that there were more frequent and longer breaks, make sure that they had access to water at all times, things like that that we don’t think go far enough, but we’re something more than what they were currently getting. And so then in advance of this next heat season, summer 2025, we filed a second preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order asking for some of those same things but also different things because in the intervening time the prison has changed their heat pathology policy in some ways for the better.

    They’ve expanded the list of medications and medical conditions that would give someone a heat precaution duty status, which would allow them to be brought in once the heat gets too high. But unfortunately, the prison has also increased the heat index threshold that allows for folks to come inside and allows for all of those protections to kick in. So it used to be 88 degrees, now it’s 91. And so we are seeking for this current summer for that number to go back down and for some other relief that can make it better for this coming summer before we’re able to get to trial and get a final judgment on the merits in this case.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I think for the benefit of our audience, we’re saying 91 degrees… The reality is that the person’s not out there one day, the person’s out there every day when the sun come up, they’re out there every day under these audience and inhumane conditions. So it’s not a matter of like, oh, well there’s not even one degrees out here today. Don’t let ’em work. They’re working all the time in these inhumane and he related conditions. But talk about this if you can, the plaintiffs and the expert compared the farm line to shadow slavery and Nazi concentration camp. So they basically saying that the same way the Nazis inflicted slavery on Jews, same way people in this country inflicted slavery on black people, that it’s a comparison to that and Nazi Germany, to your knowledge, can you expand on that or do you see any semblance to that or is that just beating the drum real loud to try to get attention to the issue for lack of a better word?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    So Dr. Hammonds is one of our expert witnesses in the case and she is a professor at Harvard who studies African-American history, American history, the history of science and the history of medicine epidemiology. And she was the one who testified at our class certification hearing about the comparison between the farm line and US shadow slavery and the farm line and Nazi Germany and the parallel she was drawing specifically, I think US shadow slavery is very easy for everyone to understand and see it is the modern day version of slavery. What is happening on the farm line? I think the Nazi Germany comparison requires some more explanation and so I’m happy to provide that. But she was opining about was the way the medical care operated within the concentration camps and how there were medical providers. But all of the medical treatment was really focused on getting people back to work.

    And she was talking about in the labor camps how the medical providers were not assessing a person to really get at the illness or what medical ailment they were having but was trying to get them back to labor. And so she had reviewed deposition transcripts from the case where we deposed some of the medical providers at Angola and she saw similar characteristics of the medical providers opining that most of the incarcerated people lie about their sickness and they’re really just trying to get out of work and they’re not truthfully coming to them with the medical issue. And so she was drawing that comparison of the tendency to not believe people and to just focus on wanting to get them back to work and thinking that they were only complaining to get out of work was the comparison she was drawing that she saw in her review of the evidence in this case.

    Mansa Musa:

    And that right there in and of itself is a powerful testament to the severity of the farm line because we know from our history in Nazi Germany, everybody was complicit with the regime. It wasn’t a matter of like I’m in this space and I got an opinion on how these people should be treated. I’m complicit. I’m in compliance with everything that we’re doing here. The attitude and when you first said it, I reflect on most of ’em are private contracts. They became privatized. So most of them are contracts and in order to maintain their contracts, they have to provide a certain amount of services, but when they bid, they underbid to get the lowest possible service to us. And so when this entity come into play, very rarely do you find the medical going to go against the prison administration or the department of credit because they get their monies from them.

    It’s not a part of the state. When you was a part of the state then it was a different thing because now you had a different standard that you could track and say, well this is and all this is the farm line, the medical, the ward and everybody associated with it. Here you have a private medical institution got going from prison to prison to prison throughout the United States. And as they got sued and they left, they got kicked out, they just went to another and they swapped out like that. So it’d be interesting to see who is responsible for this, but talk about the status of the case and I get off my so box, talk about the status of the case right now, Samantha.

    Samantha Pourciau:

    So right now we are awaiting a ruling on that second preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order for the summer of 2025 and we just submitted our post argument briefing on Friday, May 16th. And so now the court has all of the briefing that is requested and hopefully should be making a ruling any day, hopefully today so we can get some relief because we are in the height of the heat season. The temperature this past weekend in Louisiana exceeded a hundred degrees on the real feel heat index and we’re really getting to the point where it’s getting dangerous for folks to be out there. So we’re hoping the court rules imminently and grants us some temporary relief while we are continuing to work on a final judgment in this case related to ending the farm line generally because of its psychological and dignitary harm for those who are forced to labor on it at all times, at all seasons. And so we’re awaiting that ruling. And then as I mentioned, we are still awaiting a ruling on whether the class action can proceed as a class action not just on behalf of individuals and the associational plaintiff vote. And so we expect that ruling to come through at the end of this summer and then once that ruling comes through, the court will implement a new scheduling order and hopefully set a trial date for probably 2026. But we’re awaiting when that will happen.

    Mansa Musa:

    Is there anything else that we did not cover that you would like our viewers to know?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    I think I just feel like I always want to lift up our who we represent. I get to be here and talk about the case because I am an attorney and I’m not incarcerated, but I wish it could be them that we’re talking about the case and

    Mr. De Jackson and one of the named plaintiffs was able to come for the three, the class certification hearing for the three days we were in court and sit at council table and participate and testify. And it was the first time the court was able to hear directly from an incarcerated person forced to labor on the farm line. And that changes how one thinks about this when you can hear about it directly from the person experiencing it. So even creating that opportunity to allow incarcerated folks to come out to the public, to the courtroom, to a public space and tell everyone what is happening in these places where we try to disappear people. Angola is two and a half hours away from New Orleans. It’s in a remote location that is hard to access. It’s at the end of a very long railroad that you have no cell phone reception when you’re going up there. And so I think getting folks outside of that and into the public to talk about the truth of what we’re doing, this modern day slavery is essential

    Mansa Musa:

    And how do our audience stay in touch or get more information or be able to track this if they want to stay on top of it and insert themselves in whatever advocacy y’all are soliciting from people.

    Samantha Pourciau:

    Yeah, I would recommend that folks sign up for the Promise of Justice Initiatives newsletter. If you go to promise of justice.org on our website, you can sign up there and then follow us on social media to get updates as they’re coming out. Justice Promise is our tag on Instagram and you can find us on Facebook and Blue Sky and x and that’s where we’ll post live updates as they’re happening.

    Mansa Musa:

    Thank you Samantha. Samantha, you rattled the bars today. We can hear the bars coming loose and the voices of those that are incarcerated or in prison or in chattel slavery, we can hear their voices being echoed through you. So we take heart at that and we recognize what you’re saying, that it would be more appealing to have the people that’s suffering this to be present. But at the same token, if we don’t have people like yourself, we ain’t have William Kler, we ain’t have Charles Gerry, we ain’t have Thurgood Marshall, and we didn’t have people like yourselves in this space willing to go. I ain’t go willing to ensure that the information is being gathered and presented to the court willing to pursue justice at all court if we didn’t have this and we would be, this is what we would have. We used to have a farm line, a graveyard and Lords coming out to ensure that you have endless slave labor.

    So we thank you for that. We ask our audience to continue to support and rally in the bars in the Real News. We ask that you support us by giving your feedback on these type of podcasts or these type of interviews that we are conducting. If you have an opinion about chattel slavery, if you have opinion about slavery, if you have opinion about concentration camps being ran in the United States under our species of being a prison, and if you have an opinion about genocide, if you have an opinion about anything relative to social conditions and injustice, then we ask that you give us your views and give us your feedback. It’s important for us to hear these things because your views are what help us shape the direction we are going in in terms of educating and exposing information. We don’t give you a voice, we just turn up the volume on your voice.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • The year is 1968. Summertime. Washington, DC. And covering the National Mall are endless rows of shacks built by hundreds of poor families from across the United States. It’s called Resurrection City, and they have come to Washington to demand an end to poverty and a new economic bill of rights… for the poor. 

    This was Martin Luther King Jr’s dream. The Poor People’s Campaign is what he’d been working for in the months before he was killed in April 1968.

    The city would last for six weeks. It would inspire thousands. Its legacy would last for decades.

    This is episode 51 of Stories of Resistance—a podcast co-produced by The Real News and Global Exchange. Independent investigative journalism, supported by Global Exchange’s Human Rights in Action program. Each week, we’ll bring you stories of resistance like this. Inspiration for dark times.

    If you like what you hear, please subscribe, like, share, comment, or leave a review. 

    And please consider signing up for the Stories of Resistance podcast feed, either in Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Spreaker, or wherever you listen.

    You can listen to Michael Fox’s full interview with Marc Steiner on his Patreon account: patreon.com/mfox. There you can also see exclusive pictures of many of his stories, follow his reporting and support his work and this podcast.

    Written and produced by Michael Fox.

    RESOURCES

    Poor Peoples Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival: https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/

    Camp life in Resurrection City 1968: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjsQ7IWszRE

    Senate listens to people of Resurrection City 1968: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4hrSkTnXes

    Resurrection City closed down, Abernathy jailed 1968: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQpBlIKJDyA

    #MLK on the Poor People’s Campaign, Nonviolence and Social Change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWcD4xt7Mnk

    Poor Peoples Campaign June 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCcKpVFz32c

    Transcript

    The year is 1968. 

    Summertime. 

    Washington DC.

    And covering the National Mall are endless rows of shacks built by hundreds of poor families from across the United States. It’s called Resurrection City. And they have come to Washington to demand an end to poverty and a new economic bill of rights.

    This was Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream. The Poor People’s Campaign is what he’d been working for in the months before he was killed in April 1968. 

    “The emergency we now face is economic. And it is a desperate and worsening situation for the 35 million poor people in America. Not even to mention just yet the poor in the other nations, there is a kind of strangulation in the air.”

    For King, poverty was a great evil. Something to be overcome. And which could be tackled by uniting across communities. Uniting across color lines. Despite his death, people carried on. They would organize in poor communities across the US. 

    Longtime radio host Marc Steiner was deeply involved. 

    “And when the Poor People’s Campaign started, we knew we had to build a coalition to join Resurrection City and started in Chicago… we traveled around the industrial north and down through Appalachia to organize communities to come to Resurrection City.”

    And come they did. Thousands of people came from across the country in mid-May. 

    “I mean, there were thousands of people there… And people moved in, well, first of all, they came into DC from all over the country. And there were people from reservations in New York in North and South Dakota and Southwest United States all coming in, you know, to, to there. There were Mexicans coming from all across Southwestern United States and California. That and the Puerto Ricans coming in from Chicago and New York and in the Appalachian group. It was, it was really unbelievable. I mean, it was hard to fathom the power and beauty of this multiracial poor people’s coalition that actually came and they built these shacks, you know, and communal eating centers for cooking tents. And the mud, because it rained and rained and rained. And people stayed. It was, it was horrendous, but powerful.”

    At its height, roughly 3,000 people lived in the makeshift wooden shacks of Resurrection City, right in the middle of the National Mall, in Washington, DC. It was a full-blown town. There was a day care center. A city hall. A barber shop. It had its own ZIP code. The goal was to pressure lawmakers to pass legislation to tackle the inequality in the country.

    “I got nine children going to school now. And I had been to the welfare agency to see if I can get help and they wouldn’t help. And I really need help.”

    This is from old footage and interviews from Resurrection City.

    “A lot of people knew the condition of some of these places and when they see and know the condition will be interested enough to try to make things better.”

    They demanded that the country spend $35 billion a year to end poverty in the United States. They called for half a million homes to be built per year until every poor neighborhood was transformed. They demanded full employment in the country, with a living wage for everyone.

    “What we’re saying is that our economic order is evil… It’s been our experience that Congress and this nation doesn’t really move until their own self-interest is threatened. And until they, in fact, they begin to share some of the problems of the poor. Or some of the effects of poverty.”

    They held marches and rallies, the biggest on Juneteenth, with 100,000 people in the streets. 

    Martin Luther King Jr.’s widow, Coretta Scott King, spoke to the crowd.

    “We are here because we feel a frightful sense of urgency to rectify the long standing evils and injustices in our society, racism, poverty and war. The Poor People’s Campaign was conceived by my late husband, Doctor Martin Luther King Junior, as America’s last chance to solve these problems nonviolently. The sickness of racism. The despair of poverty and the hopelessness of war have served to deepen the hatred, heightened the bitterness, increase the frustration, and further alienate the poor in our society.”

    Residents of Resurrection City spoke to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

    “We’re building our old house over there and I’m gonna tell you something. It’s better than anything that we have in Brownsville. We got our house better than anything in Flatbush, which is middle class. 

    “It is working down in Resurrection City. And please listen to that. That beautiful thing down there is just the top of a movement that stretches from coast to coast. 

    “This is the last chance I think for this country to sort of respond to the quiet and peaceful petitions of people who are asking for very very just solutions to very very real problems.”

    Resurrection City lasted for more than 40 days. 

    “Yeah, it was a, it was an amazing experience. America could use that again now.”

    It was inspiring. It was powerful. Maybe too powerful. 

    After six weeks, on June 24, a thousand police officers rolled in to crush Resurrection City. 

    “It was like chaos. I mean, they came in just destroying places where people lived, throwing people out. Some people got arrested and, you know, it was a, it was a really miserable, anticlimactic end to a very powerful movement.”

    But its legacy would last until today. Marc Steiner…

    “It was critical. I mean, it was a game changer in many ways for a number of levels. It radicalized people inside of poor communities that were involved in the Poor People’s Campaign to help them build movements locally. One of the hidden gems of the Poor People’s Campaign for me is that what happened after it was destroyed and people went back to their communities and continued to build and organize because of that experience. And that’s that story that’s really hidden and not talked about very much.

    “All over the country that happened, and some of us stayed in touch. Like when I went back to Baltimore in 1970, Baltimore had a series of collectives in working-class communities. Organizing. And so we did a lot of great work in those first few years of the 1970s, and that was born out of that.

    “And it happened all over the country like that. I mean, we started a People’s Free garage, we started a People’s Free grocery store, we started at People’s Free Medical Clinic. We organized, we started a Tenants Union group that fought against slumlords and brought Black and white communities together to fight, you know, these slumlords. And so, I mean, out of Resurrection City, a movement was created.”

    And it didn’t stop there. On the 50th anniversary, a new Poor People’s Campaign was organized in communities across the US to once again pick up Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream. Led by Rev. William Barber and Rev. Liz Theoharis, they, too, marched on Washington. 

    Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream continues to inspire.


    This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Michael Fox.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • In Los Angeles, CA, armed, masked agents of the state are snatching and disappearing immigrants off the street, peaceful protestors and journalists are being attacked with tear gas and rubber bullets, National Guard troops and active-duty Marines have been deployed to police and intimidate American citizens. Fear and uncertainty have gripped America’s second largest city as a barrage of misinformation obscures the reality on the ground; nevertheless, Angelinos continue to defy the Trump administration’s attacks on immigrant communities and authoritarian crackdown on civil rights. In this episode of Working People, we take you to the streets of LA and speak with multiple on-the-ground eyewitnesses to the events of the past two weeks to help you better understand what’s actually happening and where this is all heading.

    Guests:

    Additional links/info:

    Featured Music:

    • Jules Taylor, “Working People” Theme Song

    Credits:

    • Audio Post-Production: Jules Taylor
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Alright, welcome everyone to Working People, a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. Working People is a proud member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network and is brought to you in partnership within these Times Magazine and the Real News Network. This show is produced by Jules Taylor and made possible by the support of listeners like you. My name is Maximilian Alvarez and today we are taking you to the streets of Los Angeles where federal agents, including many in face masks and unmarked cars, have been snatching and disappearing people off the streets, taking them from Home Depot, parking lots and farm fields. Outside immigration courts abducting them from their homes, leaving lives and families shattered with all the inhumane violence and brutal glee of fascist brown shirts. Unless you have been living under a rock and actively refusing to acknowledge the reality of what’s happening in our country, you have no doubt seen videos of these immigration raids on social media and on the news you saw federal agents tackle and arrest union leader David Huerta, president of Service employees International Union, unite Service Workers West, while he and others were exercising their first amendment right to observe and document law enforcement activity at a workplace raid on Friday, June 6th, you’ve heard the reports of President Donald Trump sending National Guard troops in active duty Marines into LA against the explicit wishes of California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom.

    And Trump is now openly demanding that ICE and other armed agents of the state specifically target and invade other major sanctuary cities with elected democratic leaders to carry out his mass deportation campaign. And you have hopefully also seen and heard the voices of resistance rising from the streets, even with a curfew in place in downtown LA over multiple days, even in the face of militarized police openly violating their first amendment rights and brutalizing protestors, journalists and legal observers alike residents across America’s second largest city, and I’m talking union members, students, grandparents, and retirees, faith leaders and concerned citizens from all walks of life have continued voicing their descent online and in the streets, protesting the Trump administration’s authoritarian attacks, rallying support and protection for immigrant communities, filming ice and police abuses and demanding accountability. What is happening in Los Angeles is already setting the stage for what’s to come around the country.

    We know what the Trump administration wants to do to immigrants, to protestors, to our civil rights, and to the very concept of state sovereignty. I mean, we are literally seeing it play out in real time. What we don’t know is how much Trump’s plans will be frustrated, thwarted, and even reversed by the resistance that he faces. What happens next depends on what people of conscience people like you do. Now in this two parts series of the podcast, we’re going to do our best to give you a panoramic view of the Battle of Los Angeles, bringing you multiple on the ground perspectives to help you cut through the noise and all the misinformation and to better understand what’s actually happening, where this is all heading, and what you and others can do to stand up for your rights and stand up for yourself, your family, your neighbors, your coworkers, and your community members.

    For part one of this series, I spoke with three different journalists who have been doing distinct and equally essential coverage of the raids, the protests, police abuses, and community mobilization efforts happening in la. First I speak with Sonali Kolhatkar, an award-winning journalist, broadcaster, writer, author, and the host of Rising Up with Sonali. Then I speak with Javier Cabral, editor in chief of the award-winning independent outlet, LA Taco, which has been doing vital real-time video reporting on social media throughout the raids and the protests. And lastly, I speak with Michael Nigro, an award-winning filmmaker and multimedia journalist who is among the numerous journalist colleagues who have been assaulted by police while doing his job reporting from the front lines in Los Angeles.

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    Hi, I’m Sonali Kolhatkar. I am the host, founder and executive producer of Rising Up with Sonali, an independent nationally syndicated television and radio program that’s broadcast on free speech TV and Pacifica radio stations. I’m also an essayist op-ed writer, reporter, and a published book author, and I’m really excited to be here.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, Sonali, thank you so much for joining us on the show today. I’m a huge fan and appreciator of your work and everyone listening, if you’re not already, you should absolutely be listening to supporting and sharing Rising up with Sonali. It’s really, really essential work and we will link to that in the show notes. And you guys probably, if for any reason you aren’t already following son’s work, you’re definitely familiar with her and her critical voice. It was just a few months ago that Sonali was giving really important updates on news shows around the country, about the fires going on back home in Southern California. And here we are just what, four months later and now we’ve got the National Guard back in my home of LA and the protests that we are covering here on this episode. It’s been a lot and it’s kind of surreal to even be having this conversation, especially as a southern California boy now in Baltimore asking if you can kind of tell me what the hell is happening in my home.

    But I really value the perspective that you’ve been bringing, and I know that right now there’s just so much crap and misinformation and bad information floating around online. And it really struck me in the first few days of the LA protests and the police backlash that it was hard to find good information about what was actually happening. And that was a very surreal experience for me to not fully know what was going on back home and to not know exactly where to look. So thankfully, I had folks like Sonali, I went to accounts that I trusted and I knew were doing good work and Sonali is very much one of those. And so I wanted to give you guys access to Sonali and her great work and perspective here. So with all that upfront Sonali, I kind of wanted to just turn it over to you and ask if you could give us a bit of a play by play of the past week down there. What has it actually been like and how has the reality on the ground differed from maybe the unreality that we’ve been hearing from the White House on down?

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    Yeah, I mean it’s been really interesting. It’s been, as you said, it should be contextualized with the Eaton fires that took place five months ago. And I think LA and Angelinos are kind of a breaking point. And so we, you’re seeing that attitude on the streets in la. It really actually started in San Diego the week in early June when a restaurant was struck by an ice raid and the people who were working in the restaurant were rounded up. The people who were eating at the restaurant were outraged. And then it moved into Los Angeles a week later when on June 6th, ice went into a Home Depot parking lot in Paramount in LA County and also in the Garin District. They went to an outlet that they knew they could find people who were working these jobs. They rounded them up and that started getting people angry and people were mobilizing.

    But really what was the turning point was that same day on Friday, June 6th, David Huerta, the president of S-E-I-U-U-S-W, was in a confrontation, verbal confrontation with an ice agent rounding up around a raid and was sort of coming to the defense of one of the immigrants that they were trying to take away. He was very roughly shoved to the ground. His head was smashed against the sidewalk. He was arrested and well, first he was hospitalized and then arrested. And these are ice agents that are not supposed to have any jurisdiction over US citizens, let alone labor leaders. And so David Huerta, he’s a beloved labor leader, his arrest sparked this huge rage and anger in Los Angeles. It’s a strong union town and we are known for, this is the site of numerous UTLA teacher strikes and longshore workers striking and fight for 15 fast food workers.

    Striking nurses have done strikes here. We’ve had in recent years, a SAG after strike writers and filmmakers striking. So this is strong labor center, and when they arrested David Huta, all bets were off. It mobilized the crowds of labor rank and file labor. And there was a huge, huge, huge rally on Monday, June 9th, the day that David Huta was arraigned, I went there. In fact, there was something on the order of 10 to 15,000 people gathered in Grand Park in downtown Los Angeles. I walked through that rally people out in a festive atmosphere, but they were angry. They were wearing their union shirts. There was a lot of clergy there as well, who do a lot of solidarity work with labor. There was a massive rally, lot of spoke from the rally. Many, many folks spoke on the stage and people were angry. And then up the street from that, there were a conference, there was the downtown federal building, which is 300 North Los Angeles.

    What’s really interesting, max, I’ve been to that building as an immigrant probably two decades ago when I was a green card holder trying to adjust my status and get a work permit. I remember standing in a long line of people to get in and into my appointment. That building now covered with graffiti, California national Guardsmen, blanking it, standing there with their shields and there were angry, raucous protests, people yelling and screaming at them with loud speakers. There was a seven or 8-year-old child. I remember I took a photo of him. I didn’t want to publish it because he’s a minor, but I want to describe it to you. Seven or 8-year-old child standing in front of the national Guardsman, his back to them wearing nothing but a pair of pants and on his chest, Sharpie F ice like diff. I saw 12-year-old kid with a bandana and a face mask on the walls and on the sidewalk.

    People were angry, wrapping themselves in Mexican flags. And for anybody who knows la, the Mexican flag is a symbol of protest, is a really common site. I know it’s completely being misinterpreted and misunderstood by the Trump administration. They’re using it as a way to say, look, we’re having a foreign invasion, but every time we’ve had immigration marches in LA, people pull out their Mexican flags as a way to assert their, not just dual citizenship in the symbolic sense or dual allegiance, but their immigrant identity. And it’s a way to say, this used to be Mexican land. It’s a way to say, we are not going to assimilate and bow down to white supremacy. We’re going to be our glorious, colorful, radical, powerful selves that you can’t put in a box because we’re multiple identities. We’re intersecting identities. That’s what that flag represents. And it’s very commonly seen at LA protests that have anything to do with immigration.

    So that was happening. And then in front of the detention center where that was being held, people had gathered and there were are cops standing there looking, mean there was no big confrontation because all the confrontations are happening in the evening. They did ara him, they released him. And then of course what’s been happening is there was a curfew put on a one square mile, one square mile area in downtown LA after 8:00 PM but they’re tricking protesters. I have not been there past curfew, but from the reports that I’m reading of people whose work I trust and people are emailing me about their experiences, the cops, the train stops running at seven, which it shouldn’t. The curfew starts at eight, train stops running at seven. The cops around people who are protesting kettle them, which is a term that means that they prevent them from leaving, trapping them, and then have free reign to arrest them after the curfew starts at 8:00 PM saying you are violating curfew.

    Now, by the way, this is all in the control of the city, which is supposed to be separate from federal ice agents. And to me, what this movement has really clarified is that there’s no difference between police and ice. Some people would like to think there is a difference. Mayor Karen Bass in LA was trying to suggest that LAPD would not be cooperating with ICE and they’re going to protect people and ice agents are coming into our town. No, the LAPD are part of the spectrum of armed state power. That ice is also part of a spectrum of, they work in tandem and they’ve been showing that they don’t need to have a curfew, they don’t need to be out there riling people up, making it easy for ice to do its job. And frankly, the protesters don’t see a distinction between them. When you’re out protesting the streets, people are saying, the Marines disappeared.

    My friend, there was a woman who had been trying to get attention on social media about her friend and others are saying, well, those aren’t Marines, they’re California guardsmen. And she’s saying, I frankly dunno who they are. There are uniformed armed men, mostly men in various different forms of uniform. Some of them, some of them not. Some of them wearing fatigue, some of them wearing black who are just arresting people. And you can’t just arrest people unless you have cause and if you’re arresting them, if they’re undocumented, you need a signed warrant from a judge. But they don’t have the signed warrants. And so it’s literally, this is the definition of fascism. They are going in rounding people up without pretext. And another thing that people aren’t paying attention to is that Trump and Christine Nome have basically explicitly said that they’re sending an ice raid into blue cities, into cities run by democratic mayors.

    They’re doing this as a political action. Like, wow, think about that. Right? They’re sending in armed federal agents funded by tax dollars to undermine the leadership of their political opposition, not to suggest that Democrats are doing anything. And then on Saturday we had that, there was the no Kings rally that attracted about 30,000 people. That was the official count. I think it was bigger. I was there and I really couldn’t see the beginning or the end of the march. And that was part of the 2200 plus actions happening around the country that were organized and set up before the ice raids to coincide with Trump’s military parade. But they were just a very nice, convenient outlet for people who were upset about ICE raids. And in LA you saw people wearing kafis to show their support for Palestinian rights while holding up a sign saying F Ice.

    And many other very colorful language, lots of Los Angeles centric language involving, I don’t like Isen Ice only belongs in my orta. And very just very unique to LA signage, very glorious, raucous, friendly, angry, big crowds of people who were outraged, angry, tired. And what I’m noticing is different is that no one is, very few people are suggesting that the Democrats are the answer, which I think they’ve realized what a disaster the Biden presidency was, and now there’s such a hunger for something different. So it’s a really important moment for organizing, which I don’t know if we’ll get to that, but just want to put that out there because it’s a ripe moment.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Let’s definitely make sure that we end on that point, what you’re hearing from folks about where that energy is going and where it’s decidedly not going. And I want to by way of getting there, just like while we have you just maybe take a couple minutes to ask some follow up questions to get some clarity for folks outside of LA who again, are maybe just hearing the latest on the news or maybe they’re hearing Trump posting his insanity on truth social. So I want to just ask them some basic questions here. One is, in your sense have was the National Guard and the Marines sent in because things were so unruly on the ground? Or did those additional troops instigate the upsurge in clashes with police, with violence? I mean, that’s obviously been one question over the week. Is Trump responding to a crisis that needs to be quelled or tamped down or whatever language they’re using? Or is he inflaming it by sending in the goddamn National Guard and the Marines to squash civilian protests?

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    Yeah, it’s very much a manufactured crisis. It started with the ice raids. And the ice raids were initially, depending upon the time of day, Trump spoke predicated on the fact that immigrants are supposedly destroying our cities and causing violence and mayhem and invading, et cetera, et cetera. When of course in Los Angeles, our communities are so deeply intertwined. Frankly, most of us don’t know or care who among us is undocumented or not. Many live in mixed status. Families live quite happily together with one another. The one common struggle we have is violence of poverty, of inequality. And so immigrants are after the eaten fires. Almost every single person that I encountered to help me fix up my home due to wind damage was an immigrant of some sort, not originally from the us. I was making note of that in my head, like how immigrant LA is.

    And so we have not had any, the problem was created by Trump. The problem of immigrant violence in cities is as real as rampant voter fraud in elections fermented by immigrants. So he started the problem, and then when people fought back, when people refused to take it lying down and protested, that was the opening he was waiting for to get the National Guard involved and to claim to send Marines in. And yeah, a couple of cars were set on fire. There’s a ton of graffiti downtown la, almost all of it as far as I could see on federal buildings. And that’s rage, right? It’s a property destruction. It’s not hurting individuals. The cars that were burned down were way more cars. They were AI powered cars. And it should be noted that these are cars that are basically gathering surveillance and sharing it with police.

    They’re known to be sharing surveillance with police because they’re outfitted with dozens of cameras. So those were burned, which I think was a very symbolic protest. And so yes, this is a complete and utter fabrication that LA is so out of control and burning that they need to send in outside help. Absolutely. It’s not, I’ve been on the streets of la. I did not for a second feel threatened by anyone other than armed cops. The only threat I felt was from the armed agents of power. And they are going after journalists, by the way. So I was a little scared, not from a single protestor. And that really needs to be clarified. So this is just a manufactured crisis. It’s a way for Trump to lash out, to distract from the fact that his presidency has been an utter failure. His economic turnaround has been an utter failure, and it’s an opening for fascism. He’s trying to see how far he can push. LA is a test case. The last administration, four years ago, Portland was a test case, if you remember where they were sending in the National Guard troops into Portland. In this scenario, LA is the test case much bigger, much, much bigger city. And he doesn’t know what the can of worms that he has opened in LA because people aren’t backing down. He is going to lose in la.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And another follow up question on that front, I think I’ve learned over the past year that in fact, a lot of people don’t know much about la, right? I mean, I was getting into some very heated arguments with people, people on the left during the fires who were sort of celebrating them as if these were all just mansions of the rich in Malibu. And I had to explain to them, I was like, look, bro, I mean, there are houses in Compton for millions of dollars. That doesn’t mean the people there are millionaires. That’s just very, the property values have gone up. Just think a little more about the people you’re talking about. And right now, people are not doing that. And I think they’re not even wrapping their heads around the fact that LA is a massive city. We’re talking nearly 500 square miles in the city proper. We’re talking nearly 4 million people in the city proper to say nothing of the greater LA area. So we’re talking about a big chunk of city here. And right now, again, people outside of California are being told and even regurgitating the notion that LA is a war zone, that it’s just bedlam over there. So I wanted to give you a chance to respond to that. What does LA look like right now to you?

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    It’s mostly business as usual, except in some parts of downtown la, right? I live about 25 minutes from downtown LA in Pasadena. We’re seeing regular protests in front of City Hall. They’re all extremely orderly, almost to a fault, but they’re there, which is kind of nice. We’re not seeing, we don’t normally see regular protests in Pasadena where I live, but the people are showing up in front of City Hall. They’re showing up in front of hotels where they think ice agents are staying. But in downtown LA, there is an area right around the city hall area, bridging square, and in between where all the federal buildings are located, where the detention center is. And that is an area that has been kind of closed off. Freeway exists have been shut down. So it’s harder to make it in there, and people are still making it in there.

    There are some people who are showing up deliberately showing up in the evenings because they really see this as them holding the line. They’re showing up, they’re protesting. They’re protesting because there’s a curfew and their right to be angry. Why is there a curfew in our city who decided there should be a curfew in our city? Why? Because you want the right and the freedom to just openly tear apart our communities, and you want us to just take it and lay down. So yeah, people are showing up. There are clashes with cops. Nobody is being violent. The cops are not being hurt. And frankly, if the cops are being hurt, they could just leave and then they wouldn’t be hurt. So yeah, it’s not like the whole city is burning at all. The violence of poverty impacts our city much more than anything that Trump can imagine.

    We’ve had the violence of climate change from the Eaton fires. We are seeing the violence of policing and of immigration enforcement. Those are the sources of violence. And we should be very, very, very clear on that. And LA may be, LA is a city of contradictions. Even I don’t fully know la, I only know the pieces that I traverse regularly. It’s a city of contradictions. It’s a city of millionaires and immigrants. It’s a city of white liberal Hollywood and radical Antifa union folks and artists and theater people. I mean, it’s everything. It’s such a slice of humanity. And also, we have some of the largest immigrant groups that are living outside native country in, I think most cities in the United States, for example, the biggest Armenian population outside Armenia lives in la, huge populations of Vietnamese, Koreans, massive Korean population, Indians and Pakistanis. It’s so a huge Arab population.

    Persians, it is such an incredible sort of multi-layered city that I don’t know, it’s hard to, if you’ve never been to LA, for those people who’ve never been to LA, just come and get a sense of the beauty here. It’s a beautiful city. It’s gritty and it’s also beautiful. It’s slick and it’s gritty at the same time. I can’t describe it. You’ll never know LA unless you’ve spent a lifetime exploring every corner of it, as you said, it’s just huge. It’s massive. And everyone can unite on the one thing they all hate about la, and that is traffic, because we’re so spread out and we have to drive so much, and there’s just too much traffic. So

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    There you go. Well, I didn’t want to interrupt because you were making a serious point, but when you said that the thing that binds Angelinos is like class struggle, and I was like, and hatred of traffic. Those are the two things. Yeah, that’s what the banners of the proletariat in la. And I can’t keep you for too much longer. And I know you’ve been busting your butt doing interviews all day. So I promise I just got a couple more questions for you. But on that last note though, I wanted to ask the no kings protests, like you mentioned happened on Saturday. And I was here covering the protests in Baltimore. Thousands of folks showed out admittedly as a more white crowd that I think you saw a lot of folks from Baltimore County coming in. But there’s still thousands of folks that I talked to, veterans, young folks, old folks, people like you were saying, kind of a chorus of righteous grievances that were emerging from this crowd, from standing up against the attacks on immigrants to the attacks on democracy and the rule of law to the billionaire takeover of everything, but very much kind of all singing together in this chorus of righteous rage.

    And it was a very peaceful endeavor. Some would criticize, it was almost too peaceful, right? There were food trucks there. And it’s just like, I think what people are seeing in LA has gotten everyone maybe a little on Tenter hooks, because it either becomes a litmus test of like, if we’re not as radical as LA, then we’re not doing anything worthwhile. But I caution people out there to just put judgment to the side at this moment in history as we descend into fascism, and just look at the people who are showing up and encourage action where you can and don’t judge people who are taking that first step to speak out. There’s a lot going on right now, and people are meeting this moment coming from a lot of different paths. Right?

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    Agreed.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, and on that note, I wanted to just ask, like you mentioned the no Kings protests. I know that there were some violent tactics used by police to try to disperse some crowds. I think there were maybe about 35 arrests as I read. So I wanted to ask, is the police presence, is the curfew, is it slowing down the protest momentum in LA that you’re seeing? And are the attacks on journalists that you mentioned, is that slowing down or making you and your colleagues think twice about going out there and covering?

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    I do wonder if the turnout in LA would’ve been bigger had there not been all of this warning ahead of time that the Marines are going to be sent to LA for the No Kings protest. I had a friend who was visiting from out of town, and I said to her, listen, I’m a journalist. I’m afraid you’re visiting, but come with me to the protest. We’ll do a few interviews and go get lunch afterwards. And she was like, oh. But I read and I said, oh, look, this is la. Trust me, it’s going to be fine. And we’ll know as soon as we get on the train. If there’s crowds of people on the train to go into downtown la, it’s all going to be good. If there’s not that many people, then it’s going to be a little bit iffy. And there were a few people.

    And then as we sat on the train, more and more came in. And when we got out of the train, there was a sea of people. But I’ve been to a bigger protest in la, huge protest, the first women’s march in 2017, and then 2006, because I’ve been doing this a long time, the massive 2006 immigration rallies when a million people showed up on the streets of LA wearing white and waving US flags and Mexican flags, the subway trains were so, the metro trains were so, so crowded. And the more crowded it is, the more big and glorious it is, and the less fear there is about police violence. And so I would say that there was a little fear of police violence. It was huge in la, but it could have been huger. And I suspect that if people had, I suspect people also remember there were LA is so spread out.

    Pasadena had its own protests. Sierra Madre had its own protests. South Pasadena had its own protests. So a lot of smaller rallies were happening in cities in LA County that people were like, well, instead of going to the one big one in la, we’ll go to the one here that’s smaller that we know there aren’t going to be cops freaking us out. So that might’ve been another thing that happened. And I think it’s really, and when it comes to the journalists, I don’t know. I mean, yes, I’ve stayed away from covering the evening protests in part because of practicality, because I’ve kids and I take care of my parents, but also in part because, yeah, I have no wish to be having a flashback grenade hurdle at my head, which is a sorry thing to say. It indicates the sorry state of our democracy when a journalist are slightly afraid to go out and cover these huge protests. So yeah, I think that that’s definitely an important thing to consider.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Yeah, it’s pretty damn wild when you can see on camera the police targeting journalists, even foreign journalists and just shooting them with rubber bullets, shooting our colleagues in the head with rubber bullets and tear gas canisters. And I don’t want to do the thing where it’s like fellow journalists get, we clutch our pearls and we get really upset when other journalists are hurt, but we don’t speak out when citizens are being brutalized. No, we’re pissed off at all of it. And all of it is an atrocity and an attack on democracy as such, and on the people as such. See, it’s not that hard to walk and chew gum at the same time. But these are very dangerous times that we are living in. And I kind of wanted, as we round this final corner here, again, I just wanted to thank you and everyone who is going out there and continuing to do the important work of reporting so that folks like the listeners of this show can actually know what the hell is going on and not be led astray, not be led to support this authoritarian repression because they are being fed misinformation about what’s actually happening on the ground.

    And in that vein, in the final turn, I wanted to circle back to the point that you raised in the beginning. I wanted to ask if we could maybe just survey a bit, the folks that you’ve been talking to, the attitudes that you’ve been picking up on, the things that people have been telling you, like I guess, where are folks right now? Where do you see this going? And where is this grassroots energy headed right now?

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    So some of the people that I’ve been talking to are a lot of young folks, people who are showing up in their graduation sashes who are from mixed status families. I talked to high school kids whose families are impacted. And one kid said, I’m here because my grandfather can’t be here because he’s too scared, because he is undocumented, but I’m a citizen, so I’m here on his behalf. I’ve talked to a lot of what’s really interesting, a lot of black folks coming out in support of their immigrant neighbors. So I spoke with Jasmine Abula Richards, who is the leader of the Black Lives Matter Pasadena chapter, who said Babies are being ripped out of the arms of their families. I don’t care what race they are. I’m standing here in solidarity with them, and she is calling on her community to show up for immigrant rights, which I just love.

    That’s a lot of lots. So LA’s No Kings Rally, hugely multiracial and diverse, in contrast to the women’s March that took place this year as opposed to the one that took place in 2017. So I went to the Women’s March this year, largely white, although it was still multiracial just because it’s la. But on Saturday, incredibly multiracial. I’ve also interviewed Pasadena City Councilman Rick Cole, whose daughters were arrested in downtown LA protesting the National Day labor organizing networks, Pablo Alvarado, who has been on the front lines of all of defending dayers at Home Depot. Yeah, it’s been, people are really ready to take this on. They are basically drawing the line in the sand saying, no, you cannot do this to la. We’re not going to let you, it’s just not happening because we’re immigrants are too integrated into our society. They aren’t just a part of our community.

    They are our community. So I’ve talked to pastors and clergy who are doing solidarity work, union leaders. Oh my gosh, I can’t keep track of the interviews. There’ve been so many interviews, but it’s a great cross section. People who’ve been active for many, many years and who’ve come out for many protests and people just become activated. And yeah, I think I’m hoping that the people who are rising up are also seeing, because what happened the last time people rose up against Trump was it was this feeder into if only we could elect more Democrats than we could get rid of Trump. Well, that was tried and failed. And now what? And I think I am seeing from, at least in la, a sense that we need to expand beyond the two party system. We need more radical leadership in government, and if we want to change the dynamics of power, we need to elect people regardless of which party, and ideally, not really establishment Democrats, independence or whatever democratic socialists who are going to do our bidding as opposed to Wall Streets and the brown shirts. So Yeah’s been incredible. It’s a great time to be a journalist in spite of the dangers. It’s a great time to be a journalist in America. It’s also the worst time to be a journalist because nobody’s newsrooms are being decimated, and our jobs are being outsourced to ai, and we’re trying to survive on Patreon and Substack subscriptions. So yeah, contradictions, and you well know what that means.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, and that’s as good of a occasion as any to remind y’all before we let her go to please follow Sonali and support her show, check out her work. It’s invaluable in these times. So Sonali, thank you so much for joining us, and thank you for all the work you’re doing. Si, I really appreciate it.

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    I appreciate your work as well. Thank you so much, max, for having me on.

    Javier Cabral:

    What’s up, man? My name’s Javier Cabral. I’m the editor in chief for LA Taco.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, Javier, thank you so much for joining us today, man. I know you’ve been running your ass off, you and your colleagues over there at La Taco covering the mayhem, the protests, the lifting up, the voices on the front lines of struggle back home. And I just wanted to say up top that the work y’all have been doing has been incredible, vital, and just so, so necessary in this moment when there’s so much bad information, misinformation floating around. I really can’t emphasize enough for folks listening that if you haven’t already, you need to follow La Taco, follow their Instagram, follow their accounts where they’re really posting real time updates on what’s happening back in la. And we’re going to link to those accounts in the show notes for this episode. And Javier, I wanted to toss it to you there before we really dig into what the past week has looked like through your eyes and the eyes of your colleagues and the coverage that you’re doing. I wanted to ask you if you could just tell our listeners a bit more about La Taco, what it is, and the kind of coverage that you guys have been doing, and then I guess tie that into the past week. When did this all really start kicking up for you, and how did y’all respond to the protests to the National Guard to Ice raids? How did you guys respond to that with the coverage that you’re doing?

    Javier Cabral:

    Sure, man. So LA Tacos started in 2005 as a blog that celebrated tacos, cannabis and graffiti. We thought ourselves as a baby vice, I would say we were, were alternative. This is a time when tacos were illegal in la. There was a big movement called ADA because taco trucks were illegal to park all over the city and pretty much what street vendors are dealing with right now and their battle for legalization and for permits. And in 2017, Dan Danez took over. He was a former vice reporter badass who was in the chapels tunnels and worked for Vice Mexico. He spearheaded our news first approach to fill the void that after LA Weekly got slashed, they fired everyone. And then LA was left without an alternative style publication for a county of 10 million people, which it was crazy. So LA Taco decided to just put our resources and hope for the best. Daniel was the editor for two years before he moved on to LA Times Food, where he is at now. I took over right before the pandemic in 2019, and no one was reading. There was the pivot.

    The pivot to that Creator Media was starting to happen and vlogging with a V. And my contract was like, if you can get our traffic up in six months, you can keep the job as long as you have. And it’s been almost six years now. So we’ve really risen to meet whatever crisis or whatever big news story is happening out there because of alternative style approach. And when I say alternative, it just means that we’re, we’re not the opposite of corporate media. We’re not a nonprofit. We don’t have any nonprofit safety net. We are 100% independent. A lot of brands don’t want to work with us because we publish whatever the hell we want to publish. And some of these stuff that we do is pretty damning to corporations or to the police or to any person in power are investigative investigative journalist, Alexis Oli Ray.

    He is our ace. He’s always out there keeping police accountable, has been involved of several lawsuits, and we back him up, we back everything because I famously said one time I interviewed by LA Times a little profile on me, and I’m from the hood, right? So literally I said, we have to be prepared to defend whatever we publish in a dark alley if need be. So that philosophy, it’s on my heart and in everything I publish, I’m like, I can, we can’t be ashamed kiss as we can’t be fluffy. I see these people that we’re writing about when I go to backyard punk shows, when I go eat tacos and I speak to ’em in Spanish, whatever I publish, it has to be truthful and it has to just be just 100% something that I can stand behind. So that’s been our approach and this kind of fearless approach to a term, I call this street level journalism.

    And that’s been our formula in 2021, we won a James Beard Award for our unique approach to food based, to food based stories. We do more food culture, more food intersections, gentrification, all the stuff that other publications are too scared to publish or too scared to touch because they don’t want a sacrifice their whatever ad sponsor or whatever. But we don’t care. Our tagline, literally for the longest time was we had bumper stickers that it was like, we don’t give a fuck. So with that same kind of punk rock ethos, we’re in 2025 now in this recent ice raids and massive civil unrest because of the fascist regime, because of Trump, because of him terrorizing our communities through these federal forces. So we’ve been covering it all, been covering it, and we’ve been documenting our little team of six reporters has really hit the streets and just trying to do our best to just show exactly what is happening out there and provide context as best as we can. It’s nothing crazy, but in this age of people talking to their phone and not asking any hard questions, I guess that’s crazy.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Again, I’m seeing this in real time. I mean, you’ve been posting videos from the ground in demonstrations showing when just rows and rows of police cars are descending on peaceful protesters and launching tear gas into the center of the crowds you guys have gotten police brutalizing, senior citizens. You’ve gotten those senior citizens on camera talking about it. You’ve done videos on social media reporting on ice raids, on Eros and other street vendors. So I want to kind of talk a bit about that, the kinds of stories that you’ve been reporting on, especially over the past week, right? All the focus has obviously been on the protests themselves, the National Guard, the Marines, this big debate over who’s causing the violence, who’s responding to the violence, yada, yada, yada. And I do want to make time to talk about that, but I wanted to ask what the past week has looked like for you and your colleagues reporting on the stories that you’ve been reporting on. What do you want folks out there, especially outside of LA, to know about what you’ve been seeing happen in your home over the past seven days?

    Javier Cabral:

    Well, these are the darkest days that I’ve lived in la. I’m 36 years old, so I don’t remember much about the LA riots in early nineties, but as far as I’m concerned, as long as I’ve been doing this, if you’re someone who’s looking from afar into what’s happening, it’s bad. It’s enough to just make everything like your life stop. It’s really hard to not fall in a downward spiral of depression, anxiety, paranoia. If you know anyone who is an immigrant and lives in la, especially if you’re a Latino, brown skinned person, definitely check in on them. Or don’t try to pretend like life is going on as normal because it’s not. It’s what we’re seeing is unprecedented and how LA Taco has been responding is also unprecedented as a leader, as the editor in chief, it’s been crazy. I’ve been very overwhelmed sometimes. I’m not going to lie.

    I don’t know. I’m really grateful for my team that trust me. But there came a point where we were getting dozens of tips in our emails and our dms about all these ice raids happening around us just a few miles away. And what people, everyone was just scared. And then there were some stories that we were getting to before our competition, I guess other broadcasts or print publications, because we’re a lot more nimble. But even then, we couldn’t get to it fast enough. So as editor in chief, as a diehard writer, I was like, man, I think we need to get out of ourselves and get out of our business model even. Because as you know, the way that journalism and websites work is we get paid by either impression, but that’s dried up this Google AdSense. It’s not much money or if it’s syndicated on any of these apps, but that’s also a lot of it is very, Penn is on a dollar.

    So what we’ve been doing is having a membership approach. People you join our members, and before all these protests, we were at 3,500, no, we were maybe like 3,300 members, and now we just checked it in and we’re over 4,000. So that, for me, it was very risky. So I decided that we needed to go on a social media first approach and employ these tactics that these creators or influencers are doing, but just apply a layer of integrity and ethics to everything and be able to verify everything. So we’ve been doing that, and it was a very risky approach. And my team luckily trusted me, and people have been, they’ve been heating our call, they’ve been responding to us. I frankly just from the bottom of my heart, just a little video, and I was like, look at everyone. Shit’s crazy right now. We can’t keep up with tips.

    We’re only a team of six, so we’re going to start doing more videos and we hope that you back us up. We hope that you just don’t enjoy our content for free and you throw us a bone, whatever you can, anything helps. So we’ve actually raised more than $25,000 from just donations too in the last seven days. And it’s, how have we been covering this? It’s all hands on deck people. Sometimes my team doesn’t even ask me. They just go and cover it because that’s how newsworthy everything is right now. It’s just, it’s crazy times. And we’ll think about it after, just go first document and then we’ll think about, we’ll unpack it later. That’s how insane LA is right now with what’s happening with these ice raids and all these protests. I think I went, there was a straight protest for nine days. Nine days of hundreds of people protesting, and then obviously the police escalation that we have all been just seeing on our phones and on tv.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And can you say more about the raids themselves, just for folks listening? I mean, where are the raids happening? Who’s getting taken the manner in which people are being hunted down and detained again? I want to bring people down to that street level where you guys are, just to give them a sense of the terror that’s being waged against our community right now and what that looks like in the tips you’re getting, the stories that you’re reporting, the people you’re talking to. I want people listening to hear that and know that.

    Javier Cabral:

    Yeah, so undocumented street vendors, undocumented workers of any kind, even if you’ve been working here for 30 years and you have a home, you own a home, even if you are a functioning member of American society who pays your taxes, who has a complete family, who has made is probably more American than Mexican at this point. And what I mean by that is has adopted more American values. They’re good consumers. They watch a lot of American football. There are people like you and I, and they just haven’t had their legal processing. As some of us know, it takes a long time.

    It depends on whatever kind of visa you want to apply for, but it’s very unrealistic for a lot of working people. And the way that these federal agencies are abducting people is very violent, very traumatic. When I say violent, traumatic, there was a video that we shared yesterday where we got some more details on about, it was in the Walmart parking lot in Pico Rivera here in la, which is Pico Rivera is a small suburban Latino community, maybe about 25 minutes from downtown. I call it east of East la. It’s even more east of East la. And it was in the Walmart parking lot. And this I got to interview the daughter of a tortilla delivery driver who worked for Mission Foods. And if you work those jobs, that’s a lot of of seniority to have your route and do it. And he was delivering his tortillas in a stack of ’em in a dolly.

    And straight up, I abducted them, left the dolly, his daughter informed me that it was very peaceful, but they left the dolly filled tortillas on the sun. His car there opened with the doors open, completely no description. You know what I tell people, if anyone here has ever seen that satire movie called A Day Without a Mexican, when all of a sudden you just wake up and there’s the street vendor, shoes are just there, but not the human. It is like imagine if people are getting vaporized by the federal government. That’s what it feels like right now, and it’s very violent. That video actually really messed me up. Actually, that video actually was that tipping point for me. And finally getting therapy, because I just felt so many things. It was like a 20-year-old kid who he had stood, he was documenting, and there’s two different sides of this, but I just found out that he’s getting federal charges for obstruction of justice and for assaulting a federal officer was just announced a couple of minutes ago, and this is a 20-year-old kid who was out picking up carts at Walmart and was documenting, and I think probably got in the face of a federal agent.

    And they didn’t like that they got him. They violently took him down, put his face to the floor, took away his phone, they took him, no one knew where he was at. And then another federal agent came cocked his gun really loud. I mean, I’m not a gun person, so I don’t know if that’s the right word, cock, but he kind of almost like if you’re playing a video game or something. And I just seeing that on all these unarmed civilians who were just concerned and crying, and then seeing this young 20-year-old kid who looked a lot like me when I was younger, I’m like, damn, that just hit home to me. I was, oh man. So it’s that kind of deep where it’s starting to affect journalists too. I’m trying to look for therapy myself too, because it’s just constant barrage of violence, guns, physical violence in real life at these protests by police, and also that we’re being bombarded with on TV and our phones every day.

    And it’s hard to look away because there’s also a sense of fear too, because what if it happens to me tomorrow? I’m going to go on a ride along with a community agency who has formed community. They formed a community coalition that look out for each other whenever there’s ice protests. And this guy just got subpoenaed, I can tell you right now, lemme look it up. He got subpoenaed by the federal courts to hand over his, to hand over his everything, his information, his campaigns, his phone. Otherwise it’s going to be a full, I dunno, I’m sorry. Otherwise it’ll be a federal criminal investigation. And it was like the counter-terrorism unit because they’re trying to say that he’s fueling these protests and that he’s feeling all this, all this, no, but no one’s feeling anything. It’s everyone’s feeling ourselves because everyone is just so just upset at a very deep level because they’re coming here and they’re destroying families and destroying lives, and we’re all just seeing it. So yeah, that’s what I’ll say. And if you’re watching from afar, definitely support independent media support La Taco LA Public Press. They’ve been also been stepping it up, Kalo News, CALO News. They’ve been stepping it up. So there are independent sources that, I mean, they’re also nonprofits, but it’s still good. It’s all for the same goal. But definitely if you know anyone in LA who is from Guatemala, Mexico or El Salvador, definitely reach out to them and see how they’re doing, because I guarantee you that they’re not. Okay.

    Michael Nigro:

    Hey, I’m Michael Nigro I’m a Brooklyn, New York based photojournalist. I’ve been covering stories in the United States and around the world for roughly 15 years, mainly independent, but I will go and pitch stories of conflict politics and protests.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, Michael, it is such an honor to have you on the show, man. I really appreciate you in all the work that you do. And to everyone listening, you no doubt know Mike’s work, even if you don’t know his name yet. But you should. And for those who listened to this show, you have very likely heard Michael’s name because of the reporting he was doing at the protests in LA and what happened to him while he was doing his job and doing his job to inform us the people about what was happening on the ground. And we’re going to get to that in a second. But just to give you guys some context, I actually want to read from a piece from NPR that was published earlier this week by David Folkenflick. And David writes in this piece on Monday, the Los Angeles Press Club and the investigative reporting site status coup filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles and the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department in federal court alleging that officers at the demonstrations were routinely violating journalists’ rights.

    Being a journalist in Los Angeles is now a dangerous profession states. The complaint filed in the Western division of the Central District of California, LAPD, unlawfully used force and the threat of force against plaintiffs, their members and other journalists to intimidate them and interfere with their constitutional right to document public events. As the press consider a selection of the episodes that the press Club has compiled, including some that were captured live in the moment by the journalists themselves, an Australian television correspondent was shot by a law enforcement officer with a rubber bullet during a live shot. As she stood to the side of protests in downtown Los Angeles, the officer taking aim could be seen in the background as it happened. Another instance, a photographer for the New York Post was struck in the forehead by another rubber bullet, his stunning image capturing its path immediately before impact.

    A veteran Los Angeles Times reporter by his account says he was shoved by a Los Angeles Police Department officer after reminding him that journalists were exempt under state law from the city’s recently imposed curfew. Several of his colleagues reported being struck by police projectiles. A student journalist says, LAPD officers shot him twice with rubber bullets. One nearly severed the tip of his pinky, which required surgical reattachment. A freelance journalist says he believes he was shot by a deputy from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. A CT scan showed what appears to be a 40 millimeter less lethal munition embedded in a two inch hole in the reporter’s leg. Now, those are just some of the stories that have been coming out of la, and the one that this article in NPR starts with is what happened to Michael. And so Michael, I want to turn it over to you, man, and ask if you could just walk us through your reporting in LA and walk us through what happened when the police made you a target.

    Michael Nigro:

    So as a photojournalist, you are there to document what is happening, what is occurring. Often, historical moments, not often do I ever want to be part of the story or become the story. However, doing some of the work that I do, sometimes it becomes that. And in the case of First Amendment and police trying to quash or censor what we are doing, then I think it’s really important to step up. So when David Folkenflik called me, I first wondered how he got my number, but what it turned out is that the Los Angeles Press Club is compiling a list of all the journalists who were either shot at or injured or targeted by the police. And the list is long. So that he contacted me out of all those people, I felt that it was a duty for me to actually kind of say, this is what I saw is what I experienced.

    Now I am based in New York and I’ve been covering the ice raids inside courtrooms in downtown Manhattan. And there are very few people out in the street, very few inside the hallways trying to stop these kidnappings from happening kidnappings in quotes, but I don’t know what else to call them. They’re disappearing people. And one day at lunch, I walked outside and this French journalist approached me and said, where is everybody? Why aren’t people in the street? And I thought the same thing. I don’t know. Well, as it turned out, it was in la. And so when they called up the military and the National Guard and the win against Gavin Newsom wins against the mayor, win against everybody in Los Angeles, and they sent them there, I’m like, this is where I need to go.

    I arrived on Monday the ninth, so I missed the first day. But when I arrived, I had already talked to a number of colleagues of mine, many of whom already been shot with rubber bullets or 40 millimeter sponge grenades or pepper balls, and just said, they’re, look out, they’re targeting us. And if not targeting us, it’s indiscriminate. So I have covered these things for years, protests from in Paris, France, and Hong Kong in the United States. Black Lives Matter, and I was geared up and it’s best thing I could have done is to have a very good helmet, a gas mask with protective eyewear and a flack jacket, all with press, front and back, side and side on my helmets, and that did not deter them from targeting the press. Early on in the evening on Monday, I was over on this bridge right across from the detention center all by myself, trying to get a wide shot.

    Flashbacks had already been going off and some pepper, some rubber bullets, and I’m just sitting there with my long lens and all of a sudden I just heard this bing, bing, bing. And they shot right at my head, didn’t hit me, but that was definitely sending a message. I had no idea where it came from, but it was close. So I moved away and the day kind of played on some arrests and I need to be very clear here. What I witnessed is primarily a peaceful protest, primarily a peaceful protest. It never got violent until the police in riot gear and batons and started firing munitions at protestors. At this moment, there was no curfew that called, so they were just exercising their first amendment rights. They were protesting. This is American protest. It was not an insurrection. I covered January 6th, I know exactly what that looks like.

    They were not storming buildings, they were not smearing feces on the wall. They were not hitting police with hockey clubs and crutches. This was a standard protest, a real display of anger galvanizing communities. So we were walking through Koreatown at one point and there was a standoff, this kind of cat and mouse standoff, and they decided to target one protestor and shot him with a bunch of pepper balls. I went over to try to grab the angle and document that, and all of a sudden there was a ding that just kind of took me in the side of the helmet. And what has come to light since then is that a lot of these police have red, not infrared, they’re called red dot sensors so they know exactly what they’re pointing. These officers, every officer with a less lethal munition, a weapon is supposed to be trained not to aim for the head, not to aim for the neck, some to aim at the ground and have a ricochet.

    These are called less lethal, but they’re not non-lethal. People have been killed by these people have lost eyesights and even one photojournalist in Minnesota ended up losing her eye and then eventually lost her life a few years later from those very injuries. So it was very, very dangerous to be shot with these things, especially a close range. And that’s essentially what happened, which was I feel they’re trying to have a chilling effect on the press and the press that I know that’s out there. They’re tenacious. They were hit once, twice, three times. Not going to stop. This is wrong. We need to be able to document the public has a right to know what is happening.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    You mentioned that you’ve been doing this for years, you’ve been covering protests all over the world, and I wonder how you would compare this to what you’ve seen elsewhere Taking our audience into account. Right, because admit, as a American kid who grew up not knowing shit about the world, like most American kids, it was embarrassingly late in my life when I learned that like other countries didn’t shoot tear gas at their own citizens the way that we do. In fact, tear gas is a weapon of war, that there’s a reason that it’s not shot at civilians the way that we do here in America. But I had no idea at that time in my twenties that this was just something we had been conditioned to accept even though it was so manifestly unacceptable. So I wonder, just in that vein, if you could, using your experience, help put this in context for our audience. We’ve been trained to see this as normal. Is this normal?

    Michael Nigro:

    Is this normal? I don’t think weapons of war used against American citizens exercising their first amendment. It is anyway normal. However, we’ve militarized the police to such a degree that there are Humvees in the street, there are militarized vehicles in the street. They are practicing and trained in this kind of quashing of protests. New York City has something called the SRG, the Strategic Response Group. They’re supposed to be a crowd control group, but what they’ve mainly become is a protest control group, and they are violent. When you see them come in with the riot gear, you know that violence is about to happen and I’ve covered protests long enough to recognize when I’m up against the front line, what police officers have that kind of look in their eye and that their training or lack of training, they are out to make a point. And that is, I am not in the mind of a police officer, but I certainly see the behavior which is far different from perhaps that officer who maybe is better trained or just doesn’t have that blood lust within them.

    But there were a number of officers in my videos that I’ve just squared up with and you could just see it. They’re ready to kick some ass. And it’s troubling to see, especially when you have the majority of the people majority. This was a peaceful march. They are able to do this. I will say that when I think it was Wednesday night when they went back out, there was a contingent of clergy that came probably five or 600 that had a vigil. Then they marched to the detention center where the National Guard was stationed and they prayed. They prayed, they laid flowers, they told the soldiers there that they were praying for them and their safety and the curfew was coming up at eight o’clock. Most of the clergy dispersed, but there were other people there that did not want to disperse. And then even before the curfew happened, they started firing on the crowd, which I don’t know how you piece that together.

    And not only on the crowd, but also at the press, which I know this is kind of what we’re talking about, that the targeting of the press seems to be happening more and more in New York. We had to fight tooth and nail to get inside these courtrooms. And what I mean by that is there was a contingent of us that said, we need to go see what’s happening inside these public spaces. Security said no. We said for some amendment violation, they said, we’ll talk to my boss. Boss came down, then another boss came down, another boss came. Finally, I called my lawyer and my lawyer, oddly enough, I called him. I said, look, I’m having this problem in this public space. He goes, I’m oddly right around the corner.

    He comes around probably one minute later. I’m like, what are you doing here? He is like, we’re going to get you in. He got us in. From then on, we were able to document all the snatching grabs and deportations or disappearing of these mainly young black men, but also women, some kids that are no one under 18 I saw. But they’re disappearing. These people, some of these people, they’re just, they’re doing what they were told to do, which was come to your mandatory court meeting because your next step is we’re going to get you citizenship. We’re going to get you the green card with you doing law doesn’t matter anymore. And when the law doesn’t matter anymore, it is up to the press to say public, this is what’s happening. And that’s what I think happened in la. The groundswell there became such that people came out and said, we need to protect our community. These are barbers. These are people working at a carwash. These are people who’ve been here for 10, 20, 30, 40 years and that they’ve been paying their taxes, they’ve been paying into social security, which they will never draw from, and they’re part of these communities. And the response to that was so disproportional, but also part and parcel to what the Trump administration wants to inflict across the country. So if you’re in a big city and there’s immigrants, I mean I would fully expect it to be coming to a city near you.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    I mean, I think powerfully and chillingly put, and I am going to toss a broad question at you, but please just take it in whatever direction you feel comfortable. But as journalists at this moment in the year of our Lord 2025, we’re not just documenting the political mayhem that’s happening outside of our windows, but we’re whether we knowingly enlisted or not, we are all in effect kind of soldiers in this battle, this war over reality as such. And so much of what the Trump administration is doing depends on blasting a warped version of reality. Like LA is chaos, LA is bedlam. We got to send in the National Guard and the Marines when folks on the ground are like, it’s not bedlam. It’s a massive city and we’re exercising our first amendment rights. But once that sort of unreality gets a critical mass of people believing in it, it justifies the worst excesses of these authoritarian policies.

    And it brings out the worst in people who say, well, yeah, I’m all for sending the Marines in to LA because I’m being told that it’s the protesters who are rioting and yada, yada, yada. So that all is to say that what we do and what you are doing every day is so goddamn important. Your lens is showing people what is actually happening in this country right now to our people. I wanted to kind of end on that broad note and ask if you could communicate to folks out there who are maybe only checking their social media feeds, maybe they haven’t been following your work, maybe they’ve just been hearing this stuff secondhand. What do you most want people to know about what you are seeing and documenting happening in this country right now? From LA to the courtrooms in New York?

    Michael Nigro:

    It’s those two different narratives that you have coming from a propaganda based White House that is taken essentially what happened on January 6th and lifted it up and plopped it right into LA into a very tiny footprint of Los Angeles. Wasn’t all of Los Angeles. Los Angeles is a sprawling, sprawling place. This is downtown la relegated to very few blocks, but Trump basically said what happened on January 6th and he just transplanted into Los Angeles. Why I do what I do is because I hear all the time, well, this is what I’ve heard. This is what I read. A lot of that is just theoretical. I go out and take photos and videos and create multimedia pieces so it’s not theoretical. So you can see what is happening on the ground with the people actually doing, whether they’re protesting or doing hard work of trying to keep immigrants safe.

    And that’s very particular to this, but that’s why I do what I do. So it’s an airtight documentation of reality and without it, I feel far too often people are just not realizing that that immigrant that I just shot as being taken away from his loved ones to a very dangerous country, could be their brother, their friend, their coworker, their sister, their brother. That makes it less theoretical to people and I hope that it sits with them. Now of course, I’ll get FLA online and social media with all these kind of talking points of like, this is what I voted for and there’s nothing I can really do to refute that, but except go out and do it again and shoot it and continue to document as a lot of my colleagues are going to continue to do, no matter how much they’re going to try to suppress us.

    I think there’s more of us out there trying to show what’s really, really happening and that the city wasn’t burning down. Look, a few Waymo cars, if that’s what they’re called, we burned and no one was hurt. Yeah, it’s illegal, but these are very small instances. May be part of the protest. Perhaps not. I wasn’t there to view it, but what I witnessed there was communities coming together and what happens so very rarely with journalists nowadays is that I had people thanking me, people thanking me, saying, thank you for doing this work. Thank you for coming out here and showing that we’re fighting for our communities, we’re fighting for our brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and daughters and sons.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    All right, gang. That’s going to wrap things up for us this week. Once again, I want to thank our guests, Sonali Kolhatkar, Javier Cabal and Michael Nigro for their vital work and for taking the time to speak with us for this episode. And I want to thank you all for listening and want to thank you for caring. We’ll see you all back here next week for another episode of Working People. And if you can’t wait that long, then go explore all the great work that we’re doing at The Real News Network where we do grassroots journalism that lifts up the voices and stories from the front lines of struggle. Sign up for the Real News newsletter so you never miss a story and help us do more work like this by going to the real news.com/donate and becoming a supporter today. I promise you it really makes a difference. I’m Maximilian Alvarez. Take care of yourselves. Take care of each other. Solidarity forever.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Jacobin logo

    This story originally appeared in Jacobin on June 09, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    You don’t think it’s gonna happen to you, quite frankly, until it does,” said Luisa, whose father was detained in a raid at the Ambiance Apparel factory in Los Angeles’s garment district. Immigration officers had arrived in force on Friday morning and invaded the warehouse, initiating what Luisa called “a manhunt for each and every one of the workers” on their list.

    Luisa, twenty-four, has been unable to talk to her father, fifty-one, since he was taken from the factory floor.

    A crowd immediately gathered outside Ambiance, drawn by the swarm of armored vehicles. Some protesters blocked vans in an attempt to physically prevent them from leaving the scene with detainees. Observing the action was David Huerta, president of Service Employees International Union–United Service Workers West (SEIU-USSW), who was tackled to the ground, injuring his head. Huerta was treated at a hospital, but remained in federal custody throughout the weekend. He was released early Monday afternoon on bond, but now faces federal felony charges.

    Luisa’s family has been increasingly worried about separation since Donald Trump’s election last November. “My father made it a big deal to ensure us that if it did happen — he always said, ‘If it does happen, but it won’t’ — we’re gonna be fine,” Luisa told Jacobin. She has been given a pseudonym to protect her anonymity.

    Now that the moment has arrived, the family’s optimism has given way to quiet dread. “We don’t know how to address it with each other even,” she said. “We want to remain strong for him, and for ourselves, so that we can find ways to help him.” She described the family’s interactions with officials so far as “suspicious and difficult to navigate.”

    On Saturday morning, Luisa caught a glimpse of her father outside the federal building in Downtown Los Angeles. He was being loaded into a van for transport to a separate facility. Officials had promised her visitation but canceled at the last minute, citing the protests roiling outside.

    By Friday night, the federal building had already become a focal point of protests against the raids. Police had fired rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades, and tear gas at protesters and journalists surrounding the building. The melee on federal property empowered Trump to intervene directly, and on Saturday, he called in the National Guard to protect the building.

    California legislators had not asked for the federal government’s assistance. Instead, evidently eager to create a national spectacle, Trump went over their heads, putting the protests in the national spotlight. His border czar, Tom Homan, threatened to arrest the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, and the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, if they resisted Trump’s federal troop takeover.

    Capitalizing on the media attention, Trump issued several sensationalist statements, promising that “the Illegals will be expelled” and Los Angeles would be “set free.” “A once great American City, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals,” the president wrote. He called the protests “violent, insurrectionist mobs.” He pledged to “liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion, and put an end to these Migrant riots.”

    Luisa expressed concern about how swiftly Trump shifted the narrative from the detentions to the police clashes and his demonization of protesters. “The reason why we do these protests is beyond just wanting to make noise and cause chaos,” said Luisa. “It’s meaningful, and it has purpose. They want to steer away from that. They want to change that story and say that it’s because we’re violent.”

    Trump’s Needless Provocations

    Los Angeles City Council member Hugo Soto-Martinez rejected Trump’s claim to be acting on behalf of Angelenos who are being held captive by migrants to the detriment of their city. “That is not the way the people of Los Angeles view immigrants,” Soto-Martinez told Jacobin. “People in Los Angeles understand that immigrants are part of the very fabric of the city. So for Trump to say that is completely deranged.”

    Soto-Martinez, a former union organizer and the son of undocumented immigrants himself, views the Trump administration’s provocations as opportunistic and cynical. “In the last few days, we have seen an escalation of aggressive tactics by the president, provoking these conflicts and trying to intimidate people,” he said. “The public is responding to what they’re doing, not the other way around.”

    Protests in Los Angeles grew in response to Trump’s announcement that he was deploying the National Guard. On Sunday, crowds were estimated in the thousands, with demonstrators representing labor unions, immigrant rights groups, students, and many unaffiliated local residents. They held signs, waved flags, chanted through bullhorns, and blocked intersections. As National Guardsmen arrived in Los Angeles, hundreds of protesters blocked a freeway, bringing traffic to a halt. They clashed with police in multiple locations.

    The Trump administration provided running color commentary, dramatizing the crisis of its own making. “Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers,” wrote Vice President J. D. Vance on social media. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller characterized events in Los Angeles as “a fight to save civilization.” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth threatened to send in the Marines to quell “violent mobs.” The administration placed a man who had thrown rocks at immigration vehicles on the FBI’s Most Wanted list alongside violent murderers and large-scale international drug traffickers.

    On Sunday evening, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to call protesters “thugs” and demand the arrest of any protester wearing a face mask. He also called to deploy more federal forces, though it was unclear if he meant the National Guard or another body. “Looking really bad in L.A.,” he wrote. “BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!”

    Gloria Gallardo, a Los Angeles public-school teacher who taught the son of a detainee, accused the Trump administration of “inciting people to build a narrative that the people here deserve to be deported.” By using inflammatory rhetoric and taking increasingly provocative action, like rolling tanks through the city streets, Gallardo said the administration is deliberately attempting to create scenarios that will go viral on social media. “They’re doing it on purpose because they want this to be circulating around the world,” she said.

    Gallardo speculated that a small minority of protesters may be intent on giving Trump what he wants, whether undercover agitators or just frustrated individuals. “With any mass mobilization like this, there are people who are trying to make it more violent, and it’s not the seasoned organizers in our city,” Gallardo said. Many community activists, she said, were “at home like me trying to organize responses for our schools, or on the streets trying to be peaceful and not put people in danger.”

    Luisa, the detainee’s daughter, told Jacobin that the Trump administration is “definitely enticing people to react in certain ways,” noting that “protests come with powerful emotions” and accusing the administration of “poking the bear.” She cautioned protesters not to play into their hands. “It’s important to have protests, but we need to do so in a way that does not prove the current administration right.”

    Pointing Fingers as the Rich Get Richer

    The Trump administration purports to be responding to out-of-control events in Los Angeles. Many commentators challenge this order of events, arguing instead that he targeted the city and intentionally turned it into a political spectacle. He could have known, they argue, that high-profile, military-style workplace raids in a majority-Latino and largely immigrant city would be met with protests, that deploying two thousand National Guardsmen to quell those protests would draw even more ire, and that large unplanned protests frequently involve clashes that make for sensational media fodder, no matter how peaceful the vast majority of participants are.

    Gloria Gallardo believes that the Trump administration chose this showdown to divert attention from his administration’s failure so far to relieve Americans’ economic distress. “He wants to distract from all the other problems that are happening — with the tariffs, with the high cost of living. People who rely on Medicaid and food stamps are finding that things are getting even more difficult. It’s so expensive when I go to the grocery store. I can’t move for economic reasons. Things are really rough,” Gallardo said.

    Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill has come under fire for drastic cuts to Medicaid coupled with a massive tax break for the richest Americans. “The budget is set to increase the wealth of the top 10 percent of Americans by 2 percent,” wrote Liza Featherstone in this magazine. Meanwhile, “the resources of the bottom 10 percent are expected to shrink by 4 percent, because of the cuts to health care and food assistance.”

    Councilmember Soto-Martinez accused Trump of trying to blame Americans’ economic difficulties on immigrants to deflect from his own failed leadership. “The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, and rents are only rising. People feel that frustration. To say that somehow immigrants are responsible for this is an absolute distraction,” Soto-Martinez said. “Meanwhile, the billionaire class continues to become richer. It’s the billionaire class that’s robbing us blind, and they’re not even doing anything illegal.”

    Marissa Nuncio is the executive director of the Garment Worker Center, an organizing space for Los Angeles garment workers whose membership consists primarily of immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Nuncio said that this kind of scapegoating of immigrant workers is a tactic commonly used to distract from economic inequality. Accusing immigrants of driving down wages for native-born Americans obscures the real problem, Nuncio told Jacobin: a broader climate of exploitation.

    “It is exploitative industries, exploitative bosses, and draconian immigration policies that place immigrants in vulnerable positions that create these ripple effects in these economies,” she said.

    Nuncio described garment workers in Los Angeles as “skilled craftspeople creating garments from whole cloth. It’s amazing to see their work.” Undocumented immigrants are paid poorly not because what they do is easy, but because they are uniquely vulnerable to workplace abuses. Nuncio said that Trump hopes his raids will have a chilling effect on immigration, but instead they will have a chilling effect on workplace organizing, depressing wages further.

    “Over twenty years of organizing workers,” she said, “we know that what we will see in the workplace is exploitative bosses saying, ‘Hey, if you complain about those wages, I know where you live, and I’ll call immigration.’”

    While Trump’s xenophobia is particularly brazen, Gallardo sees a problem much bigger than Trump at play. “Republicans — or, really, the ruling class, the elites — don’t want Trump’s base to understand the material reasons for the way things are,” she said. “They want to stop their base from actually coordinating as a working class with these other groups of people.”

    Undocumented immigrants and their families are bearing the immediate brunt, she said. But the division ultimately hurts the entire working class, including many people who are at home rooting for Trump to crush the violent mobs of illegal immigrants and crazy leftists.

    The events in Los Angeles have played out in a familiar sequence: manufacture a crisis, amplify the conflict, then use the ensuing chaos to justify increasingly authoritarian measures while diverting attention from policies that hurt ordinary Americans. As Luisa waits for word about her father, detainees’ families raise funds for basic necessities, and protestors face off with National Guardsmen and potentially Marines, the Trump administration is hoping that questions about who benefits from this cruelty and repression go unasked.


    This post has been updated with new information about David Huerta’s arrest and release shortly after publication.

  • President Trump’s Executive Order calling for incarcerated transgender women to be housed in men’s prisons and halting gender-affirming medical care for prisoners has put one of the most vulnerable segments of the prison population in even greater danger. In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa investigates the violent realities trans inmates face in the US prison system, and the impact that Trump’s attacks on LGBTQ+ rights is having inside prisons.

    Guest(s):

    • Dee Deidre Farmer, Executive Director of Fight4Justice. In 1994, Farmer’s landmark Supreme Court case, the unanimous Farmer v. Brennan decision, established that prisoners have a right to be protected from harm and that prisons are responsible for their safety.
    • Ronnie L. Taylor, Advocacy, Policy, & Partnerships Director of FreeState Justice in Maryland.

    Additional resources:

    Credits:

    Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Mansa Musa:

    According to The Guardian, transgender women are being sent back to male prisons under an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. A recent report from Democracy Now, stated that 17 transgender women have coverage under a lawsuit they filed, but the remaining transgender population have been sent back. They are suffering horrible abuses in the form of rape by the male population and from the prison guards.

    The impact of this decision can be seen in the segment of this transgender population that don’t have coverage. More importantly, we can see the impact that this decision is having on the prison population in general. What do you think? Should an executive order supersede a court order where multiple court decisions said transgender women should remain in the population where they’re at? Or should an executive order supersede that, regardless of the court?

    To learn more about trans women and the LBGT community’s resistance, I spoke with Deidre Farmer, who in the mid ’90s, filed a historical lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons because of their complicity in allowing rape to exist in all prisons they govern. Out of this lawsuit came PREA: Prison Rape Elimination Act. It became policy and it became law, throughout the prisons and throughout America.

    Deidre Farmer:

    I’m Deidre Farmer, I’m the executive director of Fight for Justice. I was incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons for a total of about 25-30 years. I brought the first transgender case accepted and decided by the US Supreme Court; In that case, Farmer V. Brennan, the US Supreme Court said that prison officials can be held liable for the sexual assault of other inmates when they knowingly place inmates at risk of danger. I am currently working with several organizations on cases that challenge the executive orders bought by Donald Trump regarding transgender people in prison as well as in the military.

    Mansa Musa:

    Talk about how this suit came into existence and more importantly, why?

    Deidre Farmer:

    I entered the Bureau of Prisons as a teenager and when I was 19-20 years old I was transferred to the Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute. I had never been in a penitentiary environment before and did not know what to expect. I was in the prison system at Terre Haute for about a week when an inmate came into my cell with a knife and demanded that I have sex with him, and when I refused, he beat me up and raped me. Then a number of his homeboys or guys that he associated with, held me hostage in the cell for a day or two.

    I ended up in protective custody and I had already started studying law and spending time in the library. When you’re in the segregation unit, you find other people who have had the same experience– They weren’t necessarily transgender people, some of them may have been LGBTQ or young guys that were vulnerable or other people viewed them as weak. When I was transferred from Terre Haute, this is something that continued to play on my mind because I knew people, like me, went into protective custody and therefore the prison officials knew what was happening in the population, but weren’t doing anything about it.

    So I brought a suit claiming that when prison officials know that you are at risk of danger, assault, or rape, they can be sued for it. The district court and the Court of Appeals did not agree with me, but the US Supreme Court accepted the case. I wrote the petition on my own and filed it on my own and they accepted it. Then a friend of mine, who was an attorney at the ACLU National Prison Project, represented me in the Supreme Court. Of course, the court held if you can prove they knew — Because of the environment or previous incidents — Then you can sue them.

    Mansa Musa:

    Out of this litigation came what is now commonly known as PREA: Prison Rape Elimination Act. Based on this advocacy in the prison system right now, it’s policy that they had autonomous system set up where prisoners can complain about being sexually mistreated. We know this is a fact that PREA exists throughout the system– Federal Bureau, federal, state, and county jail, city jail, it exists.

    The president issued this order and according to it, all transgender people are to be sent back to the institutions that they’ve been identified by their original sexual origin; If it’s a male that’s transgender and he’s in a female prison, according to Donald Trump, he going to be sent back to a male prison and vice versa. Talk about the impact that’s going to have on the transgender population in general and with the prison population overall.

    Deidre Farmer:

    What you’re doing is sanctioning the death of transgender people, whether they are transgendered or otherwise, they are still human beings and we should not be subjecting them to death because they do not conform to what our ideology of human beings should be. In my case, the Supreme Court recognized that people with certain vulnerabilities — Including gender dysphoria or transgender — Are vulnerable in certain populations.

    After my case, there were many studies done. Consequently the US Congress took the issue up and enacted the Prison Rape Elimination Act, which is supposed to have zero tolerance for rape in prisons. As the Supreme Court said, rape is not part of the sentence. Congress, because they recognized from many, many hearings and testimonies from women, young people, disabled people, mentally challenged people, gender-conflicted people who were sexually assaulted in prison or in jail, and consequently implemented PREA, which is nationwide standards. It does not create legal rights, but if you violate it, you can lose federal funding.

    The executive orders that Trump has issued totally ignores what the Supreme Court has said, totally ignores what the US Congress has said, and what Trump is saying, despite the vulnerabilities that you have, you’re going back into that environment. Despite the knowledge that you will be raped, despite the knowledge that the person who raped you might kill you so that you cannot tell. This is not an ideology, this is not a presumption; This is something that happens and has happened.

    Now for transgender people who remain in facilities consistent with their biological gender, it is happening. To say that you will take an incarcerated transgender woman who has had vaginoplasty and has a vagina and place her into a male institution, it’s the same as placing a woman in there and to place a person at that risk, it’s inhumane.

    Mansa Musa:

    In Baltimore, I spoke to Ronnie Taylor, a policy advocate with Free State Justice about the adversities facing the LGBTQ community in its current political climate. Also, we talked about the historical activism of the LGBTQ community.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    Thank you for having me. Ronnie Taylor, as you said. Pronouns are she/her. I serve as the advocacy policy and partnerships director here at Free State. We are the oldest LGBT organization providing legal services, resources, advocacy, and education in the state of Maryland. And we’re the only– We call ourselves Maryland’s LGBTQ+ advocates.

    Mansa Musa:

    I was looking at some of y’alls accomplishments. Y’all have been given numerous awards, but more importantly, y’all had a bill passed to deal with marriage. Talk about that.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    Absolutely. We were birthed out of the merger of Equality Maryland, for those that are familiar with that. We became Free State Legal Project and then Free State Maryland. Equality Maryland passed the Same-Sex Marriage Act numerous years ago, and it was such an accomplishment for Maryland so we wanted to figure out how we can continue to position ourselves as advocates.

    Unfortunately, when the doors closed at Equality Maryland, Free State Legal Project continued to work when it comes to our advocacy portions and we’ve been continuing to do that. We have some amazing legislative wins such as the Trans Health Equity Act. This recent year we passed the Carlton R. Smith Jr. HIV Modernization Act. The awards are great and it’s great to be recognized, but we’re going to continue to do the work for Marylanders.

    Mansa Musa:

    In the 2024 presidential campaign, Kamala Harris was being denigrated for providing or signing off on the legislation to allow transgender people to have a sex change according to what their orientation was. The President of the US and the Republican Party had a campaign ad; In the campaign ad they were promoting this as something that was inhuman and immoral with the way they was representing the person that was getting their sex changed, they had them looking almost monstrous. Talk about the impact that is having on the transgender community right now.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    Those acts that have come into place and how it is crucial to our current standing Marylanders, I pride myself in saying that on a local level, we have a great partner in our Governor Wes Moore. However, federally we are under attack, and that attack has looked a variance of ways. Military personnel folks and particularly trans folks who have been serving in the military for numerous of years.

    Mansa Musa:

    And honorably mention.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    And honorably mention. To have their careers taken away for an oath that they took to protect this country is inhumane in regards to our prison systems. The Prison Rape Elimination Act is a thing, and to say we’re going to put folks in cells and disregarding medical procedures and stating that you are trans, it’s simply an attack. Furthermore, there’s been numerous things this party has done; There’s been over 886 pieces of legislation introduced by the Federal Administration for the attack of transgender individuals.

    Mansa Musa:

    This is outstanding because you put all that time and energy into trying to have a moral agenda over people’s lives, but at the same token you are a convicted felon, you paid off Stormy Daniels for lewd lascivious behavior towards her, but you turned around and now you want to become the moral cop of people’s lives. Talk about the impact this is having on the transgender community and y’alls ability to raise funds.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    It’s hard. Funding is at a ultimate halt right now for a lot of organizations, including mine. If you put terms in such as “DEI” or “community” which our federal government are trying to eliminate, it puts us in a tricky situation. Thankfully we’ve been able to diversify our funding tools, as I’m in charge of that portfolio, and be able to still do the work. But it’s challenging because we don’t want to get rid of our moral compass and we refuse to.

    We’re going to continue to do the work, but we find ourselves in a position in which the federal administration has proven they do not want to be a partner in this work. Thankfully, we have a great federal delegation in Maryland that’s going to continue to do the work and put forth legislation to combat that hate and that anti stuff, but it’s still there and it’s impacting everyday lives. It’s affecting people’s housing, their mental health, their ability to work, and so forth and so on.

    Mansa Musa:

    And we interviewed a transgender female that was responsible for PREA, Prison Rape and Enforcement Act, and she was saying that right now it look like it’s all out assault on transgender men or women in prison based on the fact that the president has put an executive order out saying that you going to be transferred to the prison of your assigned gender as opposed to your current gender. Talk about that if you can.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    I couldn’t agree with her more. It’s definitely an overall attack. It’s an agenda, it’s an attack. And one of the things that I often remind people in my advocacy work here is our current president, and I use that term loosely, these are just executive orders. This person has done nothing but signed executive orders throughout his time throughout this term. There has not been any laws. The reality is there’s still a chance to work and get things done on a local level. Now is the time more than ever. Primary general elections are coming up. We need folks to get in the race for the 2026, there are local elections, and do the work because it can be done.

    And overall you need to hold your elected officials to the responsibility. When they took that oath to serve in Annapolis or serve in whatever state house you elected them to be in to do the work of all Marylanders. It’s inhumane. Trans people are a part of the political, social economic living sphere that we all consist and exist in. And so this attack on said sub community, it’s horrendous and there absolutely needs to be something done about it.

    Mansa Musa:

    This government is taking a conservative act. Like I said, we went back through the military, don’t ask, don’t tell, but now they just did an executive order around that. Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum about that, their prison, and they taking federal funds from anyone under [inaudible 00:17:48] species of DEI. But they primarily saying that if you’re transgender then you don’t have an arm and leg to stand on. Why do you think they’re having such a conservative act towards this particular community, sub-community?

    Ronnie Taylor:

    Great question, is we have to highlight folks from both sides of the aisle are trans.

    Mansa Musa:

    Yeah, yeah.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    President Musk’s daughter is a woman of trans experience, but she’s not often talked about. She’s been pushed underneath of a carpet and it’s again, rooted in ignorance.

    Mansa Musa:

    As we go forward, what do you want our viewers to know about the transgender community? And more importantly, speak to them about what transgender means to you and what it should mean to society, because we live in a society supposed to be equal. We say we hold these truths to be self-evident that all people are treated equal and have [inaudible 00:18:42] rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If your life is at jeopardy, your liberty is at jeopardy, and then therefore you ain’t going to have no pursuit of happiness. Talk about why we should be looking at this issue and be real critical about this administration as it relates to their attitude towards people.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    Yeah. One of the things I often say is trans people since the beginning of time have done an amazing body of work, and our portfolio show that. Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera stood on the front lines of the Stonewall movement and they threw the first brick.

    Mansa Musa:

    That’s right.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    That’s not often something that we talk about. Trans people are elected officials. We have precious Brandi Davis down in the south, we have Andrea Jenkins in the Midwest, we have Sarah McBride, our first congresswoman.

    Mansa Musa:

    Come on, come on.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    And so folks are capable and willing to do the work, but we refuse to be ostracized. And so what it means to me, and thank you for asking me that question, I have prided myself and it’s often a label that I wear with pride and I introduce myself and my pronouns and say, “I’m a woman of trans experience,” because I refuse to dim that light in the work that I’m doing.

    Mansa Musa:

    That’s right.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    And so we’re in advocacy spaces, we’re in policy spaces. We are in all of the spaces. And so it’s ultimately the education that gets into it. And so the willingness to learn, there are some of us that are willing to do our trans one-on-one conversations with you, but you have to come to the table with a willingness to learn.

    Mansa Musa:

    That’s right.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    And so, oftentimes our political landscape has shown that it’s okay to be disrespectful and neglectful of said communities, but there is some work to be done.

    Mansa Musa:

    There you have it. The real news, Rallying the Boss. Transgender community is here, it’s here to stay. We not trying to make no excuse for it, but they’re human beings like us. The only problem that we have with this whole entire issue is that someone thinks that they have the moral compass to determine who should have a quality life versus whose life should be treated differently. This country is prided on equality and we are saying that equality is paramount when it comes to recognizing the transgender community and all their accomplishments they have made.

    These stories about the LBGT community and transgender and their rights to be treated as human beings is something that Rallying the Boss believe should be brought front and center as it relates to humanity. This is about humanity. This is not about a person’s preference, sexual orientation. This is about people being treated as human. And we at Rallying the Boss believe that these stories, when you look at them and evaluate them, will give you a sense of understanding about humanity. We ask that you continue to look at Rallying the Boss and we ask that you give your views. Tell us what you think about these stories because it’s your views that give us content and context to our next story.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on June 8, 2025. It is shared here with permission under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

    U.S. President Donald Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard members in response to protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in Los Angeles over the weekend, as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth threatened to call in the marines.

    The protests kicked off on Friday in opposition to ICE raids of retail establishments around Los Angeles. During Friday’s protests David Huerta, president of SEIU California and SEIU-United Service Workers West, was injured and then arrested while observing a raid. His arrest sparked further protests, which carried over into Saturday in response to apparent ICE activity in the nearby city of Paramount.

    “The Trump administration’s baseless deployment of the National Guard is plainly retaliation against California, a stronghold for immigrant communities, and is akin to a declaration of war on all Californians,” Victor Leung, chief legal and advocacy officer at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Southern California, said in a statement.

    “They yell ‘invasion’ at the border—but this is the real one: Trump is seizing control of California’s National Guard and forcing 2,000 troops into our streets.”

    Saturday’s most dramatic protest occurred outside a Home Depot in Paramount following rumors of an ICE raid there. However, Paramount Mayor Peggy Lemons told the Los Angeles Times that the ICE agents may instead have been staging at a nearby Department of Homeland Security (DHS) office. There were also rumors of an ICE raid on a meatpacking plant that never occurred.

    “We don’t know what was happening, or what their target was. To think that there would be no heightening of fear and no consequences from the community doesn’t sound like good preparation to me,” Lemons said. “Above all, there is no communication and things are done on a whim. And that creates chaos and fear.”

    According to the LA Times, the Home Depot protests began peacefully until officers lobbed flash-bang grenades and pepper balls at the crowd, after which some individuals responded by throwing rocks and other objects at the ICE cars, and one person drove their vehicle toward the ICE agents.

    “Many of the protesters did not appear to engage in these tactics,” the LA Times reported.

    In another incident, Lindsay Toczylowski, the chief executive of Immigrant Defenders Law Center, wrote on social media that ICE agents threw a tear-gas canister at two of the center’s female attorneys after they asked the agents if they could see a warrant and observe their activities.

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California said that over a dozen people were arrested on Saturday for interfering with the work of immigration agents.

    The first member of the Trump administration to mention sending in the National Guard was White House border czar Tom Homan, who told Fox News, “We’re gonna bring National Guard in tonight and we’re gonna continue doing our job. This is about enforcing the law.”

    Trump then signed a memo Saturday night calling members of the California National Guard into federal service to protect ICE and other government officials.

    “To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,” the memo reads in part.

    “The only threat to safety today is the masked goon squads that the administration has deployed to terrorize the communities of Los Angeles County.”

    Instead of using the Insurrection Act, as some had speculated he might, Trump federalized the guard members under the president’s Title 10 authority, which allows the president to place the National Guard under federal control given certain conditions, but does not allow those troops to carry out domestic law enforcement activities, which invoking the Insurrection Act would enable.

    “On its face, then, the memorandum federalizes 2,000 California National Guard troops for the sole purpose of protecting the relevant DHS personnel against attacks,” Georgetown University Law Center professor Steve Vladeck explained in a blog post Saturday. “That’s a significant (and, in my view, unnecessary) escalation of events in a context in which no local or state authorities have requested such federal assistance. But by itself, this is not the mass deployment of troops into U.S. cities that had been rumored for some time.”

    Indeed, several state leaders spoke out against the deployment.

    “The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on social media Saturday. “That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions. LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment’s notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need.”

    “The Guard has been admirably serving LA throughout recovery,” he continued, referring to the devastating wildfires that swept the city early this year. “This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.”

    Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) posted on social media that he “couldn’t agree more.”

    “Using the National Guard this way is a completely inappropriate and misguided mission,” Padilla said. “The Trump administration is just sowing more chaos and division in our communities.”

    Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) added, “They yell ‘invasion’ at the border—but this is the real one: Trump is seizing control of California’s National Guard and forcing 2,000 troops into our streets.”

    While the National Guard’s mission is currently limited, Vladeck argued that there were three reasons to be “deeply concerned” about the development. First, troops could still respond to real or perceived threats with violence, escalating the situation; second, escalation may be the desired outcome from the Trump administration, and used as a pretext to invoke the Insurrection Act after all; and third, this could depress the morale of both National Guard members and the civilians they engage with while degrading the relationships between federal, local, and state authorities.

    “There is something deeply pernicious about invoking any of these authorities except in circumstances in which their necessity is a matter of consensus beyond the president’s political supporters,” Vladeck wrote. “The law may well allow President Trump to do what he did Saturday night. But just because something is legal does not mean that it is wise—for the present or future of our Republic.”

    Leung of the ACLU criticized both the ICE raids and the decision to deploy the Guard.

    “Workers in our garment districts or day laborers seeking work outside of Home Depot do not undermine public safety,” Leung said. “They are our fathers and mothers and neighbors going about their day and making ends meet. Rather, the only threat to safety today is the masked goon squads that the administration has deployed to terrorize the communities of Los Angeles County.”

    He continued: “There is no rational reason to deploy the National Guard on Angelenos, who are rightfully outraged by the federal government’s attack on our communities and justly exercising their First Amendment right to protest the violent separation of our families. We intend to file suit and hold this administration accountable and to protect our communities from further attacks.”

    National political leaders also spoke out Sunday morning.

    Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that it was “important to remember that Trump isn’t trying to heal or keep the peace. He is looking to inflame and divide. His movement doesn’t believe in democracy or protest—and if they get a chance to end the rule of law they will take it. None of this is on the level.”

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) posted that the entire incident was “Trump’s authoritarianism in real time.”

    Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth threatened further escalation Saturday night when he tweeted that “if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized—they are on high alert.”

    Newsom responded: “The Secretary of Defense is now threatening to deploy active-duty Marines on American soil against its own citizens. This is deranged behavior.”

    “This is an abuse of power and what dictators do. It’s unnecessary and not needed.”

    Hegseth then doubled down on the threat Sunday morning, replying on social media that it was “deranged” to allow “your city to burn and law enforcement to be attacked.”

    “The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,” he posted.

    Journalist Ryan Grim noted that it was an “ominous development” for the secretary of defense to be commenting on immigration policy or local law enforcement at all.

    Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) said of Trump and Hegseth’s escalations: “This is an abuse of power and what dictators do. It’s unnecessary and not needed.”

    Writing on his Truth Social platform early Sunday, Trump praised the National Guard for their work in Los Angeles. Yet local and state leaders pointed out that the Guard had not yet arrived in the city by the time the post was made.

    As of Sunday morning, the National Guard had arrived in downtown Los Angeles and Paramount, ABC 7 reported.

    In the midst of the uproar over Trump’s actions, labor groups continued to decry the ICE raids and call for the release of Huerta.

    National Nurses United wrote on Friday: “With these raids, the government is sowing intense fear for personal safety among our immigrant and migrant community. Nurses and other union workers oppose this, and are standing up in solidarity with fellow immigrant workers. We refuse to be silent, and people like David Huerta are bravely putting their own bodies on the line to bear witness to what ICE is doing. It’s appalling that ICE injured and detained him while he was exercising his First Amendment rights. We demand his immediate release.”

    AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler and AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Fred Redmond said in a statement Saturday:

    The nearly 15 million working people of the AFL-CIO and our affiliated unions demand the immediate release of California Federation of Labor Unions Vice President and SEIU California and SEIU-USWW President David Huerta. As the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda has unnecessarily targeted our hard-working immigrant brothers and sisters, David was exercising his constitutional rights and conducting legal observation of ICE activity in his community. He was doing what he has always done, and what we do in unions: putting solidarity into practice and defending our fellow workers. In response, ICE agents violently arrested him, physically injuring David in the process, and are continuing to detain him—a violation of David’s civil liberties and the freedoms this country holds dear. The labor movement stands with David, and we will continue to demand justice for our union brother until he is released.

    The unrest in Los Angeles may continue as Barragán told CNN on Sunday she had been informed that ICE would be present in LA for a month. She argued that the National Guard deployment would only inflame the conflict.

    “We haven’t asked for the help. We don’t need the help. This is [President Trump] escalating it, causing tensions to rise. It’s only going to make things worse in a situation where people are already angry over immigration enforcement.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.