Category: Prisons and Policing

  • For over four months, masked federal officers have been arresting and disappearing immigrants attending their mandatory asylum court dates. Photojournalists in New York City fought to maintain their First Amendment right to observe the chaotic, cruel, and often violent breach of due process occurring daily in NYC’s immigration courts.

    A documentary by Michael Nigro.

    Transcript

    Brad Lander (NYC Comptroller):  These buildings have ceased to be courthouses. They are not places where judges are having hearings that are a meaningful part of the rule of law. These buildings are essentially abduction traps.

    [TEXT]  On May 29, 2025, journalists gained access to film in the hallways of the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building and the Ted Weiss Federal Building in lower Manhattan.

    Both buildings contain multiple immigration courts open to the public

    Dan Goldman (US Representative D-NY):  They are now literally arresting people who are coming to court, who are following the law, who are doing things the right way. These are the exact opposite of convicted criminals and worst of the worst that Donald Trump said he was going to deport. These are people doing it the right way.

    [TEXT]  Hundreds have been detained, deported, and disappeared to other cities or other countries.

    Dan Goldman (US Representative D-NY):  This is gestapo-like behavior, where plainclothes officers wearing masks are terrorizing immigrants who are doing the right thing by going to court, following up on their immigration proceedings, and trying to come into this country lawfully, which is through asylum.

    Speaker 1:  You have the right to remain silent.

    [Repeats in Spanish].

    Speaker 2:  [Speaking Spanish] No, please… My dad…

    Speaker 3:  [Shouting] Where’s my son? Where’s my son?

    Speaker 4:  You guys ask people to do it the legal way, they do it, and this is how you treat them.

    Speaker 5:  What’s your fucking family say about you? You fucking Nazi.

    [Inaudible].

    Speaker 6:  Yo, get the fuck off me! I’m American!

    Masked Border Patrol Officer:  I can put my hands up, too [obscures camera].

    Camera Operator 1:  Yeah, you can.

    [TEXT]  Early on, agents did not wear tactical gear.

    Few agents would identify themselves.

    Camera Operator 2:  Can you guys identify yourself, please?

    Plainclothes Officer 1:  I’m with the FBI.

    Camera Operator 2:  And your name is?

    Plainclothes Officer 1:  I decline to answer that, but we just have to do what we have to do and then we’ll be out of the way.

    Speaker 7:  The judge has trampled on his rights.

    Plainclothes Officer 2:  I apologize. But you have to talk to somebody at 26 Federal Plaza. We’re just following orders, ma’am.

    Speaker 7:  There’s no one who…

    Camera Operator 2:  Just following orders? Are you with the FBI as well?

    Speaker 7:  Can I get your name?

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 1:  I don’t have to answer that.

    Speaker 7:  Can I get your supervisor and what department you’re from?

    Speaker 8:  We need to close the door. Excuse me.

    [TEXT]  Activists and court observers were also allowed in these public spaces.

    They would later be restricted from being in the hallways.

    No cameras are allowed inside the waiting rooms or courtrooms.

    Speaker 9:  Excuse me. Excuse me.

    Speaker 5:  [Inaudible] fucking ashamed. Jesus fucking Christ.

    Speaker 4:  Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame.

    Speaker 5:  Fuck you, fucking Nazi.

    Speaker 4:  Shame.

    Speaker 5:  You are a Nazi.

    Speaker 4:  Shame on you. This is disgusting. Shame. [Camera shutters clicking].

    Speaker 5:  Move me out of the way. I’m an American citizen.

    Plainclothes Officer 2:  You are impeding arrest.

    Speaker 5:  Move me.

    Plainclothes Officer 2:  You are impeding arrest.

    Speaker 5:  Move me. Move me.

    Speaker 4:  Shame, shame, shame.

    Speaker 5:  Fucking fascists.

    Do you tell your mom you’re a Nazi? Did you dream about this when you were fucking growing up? Huh? Huh? Huh?

    Speaker 4:  Who are you? Who are you? I don’t know who you are.

    Speaker 5:  What’s your fucking family say about you? You fucking Nazi. Fucking SS, that’s who you are.

    Speaker 4:  I don’t know who you are. Why are you [inaudible].

    Speaker 5:  Fucking Nazi. Take your mask off you fucking coward. Take it off. Take it off.

    Speaker 10:  [Inaudible]

    Speaker 11:  Fucking abominations of people.

    Speaker 5:  Fuck you. Nazi! Fuck you!

    [Slams fists on door].

    [TEXT]  Being undocumented in America is not a criminal offence.

    It is a civil violation — Just like a speeding ticket.

    The courts are the sanctioned process to determine asylum eligibility.

    Agents often ignore a judge’s ruling and make arrests anyway.

    Brad Lander (NYC Comptroller):  The judge just granted every one of the people that’s about to leave this courtroom a continuance until Nov. 4, 2026. She advised every one of them of their right to have their cases heard in person, to be able to tell their stories. She asked them if they feared persecution, that they are entitled to have lawyers. She told them that they would have a list of the lawyers that might be provided free or low cost, although I’m told it hasn’t been updated since 2023, even though the city and the state are providing a lot of resources for lawyers.

    So anyone that [inaudible] God, including these families, they are violating the Convention Against Torture, and they are certainly violating Judge Adams’ very well-described rights.

    Speaker 12:  There’s a baby. There’s a baby, guys [crosstalk].

    Officer 1:  Make a hole —

    Speaker 13:  Not in the courtroom. Not in the courtroom. Not in the courtroom.

    Masked Officer:  No pictures in the courtroom.

    Speaker 12:  Guys —

    Masked Officer:  No pictures of the courtroom.

    Speaker 12:  Just hold him on the side, right here.

    No photograph inside the courtroom.

    Masked Officer:  Make a hole! Make a hole!

    Hey, just take them, just take them, just take them. We’ll come find you.

    [Crosstalk].

    Speaker 12:  It doesn’t matter their identity, it doesn’t matter who they are, you don’t even know —

    Camera Operator 3:  I got your back, I got your back.

    Speaker 14:  Sir, what country are you from?

    Speaker 1:  You don’t have to show documents. You have the right to remain silent [Spanish].

    Masked Officer:  Make a hole! Make a hole now! Make a hole now!

    Speaker 15:  Here we go.

    Out of the door.

    Masked Officer:  Make a hole now! Out of the damn way!

    [TEXT]  “…70.3% held in ICE detention have no criminal conviction … Many of those convicted committed only minor offenses, including traffic violations.”

    – Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), Sept. 2, 2025.

    Speaker 16:  Why is he being detained?

    Speaker 17:  What is the reason for his detainment?

    Is the reason for detaining him, has he done anything? Has he broken any laws?

    Speaker 16:  He has another court date. He has another court date. He’s been released by the judge.

    Speaker 17:  His court date is set for next May. Why is he being detained?

    [TEXT]  Detained immigrants are taken to the 10th floor and sometimes held for weeks.

    Despite legal precedent, politicians have been denied entry into those rooms.

    In August 2025, a leaked video exposed serious issues in the 10th floor holding cells, including overcrowding, poor sanitation, lack of medical care, [and] limited legal access.

    Speaker 18:  …I’m sure you’re following federal orders.

    Speaker 19:  Who’s out there?

    Speaker 20:  Don’t open the door.

    Speaker 21:  I got you. Who’s out there?

    Speaker 19:  Press.

    Speaker 21:  OK.

    Julia Salazar (New York State Senator):  And elected officials.

    Speaker 22:  Why won’t you open the door?

    Speaker 23:  State elected officials and city elected officials.

    Speaker 24:  Please do open the door.

    Julia Salazar (New York State Senator):  We’re just asking to observe.

    Emily Gallagher (New York State Representative):  It’s our right as elected officials to observe the conditions our constituents are in.

    Jessica González-Rojas (New York State Rep.):  We’re happy to wait as long as you need us to wait.

    Robert Carroll (New York State Representative):  Court proceedings can’t be fair if they’re done in the dark.

    Emily Gallagher (New York State Representative):  Yeah. A federal judge ruled yesterday that no one should be detained up here and that we should be able to enter.

    Gustavo Rivera (New York State Senator):  And since we know the folks are here, we just want to observe their conditions. That’s all.

    [TEXT]  After an hour-long standoff, Homeland Security arrested the 11 elected lawmakers.

    Crowd:  We want justice for our people!

    Officer 2:  Back up! If you impede, you will be placed under arrest!

    Crowd:  We want justice for our neighbors!

    Officer 3:  On that side, please. On that side.

    Crowd:  One! Two! A little bit louder! Three!

    Officer 2:  Make a hole! If you impede, you will be placed under arrest!

    Speaker 25:  Five!

    Photojournalist:  Violence…

    [Camera shutters clicking].

    Masked Officer:  Move, move, move!

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 2:  Keep walking, guys. Come on, keep going. Keep walking. Keep walking. Come on.

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 3:  Move out of the way!

    Speaker 26:  [Speaking Spanish].

    Benjamin Remy, Esq.:  That was an asylum-seeker from Venezuela. He was given his final hearing, and unfortunately, he was grabbed as soon as he left the room, so there will be no due process for this man. He’ll be shipped out somewhere across the country to a detention facility and he’ll have to start essentially from scratch.

    Camera operator 4:  Stand back. It’s a pregnant woman.

    Speaker 27:  Thank you.

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 4:  Clear a path, please.

    More space, more space, more space.

    [To the press] Get out of the fucking way! You do that one more fucking time, I’ll fucking arrest you.

    Allison Cutler, Esq.:  And I said that to them. I was like, she is pregnant and you’re detaining her. She’s in her final trimester, obviously, she’s incredibly pregnant, and you’re detaining her anyway. You can cause a miscarriage doing that.

    The pregnant women really get me.

    Speaker 28:  Oh, honey.

    Allison Cutler, Esq.:  Because we had a client whose wife suffered a miscarriage after she witnessed him being detained.

    Speaker 29:  I remember that, yeah.

    Allison Cutler, Esq.:  And so you could literally cause a miscarriage at this point.

    Speaker 30:  Do you know the nationality?

    Allison Cutler, Esq.:  [Shakes head “no”].

    I told them she’s pregnant. She’s obviously extremely pregnant. I told the client to tell him what medication she…

    [TEXT]  The White House has directed that people can be deported to countries they’re not from.

    Speaker 31:  [Spanish] Please, please, no.

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 5:  Out the way!

    [Speaking Spanish].

    Speaker 31:  [Crying].

    [TEXT]  Naturalization ceremonies are held in the same building.

    “Overall, immigration courthouse arrests have been nearly 14 times as common in New York City than the country as a whole. They made up 7% of all ICE arrests in the city since President Donald Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20 through June, compared to 0.5% nationally over the same period of time.”

    – “NYC Is the Nation’s Capital of Immigration Courthouse Arrests, New Data Analysis Shows” by Haidee Chu and Gwynne Hogan THE CITY, Aug. 11, 2025.

    Protests outside the buildings while court is in session have become common.

    Protesters:  No ICE! No KKK, no fascist USA!

    No ICE! No KKK, no fascist USA!

    No ICE! No KKK, no fascist USA!

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 4:  We’re ICE, OK? You’re being detained.

    Officer 4:  Back up, back up, back up. Back up!

    Officer 3:  Everyone, get back!

    Speaker 32:  But you don’t have beds here?

    Speaker 33:  We do not have beds here.

    Protesters:  [Singing “Amazing Grace”] I once was lost…

    [Chanting].

    Officer 5:  You will be placed under arrest and charged with disorderly conduct.

    Chant Leader:  How do you spell “kidnappers?”

    Protesters:  I-C-E!

    Jumaane Williams (New York City Public Advocate):  It’s possible that the 4-year-old daughter would be taken and the mom would be left.

    Officer 5:  Please make a hole.

    Speaker 34:  Watch the water fountain, guys, behind you.

    Speaker 35:  Help, help —

    Protesters:  [Yelling].

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 6:  I’ll explain everything to you in a minute.

    Detained Man:  [Spanish] Thank you very much.

    Speaker 36:  Don’t try to push my hand. This is as far as you go.

    [TEXT]  On Sept. 9, 2025, the Supreme Court lifted a ruling preventing ICE from targeting people without probable cause in Los Angeles.

    Critics say the ruling allows “blatant racial profiling.”

    Profiling has been observed in the NYC court hallways since May 29, 2025.

    Speaker 38:  Get the fuck off me! I know my rights! You guys are harassing me!

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 7:  Get back, get back, get back.

    Speaker 6:  You’re harassing me! Stop harassing me! I’m American, motherfuckers! Get the fuck off me!

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 7:  I understand. Go ahead, bro.

    Speaker 6:  Stop touching me! Don’t touch me, nigga! I know my rights! Yo, get the fuck off me! I’m American!

    This is a fucking public building!

    [Crosstalk]

    Fuck you!

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 7:  Go that way! Get out of here! Get out of here!

    Speaker 6:  Don’t touch me! Stop touching me!

    [Crosstalk]

    A public building!

    [Crosstalk]

    Excuse me, I got to get my stuff. Excuse me. Excuse me. Good boy.

    Where’s my stuff at? Y’all threw it on the floor, huh?

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 7:  Well, you — [Crosstalk].

    Speaker 6:  …Move out of people’s way, huh? Y’all want to harass everybody in the fucking world. Y’all got nothing else better to do?

    You touching me, sir.

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 8:  You’re touching me.

    Speaker 6:  You’re touching my butt.

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 8:  You’re touching me. [Crosstalk].

    Touching your butt? You should be so lucky.

    Speaker 6:  Oh?

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 8:  You should be so lucky.

    Speaker 6:  I got five kids, homie, I don’t need it.

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 8:  Sure seems like it. You should be at home taking care of your kids.

    Speaker 6:  And I do take care of my kids. What do you do for a living, harass people?

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 8:  Yeah.

    Speaker 6:  All right, that’s what I thought.

    I dislike you for what the fuck you do, and I bet you $100 million your dumbass family’s not even from here! We all come from somewhere, you stupid motherfucker.

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 8:  Being racist.

    Speaker 6:  Yeah, I’m not racist. You’re the racist one for touching me! Your men harassed me! Your men harassed me! Your men harassed me! That dumbass agent nigga that’s not even American harassed me. And his stupid ass! Your fucking ancestors came here, fucking shit!

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 8:  [Inaudible].

    Speaker 6:  Yeah, yeah, get mad, big boy! You can’t touch me, nigga, I’m American!

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 9:  Where’s security? Are we able to get him out of here?

    Speaker 6:  Security, no. I’m not done, sir.

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 9:  Are we able to get him out of here?

    Speaker 6:  I’m not done, sir. Excuse me, I got to go do paperwork.

    Masked Painclothes Officer 10:  You’re done, you’re done.

    Speaker 6:  Sir, I got to go talk to the lady.

    Masked Painclothes Officer 10:  Not right now.

    Speaker 6:  This is a public building.

    Just do better. I pray for you. I hope to God he helps you and blesses you, and your life, and your family, and forgives you for your job, forgives you for everything that you did wrong [camera shutters clicking]. I pray to God he forgives you, I really do, and I forgive you. I forgive you for doing this to me today in front of all these people and cameras. I forgive you, and I pray for you. I pray for you, bro.

    [TEXT]  Masked agents stormed a courtroom when a scared asylum seeker ran back into court.

    A judge had just granted him a continuance for 2027.

    The agents arrested him anyway.

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 11:  Make a hole, make a hole, make a hole. Make a hole.

    Masked Plainclothes Officer 4:  Get out the way! Get out the way!

    Speaker 39:  Uh-oh.

    Speaker 40:  [Crying].

    [Handcuffs closing].

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • This story was originally published on Truthout on Oct. 06, 2025. It is shared here under a  Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.

    Today, federal lawmakers sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) demanding information on any plans Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has to use Graphite, a spyware program that can access — without the owner’s knowledge or consent — a phone’s location data, photos, and encrypted applications, including WhatsApp and Signal.

    Last year, the Biden administration paused the contract with Paragon Solutions, which operates Graphite, while it conducted a review to ensure it complied with an executive order issued in 2023 which limits the government’s use of spyware. In August, the Trump administration lifted the stop work order, news that was first reported by All-Source Intelligence.

    The letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was signed by Democratic Reps. Summer Lee (Pennsylvania), Shontel Brown (Ohio), and Yassamin Ansari (Arizona).

    The lawmakers asked Noem to provide information on the government’s use of surveillance technology by October 14, including “a comprehensive list of data surveillance targets and ICE’s strategy for deploying spyware or mass data surveillance within the United States.”

    The lawmakers warned that allowing ICE to use to spyware “threatens Americans’ freedom of movement and freedom of speech.”

    “Given the Trump Administration’s disregard for constitutional rights and civil liberties in pursuit of rapid mass deportation, we are seriously concerned that ICE will abuse Graphite software to target immigrants, people of color, and individuals who express opposition to ICE’s repeated attacks on the rule of law,” they wrote.

    Paragon was founded in 2019 by former Israeli military intelligence officers who worked in the Israeli military’s Unit 8200. Last year, the Florida-based private equity firm, AE Industrial Partners, bought Paragon.

    Recently, Microsoft blocked Unit 8200’s access to its cloud software after an investigation published in The Guardian revealed that the unit was using the cloud to store information on Palestinians — information that was then used to plan deadly attacks on Gaza.

    Paragon has been repeatedly accused of violating people’s human rights. Earlier this year, the company was embroiled in a scandal after investigations revealed that the software had been used to spy on activists and journalists in Europe.

    “There’s no link to click, attachment to download, file to open or mistake to make,” John Scott-Railton, a senior researcher at the Citizen Lab, told the Associated Press of Graphite. “One moment the phone is yours, and the next minute its data is streaming to an attacker,” he said.

    Researchers with The Citizen Lab, based at the University of Toronto, conducted a forensic analysis of two reporters’ phones — “a prominent European journalist” who asked to remain anonymous, and Italian journalist Ciro Pellegrino. Both journalists’ phones were targeted with Graphite, according to the researchers’ report released in June.

    Amnesty International says Graphite “can never be human rights compliant and should be banned.”

    “Paragon’s Graphite spyware product is a form of highly invasive spyware capable of covertly accessing the most intimate and sensitive data on an individual’s phone, and cannot be independently audited,” the group said in March.

    The letter to Noem comes as the Trump administration has targeted anyone it perceives as an enemy, including pro-Palestine activists, anti-ICE protesters, and Democratic elected officials. On Friday, the administration deported award-winning journalist Mario Guevara for livestreaming law enforcement activities, which is protected by the First Amendment.

    In comments to Truthout on Monday, Lee said that she will “not allow ICE to operate in the shadows.”

    “Once that kind of surveillance is allowed, it rarely stays limited to whatever the government claims it is for,” she said. “History shows what happens when governments are given this kind of unchecked access. It leads to intimidation, to silence, to control. And too often, it is immigrants, organizers, and people speaking out for justice who feel it first. Our responsibility is to protect civil liberties, not surrender them.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Eric King is a father, poet, activist, and anarchist who was imprisoned in 2014 for acts of solidarity with the Ferguson, MO, uprising in the wake of the police killing of Michael Brown. While locked up, King endured years of documented physical and psychological torture, spending the last 18 months of his sentence in the ADX supermax prison in Florence, Colorado. In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa speaks with King about how he survived his incarceration “with heart and soul intact,” and about King’s new book, A Clean Hell: Anarchy and Abolition in America’s Most Notorious Dungeon, in which he “opens the doors of America’s most secretive prison and lets the reader step into the cell to experience all the horrors the Federal Bureau of Prisons tries to keep hidden underground.”

    Guest:

    • Eric King is an anarchist who was imprisoned in 2014 for acts of solidarity with the Ferguson, Missouri, uprising. While in federal custody King was indicted for a self-defense incident at FCI-Florence. King took it to trial and is one of the few people to ever win such a case at a federal trial. After his legal victory, King was sent to the federal supermax ADX, where he spent most of his final two years of his prison bid. During his time in prison King coedited the political prisoner anthology Rattling the Cages: Oral Histories of North American Political Prisoners. King survived years of documented physical and psychological torture and made it out of prison with heart and soul intact. He is an activist, antifascist, and loving father and husband who lives in Denver, CO.

    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. Eric King is a father, poet, author and activist. In December of 2023, he was released from the federal Supermax, ADX prison after spending nearly 10 years as a political prisoner for an act of protest over the police murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. He was held in solitary confinement for years due to his radical resistance and was met with violence by guards throughout his in conservation. Eric has published three zines and co-edited Rattling the Cages, all history of North American political prisoners in 2023. Eric now works as a paralegal for the Bread and Rose Legal Clinic. Welcome Eric to Rattling the Bars.

    Eric King:

    Glad to be back. Nice talking to you again.

    Mansa Musa:

    Alright, most definitely. And for the benefit of our, Eric is no stranger to the Real News or Rattling the Bars. So Eric, okay, let’s start by talking about the book that we are here to discuss today. A Clean Hell: Anarchy and Abolition in America’s Most Notorious Dungeon. And here we talking about, you wrote a book about specifically your experience in experience what is known as the supermax, the ultra Supermax, Florence, Colorado, ADX. And in it you outline a series of chapters that evolved into the conclusion where you ultimately got out. Okay. The term a clean hell. And I’ve been in Supermax, I did four and a half years in what they call the Supermax in Maryland, Baltimore. And it was a control, basically a control unit. You had 12 people on the pod. We never interacted with each other. Everything was, all the movement was controlled when you came out you had to turn around, put handcuffed from the back, taken out of yard by yourself. It was the only difference between this and the ADX. It was a small version, but it was founded on the principle of the Supermax principle control unit. And one thing I noticed about it when I got in there was how quiet it was. Oh my God.

    Talk about how did you come up with this name A Clean Hell, how did that come about? Hell being clean. But in terms of how did you come into that space that you recognize that this is actually hell no matter how they sugarcoat it.

    Eric King:

    So that saying comes from this punk ass warden that used to be the warden of ADX, and he was describing it to ABC News. And he was saying that the prison, usually prisons are kind of dingy, gross places, but this prison looks clean, it looks pristine, it looks new, but you go inside it and it is just a soul sucking desolate hell. There is no, you are not provided any joy, any stimulation. You got to find that yourself. And I had read about that shit before and I didn’t understand how real it was. I didn’t understand what weeks and months of silence can do to someone’s psyche. And that’s serious. That can tear people apart if you’re not conscious of what’s happening to you

    Mansa Musa:

    And evolution. Okay. So let’s talk about the evolution of, before we unpack some of the nuances of this hellhole, the evolution of the supermax. It started with in this country it started the concept of, it started with Alcatraz, the isolation and what you talking about. Silence, because it was mandated that you talk, you make any noise. After they lock them doors, you going to bring you out, bring out and beat you and put you back or put you in the hole, put you back. So this evolved out of that concept, the perspective of silence and control. Silence and control evolved out. Then they closed Alcatraz and they create Marion and then create Marion. Same principle, only difference is the control they had, the control that they was using, they phased in different aspects of allowing people to have access to each other or to interact at some juncture. Then you had Terry Hutt and all these, the control mechanism was not in the prison in and of itself. It wasn’t like is a controlled unit. Marion went, Marion went into a shutdown mode after a number of murders that took place, then they locked it down completely. But the control mechanism, and you can pick up from here, the control control mechanism might’ve been a section in Marion. Talk about that.

    Eric King:

    Yeah, so Marion, they called it a supermax when it first opened, but it was wasn’t like we have now. They still had several hours out of their cells. They could still congregate with people. But when the brand, the Arian Brotherhood, they butchered two cops in the same day. Somehow they didn’t lock down after the first one. And once that happened it became a full control unit. And once they had that, once they had that unit, they started filling it not just with dangerous prisoners but with influential prisoners or radical prisoners. That’s when you saw a lot of the black liberation cats go there. The white political prisoners, Leonard Pier, the Puerto Ricans. And they realized that they can use these supermaxes to shut down descent. And after about 20 years, the merit control unit finally got shut down. But while that was happening, they were already building ADX because they saw in Pelican Bay that you can really isolate people. And so they took avert, they had the same architect take a version of Pelican Bay, shrink it, make it a little more controlled, and then put the federal prisoners in there. And they sold it. They sold it to the public, they sold it to Congress and they created this shoebox. Ray Luke caught ’em rail like box cells,

    Mansa Musa:

    Right? They’re all concrete. Yeah. Like you taking them concentration camp.

    Eric King:

    Yeah,

    Mansa Musa:

    Like a train.

    Eric King:

    I can’t hear nobody, I can’t hit on the wall and play chess, have a conversation. So they wanted to take it to the next level and they did. They have no qualms taking things to that extent.

    Mansa Musa:

    Talk about the structure of the ADX for the benefit of our orders. We hear live things and you hear, oh, it’s underground. They bring the shower to your door, they open the backs of your cell, you go out in the yard, you come back in live futuristic stuff. Talk about the reality of it.

    Eric King:

    So ADX is, I guess it’s underground because it’s built into the ground. So we don’t see anything except for other parts of the other walls, the walls of the other units. But it’s broken down into about 12 units right now. I think they only have six or seven open, but each unit has four levels. Downstairs, A upstairs A downstairs B, upstairs B. And each unit has six to eight cells in it. And that’s where your law library is. That’s where your inside rec is. Your outside rec is either in a concrete box by yourself or in a dog kennel. And in your cells you have two doors. You have the inside door, which is where the cops bring you your food and laundry and shit. And then four feet away from that is the outside steel door. So they have you really contained and it’s very similar to what you said to where if you leave this cell, you’re handcuffed behind your back. You have two guards on you. One of ’em has a baton at all times. But the units are small and they’re small so that they can control and isolate them. If anything happens,

    You get into the unit, you have to pass through two doors basically just to get to the unit. Everything is electronic. When they open the doors, the guards can’t just open the doors. The bubble has to do it.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, right.

    Eric King:

    And depending on what unit you’re in, depends on the amount of access you have. But every unit is at least 23 hours locked down, usually 24. We don’t get wreck every day. You know that. And the showers are in our cells in most units except for the H unit. And you press the button, you get 30 seconds of water every time you press it, but your life is that box. You don’t have an existence outside of that box anymore.

    Mansa Musa:

    And that right there, everything you described, the sax and the Maryland since in Maryland in Baltimore, it was identical in this regard. You had pods a, par, BPC, PA, DAE, A FP. On each pod it was four sections and each section had six, bottom, six on the bottom, six on the top. Same principle, same identical principle that you just outlined. So the architect of this and its designs, it wasn’t so much the architect of the design, it was the intent behind it is design to control. And a lot of dealt with lives of sensory deprivation in terms of the whole goal. Because if the isolation in and of itself, even if I give you a mechanism like a TV or radio, even if I give you something, it’s still the lack of human contact, the lack of the ability to exercise my senses. Outside of this box, you talked about in one of your sections, you talked about the new, you say a new type of institutionalization. Talk about that as we unpack this is the impact of this environment.

    Eric King:

    So normal prison institutionalization is violence. You’re institutionalized, have fight or flight at all times. You’re institutionalized not to trust people, you’re institutionalized to be wary of everyone to be on guard. And ADX reverses that and now you’re institutionalized to not trust yourself.

    Mansa Musa:

    Yeah. Come on, talk

    Eric King:

    About it. Yeah, you’re institutionalized to, you don’t have senses, you can’t hear shit. You can’t smell fresh air. And when this happens to you, when the guards and the institution continually treat you like you’re trash, you can start internalizing that whether you realize it or not. You can start internalizing that maybe I am violent, maybe I am one of the worst. And you become institutionalized to isolation. It becomes hard to be around people. Then it becomes hard to accept senses and voices once you’re finally released and all that emotion that you have to keep inside, that has to come out eventually. You’re going to be hurt, you’re going to hurt people around you.

    Mansa Musa:

    And

    Eric King:

    So that’s how they institutionalize you by breaking down your sense of self.

    Mansa Musa:

    And in this regard, you talked about how you was able to, what you did to try to combat that conditioning. And so talk about what your plan was and how you was able to, because we leave, George Jackson talked about this in so there bro, he say that he was not going to leave If I leave here alively, nothing behind won’t count amongst the broken men and the broken men that he was talking about. It wasn’t so much as him being broke, it was that the spirit was broke. That the goal was, he said the goal is to just kill our individuality. So now I’m functioning on herd instinct. Talk about how because now we in an environment where no matter what I think I’m here. I know the first thing they take away from me is my sense of hope when I come in the environment, oh you here until we let you go.

    So it’s not like you here and you go up every year and the prospect is getting out, we letting you know from the beginning that you are here until we let you go or until your time is up, whichever comes first. And in most cases your time being up. And in some cases you are not going to get out because your time is indefinite. So talk about how you was able to deal with it and come out of your sanity and enough sanity to be able to advocate for changes in these environments and the abolition of these environments.

    Eric King:

    So I had two advantages. The first one was I had just done five years straight in the shoe with constant, I didn’t have any communication with my family for five and a half years. So I already had that taken away. So I was kind of ready for that. But I also had an out date. I knew that no matter what, I’m going to be out here in two years. And that’s a blessing because a lot of the men there don’t have out dates, they’ll never get out. And I met people there that had been in for 25 years in that prison and they were never going to get released. I also saw and heard about men that were paralyzed by the tv. The TV became their new chain. They got stuck watching and they’d watch the fucking news and Big Bang Theory from 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM and that was their life now. And I read books like George Jackson, I read Ray Luke, I read Tom Manning. I read about Marian. So when I got there, I knew instantly that I have to be the one that determines my value and what my behavior works. And so I would give meaning to every day and I would give meaning to every object within that day. Cleaning my cell was a victory. Doing my burpees was a victory. Walking my laps was a victory. That was me winning over them. And that’s the way I framed is that I will create value to where they’ve tried to take it away. And that’s a form of resistance. When they say nothing means anything and now you say everything means something,

    You’re not going to take shit away from me. And so I had to do that. I had to have a routine and that routine had to be tight because if it got taken away, if it got fucked up, it felt like my whole world was falling apart. If they come and shake down the cell in the morning, I don’t get to do my burpees or clean my cell, they struck a blow. But as long as I can maintain that sense that I have value, what I’m doing has value. It creates dopamine in your brain. It tells you that you are doing something rewarding and something productive and that you have meaning. And that’s a revolutionary act to have meaning in the face of hopelessness. And I took strength from people like George. I took strength from people that had been through this shit. I didn’t know you then, but I would’ve taken strength from you. These people that paved the way teach us how to resist and everyone’s experience is a little different, but we can all learn from each other. And I had to do that or I would’ve fallen apart.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I wrong that you talk about the routine because when I did a lot of time in segregation, so I was already accustomed being locked behind the door. So the lack of movement wasn’t a problem for me. But in doing and going the prep, it’s preparation like you say you had been in this shoe, the preparation that’s like as it might sound as insane as it might sound, but it did prepare us for the most extreme forms of sensory deprivation or the most senior forms of torture. When I was in Superman, I had a routine, I was there, I was an escape risk. So I was subjected to coming to my cell three times a day, three times on each shift, once on each shift to search my cell. And one shift they might come right away when the shift change they might come and just do it and get it out the way the four to 12 might come and do and get it out the way. But the 12 to eight would play games. They would wait till they see me in their sleep, wake me up and then have me into a state of mind where I’m agitated. But my routine was

    Eric King:

    They want that too.

    Mansa Musa:

    And my routine was I didn’t cut the TV on until five o’clock. I listened, I had the radio on, I listened to talk shows from one to something from seven to six. Me and another guy study Spanish outside. We told each other Spanish outside the door from six o’clock to seven we did that. But the pointment I’m making is that the routine kept me, kept my mind agile. And so I never got frustrated at the fact that like I told you early, the first thing they took away from you when you went into Maryland supermax was you only getting out here when we want to let you out here. So if we take you up every year for review, we just doing that because that’s what the procedure say. That’s what the courts say. Courts say you have to be reviewed. But in terms of what we going to decide what we going to do, we’re not going to do nothing. We’re going status quo. But talk about, you had a chapter here called Stolen Moments of Freedom. Talk about that, the stolen moments of freedom. How was you able to steal moments of freedom in this environment? Or what was freedom? What was this freedom that you’re talking about?

    Eric King:

    Freedom. I like what you say too. It is really interesting hearing how other people’s experiences were because we were in different states, we were in different institutions, we were in different custodies, federal state. But it’s all created the same. They all learn from each other about how to evolve and how to find new techniques to hurt us and cause us to hurt ourselves basically with playing into their hands. So my freedom was based off the moments where I didn’t let them hurt me.

    It was based off looking outside and seeing the sunlight, that little inch that we had and knowing that there’s life out there. It was the brief moments of being able to write my family and feel like Eric not feel like political prisoner, not feel like seven. Oh it was being me. And just like I said with the routine, when I was able to do these small things and feel like myself, that’s when I knew I was free and I had a foot out the door. But it was also like when they would try to piss me off and I wouldn’t let ’em.

    When they would do his bullshit like rip up the mail or drop it outside your door knowing you can’t get it and instead of losing my shit and having ’em bring the sort team, I laughed at, laughed in their face, you can’t break me. Your power is over. And when you have family, when you have hope, when you have ethics, you can claim bits of freedom from them and retain who you are. And that’s the opposite of what they want. And I wouldn’t give ’em what they wanted.

    Mansa Musa:

    I think, I’m trying to think of his name of the book. I think it was Eric Frankel wrote a book about the Nazi concentration camp. And in that he talked about that, talked that right there. What you talking about how in this most dire environment where the Germans are playing mind games on everybody get on this bus, you go on the detail and you going to get extra whatever, but they take you out and shoot you the next day they say everybody get on the bus and now you petrified about getting on the bus. Everybody get on the bus, they go into detail. Everybody left behind, they shoot them and each time they play a mind game. But like you say, in terms of the mind game, how important was it or how important was you for you to hold on to that sense? It might seem to people in society it might seem like little trivial, trite getting a letter, but how important was it and being able to say, yeah, I’m good, I’m free. Or being able to write something. Oh yeah, I I’m, I got my clarity of things. How important was that for you to hold onto in the face of what you was going through?

    Eric King:

    So the UN did a study and found that 14 days in segregation is the period to where people start breaking down mentally if they’re not prepared. And holding onto my ethics was what gave me strength. So I went a long time without letters where they wouldn’t allow me mail or they wouldn’t allow me phone calls wouldn’t allow me visits. So when I finally got just a pinch of those, I knew that I was ready. I had this, I’m loved, people care about me. I am worth someone putting in that effort because if someone writes you a letter, it’s not just here’s a punk ass letter, they have to sit down, they have to consciously do this. And that’s showing that you’re worth it. And that helps you reclaim your sense of self, reclaim your sense of, alright, I’m not alone. I don’t have to face this fight alone. I can lean into people, I can have hope, I can have love, I can have conversations. And just knowing that people care is enough to push you forward at least a little bit longer because you just need to survive that one day and then survive the next day. But if you take it one day at a time and that one day you were loved and that one day people wanted you around and that one day people saw a future for you, that helps you see it for yourself. And once you have that, you can’t be beaten.

    Mansa Musa:

    In terms of you spoke on right there. Let’s talk about the demographics because here we talked earlier about when they build these environments, they build them, they brand them that the people that’s coming in this ADX is Al-Qaeda, anti-American terrorists, Charles Manson, mass murderers, the Pete, the worst of the worst coming in this environment. Talk about is that what actually was that the population more importantly, how many people do ADX hold and what that the total amount of people that the demographics, when you say you spoke about the demographic, talk about the demographic, but more importantly, how many people did ADX supposed to hold?

    Eric King:

    So ADX can hold 450. When I was there it had 354. Cause they’re having a hard time finding people to fit that criteria. Eventually they just started putting, I was essentially a filler. They needed a white leftist in there basically. So they gave me a leadership status and that’s how they get most people in there. They make up this bullshit claim of leadership. But there were, by the way, and I have a terrorist charge, but there were the people that they say are the worst of the worst. And I met some of them like yelling from my dog kennel to their windows. I write about Richard Reed, the shoe bomber.

    And I refuse what the government’s definition of people determine how I view them. I’m not going to judge you based off your actions against the US government. I’m not in Afghanistan or Pakistan or these areas getting bombed. So it’s not my place to judge you. And those people are in there, people that did bombings, people that it’s probably like 3%, there’s probably 40 of those cats. All of them are seemingly Muslim. And then the Oklahoma City bombers in there, some of the Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Bomber, people like that. There’s a couple. But most of the people I met were like black gang leaders or Mexican gang leaders. And when I say gang, that’s the prison’s definition.

    Mansa Musa:

    I know what you’re saying.

    Eric King:

    Yeah. And so I met so many cats from DC that they just called too powerful. One of the people I was closest with, I met him in the pre-release unit, his name was Shaheed and he was a DC black Muslim and he’d been in there for 19 years and his whole thing was leadership. You’re too influential. He was too influential as a 20-year-old. And so Wayne Perry’s there silk and you probably know who that is, but he’d been in there for gosh damn like 30 years, something like that in lockdown ADX for 20. And it’s not because you’re still killing cops or being violent, it’s because they know you can inject consciousness into people. And even if you’re a white gang leader, if you can get people to think you can have a lot of control and they shut that shit down. And so I’d say the vast majority of the people I met were either murderers, murder happens in prison, it’s the nature of the game. Or people that just were able to connect with people on a deeper level. And cats like Larry Hoover, he’d been there for 20 years. His whole thing was you’re too powerful. But that power is getting people to think and act on their own outside of the prison’s guidelines. And I’d say that’s a vast majority of people there.

    Mansa Musa:

    And the goal is, the goal is ultimately for these environments is to control your thinking. Oh yeah. And like you say, give up hope once you give up hope. My whole goal when I was locked up in prison was, and I had multiple temped escapes, I probably go down the world book of Guinness for most failed attempted escapes. My goal was I could down the other side of that fence, I just ain’t going down on the side of the fence that where I was held captive,

    I could get on the other side of the fence and fall out as long as I know that I was free. That’s the only thing. And that’s what drove me. What drove me was that I’m not going, I’m not going to let them beat me down to the point where I just give up. I’m not Claude McKay said Back against the wall dying but fighting back. As we get ready to wrap this up, talk about the two things when the fascists control the keys and anti-fascists political prisoner. Talk about those two things. When the fascist control the keys, and this is, I think you was going into the mentality of the guard, talk about that and then talk about you being the only anti-fascist political prison in ADX. Because according to them, ADX supposed be all your comrads supposed to be there, everybody from whoever to whatever to hire was supposed to be in there based on the design of this and the intent behind it.

    Eric King:

    Yeah. So you were talking about your hope, by the way. Your whole thing that gave you hope was get on the other side. My hole hope was my wife and kids.

    Mansa Musa:

    I

    Eric King:

    Had a wife,

    Mansa Musa:

    We had hope or something.

    Eric King:

    Yeah, she wanted me home and so I have to get home for her. And so that was my hope. And so when the fascists have the keys, I’m sure you experienced this, but these dudes are Nazis. They have Nazi badges on their vest. They took these guards to fight the George Floyd’s protestors in DC and other cities. And they had badges commemorating that. They had that stupid punisher skull. They had the tattoos. And these cats are the ones that control your mail. They control your access to the phone, your access to visits. And when the people that control you are the people that hate you the most, you are in a dangerous spot. We have their social media accounts, I put that in the book. They’re talking about how much they hate Muslims, how much they hate Blacks, how much they hate Antifa. But then you’re supposed to guard us and there’s no oversight when I’m getting pubic hair in my food, who’s holding them accountable, the fascist government. And they want this to happen. And so that’s a dangerous game. You got to learn to play. And I’ve got the scars on my head from my guards cracking my head open. And that’s not an accident. They hate us. I’m an anti-racist prisoner. I roll, I stand up for against Nazis, against white power. And they hate that shit. And as far as being the only anti-fascist, when Trump called Antifa, Antifa a terrorist organization, what he was saying was, race traders are terrorists because what does anti-fascism stand for? Essentially were anti-racist, anti-trans folk, anti-government bigotry. And I think they needed someone and they chose me. If there was more in there, it could have probably been someone else. We all know that if it wasn’t me, it would’ve been somebody

    Mansa Musa:

    That’s right.

    Eric King:

    And I had to fight. I had to fight on that. I had to fight other Nazi prisoners. I had to fight guards. And when you get an ADX, you’re vulnerable. They control everything. You have no control over anything in your life except for up there. Except for in your head. So it is scary. They still hate anti-fascists. They’re still raiding our houses. They’re still arresting us in the streets, but they’re also doing that to black people every day and brown people every day. So we’re not victims here. We are combatants. We are allies. And that’s the way I saw myself was them putting me in. There was a vindication of my movement.

    Mansa Musa:

    That’s right.

    Eric King:

    They were vindicating my resistance. And I forget who said that it was an elder black revolutionary, but that’s what they said. And I kept that in my heart that them putting me in here is showing why I was right. What they’re doing to shahied is proving to me why I have this fight going because I see your hatred and I’ll call it out and not everyone will, but I will call that shit out. I will put you on blast. I will fight you. Yeah,

    Mansa Musa:

    Right.

    Eric King:

    Because you’re wrong and right is right. And so I think that’s the difference. And I think that’s why they hate anti-fascists. That’s why they hate conscious or hip to it black prisoners. That’s why they hate Muslim prisoners because we will not bow down. We will fight back however we have it either with the pen, with the fist, with the mind. And that’s what anti-fascism in prison, it’s all about being an ally in this struggle and they hate that shit so much.

    Mansa Musa:

    Alright. And thank Eric and what you want to tell people about the book and how they can get it and more importantly, how they can stay connected with you as we wrap this up.

    Eric King:

    So the book comes out and we pushed it forward. It was going to be January now, it’s going to be late September, early October. And I want people to understand that this book isn’t just about me. This book is highlighting how these men are treated because they don’t have a voice. A lot of men in there will never get their stories out. They won’t hear how commissary is used as a weapon. They won’t hear how your family is used as a weapon. They won’t hear how the guards treat us and how this mentally affects us. But I do have that ability and because I have that blessing, I have to use it. And so I encourage people to read the book, not to hear about poor Eric, but to inspire them to fight for these men that they’ll never know because there’s 350 people in there and I guarantee most people that read that book will have maybe heard of two of them. Chapo and the Boston Bomber, Boston Marathon Bomber. But there are people in there that still have hope that are refusing to give up. And there’s people in there that have given up and they need love too. People need to hear how this breaks us. And I also talk about winning at trial in there because no one in the feds goes to trial. So I talk about that, what it’s like to go to trial and win. And these things are things that there’s no books about ADX.

    Mansa Musa:

    That’s right.

    Eric King:

    Not one. And so I’ve got the market cornered, so that’s important to me that people understand because there can be more of us as they crack down. Luigi is going to go to ADX, A lot of these Palestine protestors and ICE protestors, they might end up there. And it’s on us to be prepared and have the infrastructure ready to support people when they are there. And that’s crucial to me. It’s crucial to me not to just talk about myself, but to lift up the other men and hopefully make a positive change in their lives. Also, the books on PM Press, you can buy it there or anywhere else.

    Mansa Musa:

    And for the benefit of our audience, I just want to put in context about who Eric is because we have examples of someone or people that stormed the Capitol, beat the police fire bomb. We got examples of an insurrection, what they call an insurrection, but it was a riot. So you would think that Eric committed a crime or was involved with something to the same caliber or beyond the way he’s being treated because those people that stormed the Capitol, they were sent to DC City jail, they cried and they piss on and groan about their conditions and had the federal judge order them to clean up the jail. Eric was put in this situation. He’s in there because he had the heart, the consciousness and the soul to stand up for poor and oppressed people and not allow himself to be put into a class system where it was him, his race against our races, but put in a system where it’s us against them and them is the fascist capitalist imperialist people that runs this country.

    There you have it. The Real News and Rattling the Bars. Eric, you rattled the bars today, Eric, and we appreciate that. We appreciate you taking time out to educate our audience. We asking our audience to look into what Eric is saying, but more importantly, look into what he just said as he closed out. It’s human beings in these places that we’re talking about. You have Florida Alligator Alcatraz, you have ain’t no telling what other black sites they’ve got people in that people don’t have no way of getting the information out. But at least we have someone who took it upon themself to say, I’m going to make sure everybody know what this ADX is really about and how your money, the taxpayers money, y’all paying for this and y’all, if y’all, that’s what y’all want y’all money to go to, then say that. But if y’all know y’all money going somewhere it ain’t supposed to go, then you need to stand up and say, enough is enough. Thank you. We ask that you continue to support The Real News and Rattling the Bars. We ask that you send your common sense. Tell us what you think. It’s important that we hear your voice because we don’t give you a voice. We just apt turn the volume up on your voice. And with the state that we are in now in this country, it’s important that the volume of our voices, the voices of resistance, be loud and clear.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Oct. 02, 2025. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

    Just hours after President Donald Trump said US soldiers should use Americans cities as “training grounds,” federal law enforcement officials on Tuesday night descended upon an apartment complex in Chicago where witnesses say they broke down residents’ doors, smashed furniture and belongings, and dragged dozens of them, including children, placed in U-Haul vans.

    Local resident Rodrick Johnson, who lives in the building raided by Immigration and Customers Enforcement (ICE) agents, told the Chicago Sun-Times that federal officials broke down his door, put him in zip ties, and kept him detained outside the building for three hours before letting him go.

    “I asked [agents] why they were holding me if I was an American citizen, and they said I had to wait until they looked me up,” he explained to the paper. “I asked if they had a warrant, and I asked for a lawyer. They never brought one.”

    Pertissue Fisher, who also lives in the building, backed up Johnson’s account and said that agents forcibly removed all residents from their homes regardless of their legal status.

    “They just treated us like we were nothing,” she told local news station ABC 7 Chicago. “They, like, piling us all up in the back on the other side, and it wasn’t no room to move nowhere.”

    Ebony Sweets Watson, who lives across the street from the raided building, told the Chicago Sun-Times that she saw children, some of whom weren’t even wearing clothes, dragged out of the building by ICE agents and then placed into U-Haul vans.

    “It was heartbreaking to watch,” she said. “Even if you’re not a mother, seeing kids coming out buck naked and taken from their mothers, it was horrible.”

    Watson also said that it appeared the federal agents had ransacked the building during the raid.

    “Stuff was everywhere,” she said. “You could see people’s birth certificates, and papers thrown all over. Water was leaking into the hallway. It was wicked crazy.”

    Dan Jones, a resident at the building, told the Chicago Sun-Times that he returned from work on Wednesday to find that several of his belongings, including electronics and furniture, were missing from his apartment, and that all of his clothes had been strewn across the floor. He said that he asked the Chicago Police Department for any information about what happened to his belongings in the wake of the ICE raid, but has so far received no response.

    “I’m pissed off,” Jones told the paper. “I feel defeated because the authorities aren’t doing anything.”

    Darrell Ballard, who witnessed the raid, told ABC 7 Chicago that it felt more like a military operation than law enforcement.

    “We’re under siege,” he said. “We’re being invaded by our own military.”

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that 37 people were arrested during the raid, and it claimed some of them “are believed to be involved in drug trafficking and distribution, weapons crimes, and immigration violators.”

    American Immigration Council fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said in a Thursday social media post that the raid represented “a surreal moment for America” that was a clear violation of residents’ civil liberties.

    “Needless to say, if the normal police ever pulled something like this—pulling every single person out of an apartment building and handcuffing them to run warrant checks—they would be sued into oblivion,” he observed. “Yet ICE is going to get away with it entirely.”

    Reichlin-Melnick also said that, even if the agents had a valid warrant to enter the apartment complex, it was highly unlikely that warrant would extend to removing every single resident there.

    “I am… DEEPLY skeptical that the warrant permitted them to smash down every door and arrest every person in the building,” he wrote. “My gut says they went far beyond the warrant.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Veronicah Mbindyo is among the scores of young Kenyans caught up in mass arrests after June 25 anniversary protests, which marked a year since the country’s historic Gen Z uprising, when tens of thousands of youths united against crippling living costs and government corruption. 

    Later, police informed her of her charge: terrorism.

    “I was shocked,” says the 21-year-old, sitting in her small room in Matuu, a town in eastern Kenya. “I was so confused. To me, a terrorist is a really bad person—someone covering their face, throwing grenades, shooting people.”

    “But… hey, I guess I’m Al Shabaab now,” she says mockingly, releasing an edgy laugh.

    Mbindyo is one of hundreds of youths across the country facing serious charges since June 25 ranging from arson to terrorism, which carry steep bail and harsh sentences. At least 75 have been charged with terrorism. 

    Kenya has now joined a disturbing global trend. Similar tactics have been used in the U.S., U.K., and Germany to suppress grassroots movements, including pro-Palestinian and climate activism.

    Turning the country’s anti-terror laws on an entire generation of protesters marks an unprecedented escalation of state repression, Kenyan experts warn. 

    Kenya has now joined a disturbing global trend. Similar tactics have been used in the U.S., U.K., and Germany to suppress grassroots movements, including pro-Palestinian and climate activism. Under President William Ruto, Kenya has adopted the same playbook, using terror charges to impose crushing financial burdens and social stigma—making clear to the country’s youths that protests will bring life-altering consequences. 

    “I’m still traumatized by this,” Mbindyo tells The Real News Network, her eyes fixed on the floor. “Even now, I don’t feel like myself; I’m constantly stressed.”

    Veronicah Mbindyo, 21, was shocked to be charged with terrorism. Her case is part of a broader trend of weaponizing anti-terror laws against peaceful protesters. Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.
    Veronicah Mbindyo, 21, was shocked to be charged with terrorism. Her case is part of a broader trend of weaponizing anti-terror laws against peaceful protesters. Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.

    ‘Bad dream’

    Mbindyo didn’t attend the June 25 protests. Working at a fuel shop in the town center, she closed early and went home when the demonstrations began. She was shocked, then, when police arrived at her workplace days later and took her into custody.

    “The police just questioned me about what I saw during the protests,” Mbindyo recounts. “I told them I didn’t see anything because I wasn’t there.” The next day, she was charged with arson, accused of attacking officers and smashing police station windows.

    “The whole time I had no idea what they were talking about,” she says. Her bail was set at 200,000 Kenyan shillings ($1,548 USD).

    After several days, her mother, an informal vegetable vendor, managed to get her out on a surety bond. But weeks later, Mbindyo was rearrested with seven other youths and taken to Nairobi’s Kahawa Law Courts, which handle terrorism cases. She was informed of her charge and given a 200,000-shilling cash bail.

    She was then transferred to Langata Women’s Prison for two weeks. “Those days were one big nightmare,” she says, shaking her head. “The first day I couldn’t cope. I had a crushing headache and so much stress. I thought I’d be stuck in prison forever because I didn’t know how my family could get that kind of money.”

    “I kept thinking, why me? I was the only girl arrested in Matuu, and I wasn’t even at the protests. Why did the police have to come for me?” Eventually, the court lowered her bail to 50,000 shillings ($387), and her mother took out a loan to free her.

    Franklin Wambua, 25, was also rounded up, despite also not attending the June 25 protests. “I didn’t know what was going on,” he recalls. “I couldn’t even remember the last time I did something bad.”

    Franklin Wambua in his hometown of Matuu, where terrorism charges have left young protesters and their families carrying heavy social and financial burdens. Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.
    Franklin Wambua in his hometown of Matuu, where terrorism charges have left young protesters and their families carrying heavy social and financial burdens. Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.

    Accused of throwing stones at police, he was charged with arson and given 200,000-shilling bail. Transferred to Yatta Prison, he was denied contact with his mother for nearly a month. “It was my first time ever being arrested,” says Wambua, who has a three-month old child. “There were so many people in one small cell, and the food was disgusting. I was going crazy thinking about my mother because she had no idea if I was alive or dead.”

    By the time he appeared in court weeks later and finally spoke to his mother, he was at his breaking point. “I just told her I will confess to whatever they want so they can take me to jail,” he recalls. “I was skinny. I felt so tired and weak. I just wanted everything to be over.”

    But his ordeal was just beginning. Police soon bundled him and several other young men into a white van. “I honestly thought we would be slaughtered—that this is how they would make us disappear.”

    He was also taken to Kahawa Law Courts and charged with terrorism, an offense carrying up to 30 years in prison. “I couldn’t believe it,” Wambua says with a deep sigh. “I’ve never stolen or hurt anyone. How is this real? I thought my life was over — that I’d rot and die in prison.”

    From there, he was transferred to Kamiti, Nairobi’s maximum-security prison for the country’s most violent offenders. “Kamiti is a place I used to see on TV,” he says. “That’s where murderers go, not people accused of petty things. I just prayed constantly, asking God to open up a way for me to get released.” 

    Inside, he was in a large hall with about 70 other young Kenyans, all charged with terrorism. “They were all really scared,” he tells TRNN. “Some were just quiet, lost in their thoughts.” Even some guards seemed astonished, reassuring the youths the charges wouldn’t hold.

    After three weeks, Kenyan activists crowdfunded his 50,000-shilling bail, securing his release.

    Yet the weight of these charges has extended far beyond prison, closing doors to opportunities and jobs and casting a dark shadow over these youths’ lives.

    “I feel like I’m stuck in a bad dream and I just want to wake up,” Wambua says, dragging his hands down his face.

    Framing the youths 

    Since the June 25 and annual pro-democracy “Saba Saba” protests in July—which left dozens of protesters dead—authorities arrested about 1,500 people. Hundreds, mostly under 25 years old, face terrorism and other serious charges, including murder, arson, sexual assault, and robbery with violence. 

    Seventy-five are being prosecuted under the 2012 Prevention of Terrorism Act, designed to combat insurgent groups like Al Shabaab, the Somalia-based Al Qaeda affiliate that has carried out numerous deadly attacks in Kenya. In Matuu alone, 23 youths have been charged with terrorism. 

    Yet many of these arrests remain unaccounted for. “Out of the 1,500 youths the Interior Ministry claims to have arrested, we’ve only traced 500,” says Andrew Mugo, a lawyer who is heading the legal team representing the youths. “The other 1,000 we know nothing about—they either haven’t been taken to court or were taken to courts we don’t know about.”

    Kenya’s civic space has narrowed sharply under Ruto, and targeting youths with terrorism charges is the latest escalation, says Otsieno Namwaya, associate director of Africa research at Human Rights Watch. 

    “Even peaceful protest is now treated as a threat to the state.”

    “Even peaceful protest is now treated as a threat to the state,” Namwaya tells TRNN from hiding, citing state threats. “Officials portray demonstrations as attempted coups to justify extreme punishments—including shootings, abductions, and disappearances—while pushing a counter-narrative that protests are driven by looting and violence.” 

    Experts contend that framing protests as terrorism signals an unparalleled heightening of state repression in the country. 

    Previously, demonstrators were often charged with unlawful assembly, which mostly meant endless court dates. Terrorism charges, however, give police sweeping powers: suspects can be detained for up to 90 days without trial, their property and bank accounts scrutinized, and bail set prohibitively high, explains Namwaya. 

    Past Kenyan governments misused counterterrorism laws to try and silence critics, but targeting an entire movement is new. “It has never been to this extent where it has been weaponized against peaceful youths whose only weapons are cameras, water bottles, and Kenyan flags,” says Mwaura Kabata, vice president of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK). “Only this government has taken laws created to protect people and specifically used them against its own.”

    The crackdown has also extended online, with authorities disrupting internet access, tightening rules for social media, advancing real-time surveillance legislation, arresting activists under the Cybercrimes Act, and pushing new bills to curb both online and offline dissent.

    Beyond the courts, rights groups accuse the state of using informal vigilantes, or “state-hired goons,” sometimes alongside uniformed police, to destroy property, assault, loot, and intimidate. These groups—often criminal gangs and militias hired by senior politicians—have been deployed to discredit peaceful protests and create a pretext for the state’s violent crackdown.

    During the June 25 anniversary protests, these vigilantes, armed with clubs and whips and backed by police, attacked demonstrators, while authorities banned live coverage and switched off leading television stations.

    “We know that those who destroyed property or looted during protests were state-hired operatives,” Mugo tells TRNN. “Yet you will not find one of them being escorted by a police officer into court.”

    Instead, authorities have tried to shift blame onto Kenya’s youths for the unrest.

    According to Mugo, the evidence against the youths is “absolute rubbish,” with police as the state’s sole witnesses. The supposed proof—mostly photos of police station damage—fails to connect any youth to the alleged crimes. 

    “I am very confident these cases will be thrown out,” Mugo says. “They will never meet the bar of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the accused did what they’re charged with.”

    But the drawn-out process still brands youths as security threats, barring them from jobs requiring clearance or furthering their studies. Even with volunteer lawyers and activists fundraising for bail, the fallout lingers: it may take a year just to have charges dropped, followed by another process to clear their records.

    “These baseless charges will keep young people’s lives on hold for as long as the courts drag on,” Mugo adds.

    ‘Warning is clear’ 

    Experts say the state likely knows these charges will collapse but uses them as intimidation—sending a warning to Kenyan youths about the heavy price of protest, especially with the 2027 elections approaching as Ruto seeks a second term.

    “These trumped-up charges are meant to make protesting unbearable,” says Ernest Cornel, spokesperson for the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC). “Terror cases come with bail terms most families can’t afford. They are also meant to isolate protesters—‘terrorism’ is a loaded word that breeds suspicion and distrust in their own communities.”

    Mwau Katungwa, 27, was arrested at his home in Matuu two weeks after the June 25 protests. He says police identified him from a video showing him at a hospital helping his friend, 22-year-old Kelvin Mutinda, who was shot at the protest and later died. Katungwa was also charged with terrorism and spent a week in Kamiti prison before taking a loan for the 50,000-shilling bail.

    Mwaura Katungwa faces terrorism charges but remains determined, vowing not to be silenced. Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.
    Mwaura Katungwa faces terrorism charges but remains determined, vowing not to be silenced. Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.

    “I cried a lot over this,” Katungwa tells TRNN. “On June 25, we were peaceful—just using our phones, fighting for a better country. Yet in the end, we are the country’s terrorists.”

    Katungwa had been living with his extended family—his only surviving relatives—but they forced him to move out, fearing there might be truth behind the charges. 

    Wambua, a conductor on the matatus—Kenya’s shared minibuses—lost his job after his arrest. “People are saying I’m a terrorist, I’m a bad guy,” he says. “I think they worry bringing me back to work could put them at risk.”

    For Katungwa, who does irregular construction work, and Mbindyo, both of whom took out loans to cover bail, the debt is mounting. Mbindyo says she must pay about 450 shillings ($3) a day in interest. “My mom only makes around 600 ($5) a day selling vegetables,” she explains. “That’s a huge burden for us.”

    “I’m still carrying so much stress,” Mbindyo adds. “I’m afraid of people… If I talk to someone, maybe they’ll hear I’ve been accused of these things. So now I just keep my distance and stay alone. It feels like all of this is pulling me backward in life.”

    Kabata points out that in a country scarred by hundreds of Al-Shabaab attacks that have killed thousands, branding youthful protesters as terrorists is particularly shocking. “Our communities are deeply sensitive to terror-related issues, especially homegrown threats,” he says. “To weaponize that against our own youths is simply immoral.”

    Experts emphasize that the stigma these youths are confronting is deliberate and calculated—to sap young people’s will to protest and isolate them from their communities.

    “As lawyers, we know for a fact the police have no evidence, but communities don’t—and that’s the point,” Mugo explains. “The stigma is devastating. Community members, especially business owners, unable to distinguish those arrested from those actually responsible for property damage, grow fearful or even hostile.”

    “As lawyers, we know for a fact the police have no evidence, but communities don’t—and that’s the point,” Mugo explains. “The stigma is devastating. Community members, especially business owners, unable to distinguish those arrested from those actually responsible for property damage, grow fearful or even hostile.” 

    “Most of these young people lose their jobs with little chance of being rehired,” he continues. “Even if the charges are dropped, that label sticks. A terrorism charge brings instant unemployment and long-term exclusion.”

    The situation is made worse by the fact that many arrested hadn’t even attended the protests. “In Kenya today, being young has become a criminal offense,” Kabata tells TRNN. “Anyone under 25 is treated as a suspect—rounded up and charged with absurd allegations.”

    “The state is deliberately targeting those least likely to commit these crimes—peaceful, helpless youths—just to fit a narrative,” he adds. “The state is sending a message to parents: don’t let your children demonstrate, or they’ll be shot or slapped with serious charges.”

    “The warning is clear—whether you attended protests or not, this is what awaits you if you ever dare to.”

    The misuse of Kenya’s anti-terror laws also undermines national security, eroding public trust when Al Shabaab remains a serious threat. “If the government keeps misusing this law against critics, then when genuine terrorists are arrested, no one will believe it—it will just look like another ploy to silence dissent,” says HRW’s Namwaya.

    Kenya receives substantial international counterterrorism support—over $700 million from the U.S. between 2010 and 2018—and was designated a Major Non-NATO Ally last year, cementing long-term security ties. While the Trump administration has cut health and food aid, its engagement with Kenya so far signals continuity in counterterrorism cooperation.

    Experts warn that misusing anti-terror legislation risks undermining this support. 

    The weaponization of Kenya’s anti-terror legislation has already had an impact on demonstrations—this year’s Saba Saba protests in Matuu were nonexistent, as fear of terrorism charges kept people off the streets. 

    Still, many insist they won’t be deterred. “If there’s a protest tomorrow, I promise you I’ll be there,” says Katungwa, defiantly. “People say the youth are the leaders of tomorrow. Well, tomorrow has become today.”

    “This is the generation that will make change in Kenya. Even if we are all charged as terrorists, we will not remain silent.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • There are two primary federal agencies tasked with immigration detention: ICE, which is well known, and the US Marshal Service. Under the Trump administration, the US Marshals have dramatically increased their role in detaining and incarcerating undocumented immigrants, using their federal power to override restrictions on immigrant detention in local jails around the country. In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa speaks with Wanda Bertram, communications strategist for the Prison Policy Initiative, about how the Trump administration is weaponizing legal loopholes and the US Marshal Service to execute the mass incarceration of immigrants.

    Guest:

    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 the edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. We’ve been hearing terms like deportation, immigration, arrest, ice, the federal marshals. When we hear these terms, we hear ’em relative to people. People that’s undocumented in this country under the pretense that they’re committed a crime in this country, that they’re being arrested. But the reality is they’re being rounded up. They’re being rounded up like slaves was rounded up. They’re being rounded up like the Japanese was being rounded up and placed in tournament camps. Joining me today is Wanda Bertram, communication strategist with the Prison Policy Initiative at one of the most reliable research hubs for Data on Incarceration. A recent report by the Prison Policy Initiative titled Hiding in Plain Sight Revealed how local jails are central to Trump’s deportation. Wanda, welcome to Rallying the Bars.

    Wanda Bertram:

    I’m happy to be here. Thanks for having me.

    Mansa Musa:

    And so let’s start here. Explain to our audience the loophole that the Trump administration is using to bypass city and county sanctuary policies. Unpack that for our audience.

    Wanda Bertram:

    So I think the place to start is that there are two main federal agencies that are tasked with immigration detention, and one of them is ice, which most people have heard of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And then the other one, which is a little bit less well known is called the US Marshall Service. And the Marshall Service does things that are not immigration too. They’re generally speaking, the federal agency that handles pretrial detention. And in our report, one of the things we did was we gave an estimate of how many people are in ICE detention and US Marshals detention because a lot of people don’t think about the US Marshals. Right. And then one of the other things we did was we pointed out this loophole that you mentioned and what we call the loophole is just the fact that lots of local jails, including many that have said, we are not going to cooperate with ice,

    Have contracts with the US Marshals to house, to detain immigrants who are under the jurisdiction of that agency. And actually, ICE can also piggyback off those US marshals contracts. So whether someone is under the jurisdiction of the US Marshals, and I can explain the difference between that and ice, whether someone is under the jurisdiction of the US Marshals or with ice, hundreds of local jails across the country are making room for those detainees to be held. So there are thousands and thousands of detainees who are being held in local jails that are run by sheriffs that the people left.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. Okay. So in terms of the difference between ICE and the Federal marshals, because I think we was talking off camera, when you think of a person being detained by the Federal Marshals, we’re thinking about actually a crime has actually been committed a crime in form of like a gun violation of a federal statute violate of federal criminal code, violate of federal law. I’m in possession of large quantities of drugs. I’m doing counterfeit, I’m in possession of weapons. I think they had in Baltimore City, they had passed this law saying that anyone court, in order to get control over what they dubbed as a serious possession of guns in the city, they created this law where they say that anyone arrested with a gun in Baltimore, they federalized it. So they called it, I’m trying to think if they had a term that they was using. But everybody that got caught with federal guns got caught with guns during that time was arrested and put under Federal Marshall jurisdiction. At that time, I was in Supermax in Baltimore City and they took a whole section and specifically design it for that. So talk about that. Talk about the difference between the two and why it’s important that people understand that.

    Wanda Bertram:

    Yeah, I’m really glad you brought that up. The US Marshals, like you’re saying, when I think of the US Marshals, I think about people being charged with gun related crimes, with drug related crimes. Sometimes with federal violent offenses, the federal government has a wide latitude to choose to prosecute certain cases. And once they bring someone under their jurisdiction, or if they arrest someone, obviously they can also bring people who are under state or local jurisdiction into their jurisdiction through these state and local agreements. So the long and short of it is if you are charged with a federal crime, you are under the US Marshal’s jurisdiction. The rub here is that there, there’s been an increase in several thousand people since Trump took office in January who were under US Marshals, who were booked into US Marshalls jurisdiction for immigration related crimes. And what is an immigration crime? Come on. That can be as simple as just being undocumented illegal entry or illegal reentry. I think most people think, okay, if you’re under US Marshalls’ jurisdiction, you must have committed some horrible crime. But there’s a lot of people there who are just undocumented and their cases are becoming criminalized.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I was talking to one of the staff members here and I was telling that, and this is my thinking, right, the criminal element that will be under the Federal Marshals, they be like, in their mind they like, hurry up, hurry up and get me out. Send me to wherever you want to send me at so I can hurry up and get back in the country. A person that’s a person that’s committed immigration crime or whatever these terms they’re using, these people know the threat that they represent is, I’m a threat because I’m working hard, I’m paying taxes. But talk about how local jails specifically playing Trumps mass deportation program, both in terms of scale and conservation and immigration arrest, and you spoke on it earlier about how many people being arrested and being detained, but talk about how it’s planned out.

    Wanda Bertram:

    We know. So we estimate that on any given day, currently there’s about 83,000 people, immigrants being held for ice. And the US Marshals, I can break down how we got to that number, but of those, we know that about 10,000, a little over 10,000 people are being held in local jails for ice. We unfortunately can’t tell how many people are being held in local jails for the Marshall who just don’t have that granular data. But we actually, I will say one more thing. I’ll throw out one more statistic, which is that between January and May of this year, the number of people held for immigration reasons grew more in local jails than it did in privately run detention centers. I’m throwing this out there just to say that jails play an essential role in housing immigrants for these agencies.

    I think a lot of people think about ICE as having tons of detention centers, its own detention centers around the country. And it’s true, there are several, but these agencies depend on local facilities that can hold people temporarily or for a longer time after they’re arrested. In fact, in 26 states, jails provide the sole detention capacity to ice US marshals. So a lot of people think, okay, sure. This is going on in Texas, it’s going on in Florida with alligator Alcatraz. It’s not happening where I live. You might be wrong. It might be happening where you live. A lot of jails caught up in this.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right? And that right there, the impact, talk about the impact that have on the population because I know if I’m a state and I’m outsourcing or I’m contracting with the federal government, I’m contracting with ICE to provide so many bids for immigration or a section for immigration, then how does that play out in terms of the way that particular detention center function overall? Because now I have to allocate staff, I have to allocate extra money, I have to allocate. And in terms of what they’re entitled to versus what people that’s is entitled to have Y, is it a problem with that or from your investigation and your study, have you seen this being problematic?

    Wanda Bertram:

    Well, I think we need to start talking about the money. That’s the reason that ICE and the Marshals, or excuse me, that’s the reason that local jails have these agreements in the first place. Jails are keen to bring in money from the federal government that they get in exchange for housing people, and they get somewhere anywhere between 50 and a hundred dollars per person. So it’s thousands of dollars that come in just every month for a local jail. And importantly, we have very little transparency into what that money is used

    Mansa Musa:

    For.

    Wanda Bertram:

    But some jails have been open about saying, we are using this to pay our staff. We’re using it to cover costs of the jail.

    It ties into a very toxic pattern that we’ve seen over the last couple of decades, which is that counties will build, actually, they will build bigger jails anticipating that they’ll be able to allocate some of their new jail space to renting to the federal government or to their state prison system. And where there’s two ways that this all goes wrong, one is that oftentimes these jails are already understaffed. They don’t have the staff to care for their own populations, much less an additional influx of immigrants or people held by the US Marshal for any reason. And then the second thing, the second way this goes haywire is that these populations, these populations that come in from the feds, they flux, right? They come and go. And when those populations, when that source of revenue dries up for the jail,

    Mansa Musa:

    They’re

    Wanda Bertram:

    Going to need to justify the existence of such a large facility in other ways, and that’s going to lead to more local incarceration. We like to say that if you build it, they will fill it. And when counties build bigger jails anticipating renting beds to ICE or the Feds in some other capacity, they find a way to fill those beds, whether it’s with federal detainees or their own community members.

    Mansa Musa:

    And then in some states like California, Massachusetts, New York and Illinois have laws that restrict local law enforcement from collaborating with ice. But that’s like when you do a comparison versus the amount of money that y’all talked about how this past great, beautiful nightmare of a bill that they passed, they allocated a lot of money to ICE and a lot of money to the federal government. So how do you see the pushback, or what can states do to eliminate this nightmare? Because as you said, at the end game, the end game, the state going to be holding the bag and the end game, they’re going to have to come with some way to fill themselves, and that’s going to be at the expense of the citizens of their particular state or county. Talk about that.

    Wanda Bertram:

    Yeah. One thing in the report that we really hammer on is that communities have, in so far as communities are providing some of the backbone of detention. They also have the power to be a real thorn in the side of the Trump administration by resisting that. Like you pointed out, some states and several counties have instituted sanctuary city policies, and often that means, or sanctuary state policies, and that limits the jail’s. Collaborations of ICE communities also need to cancel their contracts at the US Marshals, because as I said, at the top, ICE can piggyback off of the US marshals. They can put people in jails through a US Marshals contract, and those often go overlooked. Again, the marshals are not an agency most people think about. So that’s a step that counties have been able to take to several years. They can do it now and they should do it now.

    I think the other thing is on a longer timeframe, being critical of your local government, when they talk about building a new and bigger jail, just to throw something out there, this is not related to immigration at all, but about 80% of people in local jails are their pretrial. Now, this is another thing that Trump has been trying to attack is bail reform. But when counties are facing overcrowded or understaffed jails and they have these large pretrial populations, one thing that most places most counties have not tried is decarceration, right? Pursuing bail reform, pursuing cashless bail as a way of decreasing their jail populations. Instead, what many counties will do is they will try to build a bigger jail thinking it’s going to solve the problem.

    And sometimes that’s what gets counties into this pickle with the federal government is they build this big new jail, and then they have a big tab to cover. And it’s very helpful if the federal government comes in and says, well, we can offset some of your costs. You just have to house some people for us. So I mean, definitely to anyone listening who’s wondering, what can I do in my community? I definitely would say being critical, being skeptical of any plans to expand your county jail and show up to city council meetings about that. Be a sticky wheel, because that’s how this happens. That’s how it starts.

    Mansa Musa:

    Okay. And thank you wa tell our audience how they can stay in touch with you or stay aware of some of the work that you’re doing with Prison Policy Initiative as we close out.

    Wanda Bertram:

    Well, no. I mean, first, thank you so much for having me. I think it’s great to be able to come on and talk about this stuff. Our website is www prison policy.org. We have a newsletter. If you sign up for that, you’ll get everything that we publish. It’s about a once a week newsletter. We also have social media. If you go to basically whatever social media you’re on, we’re at slash prison policy.

    Mansa Musa:

    Thank you. And as we close out, we thank you and appreciate all the work that y’all are doing at Prison Policy Initiative. And we want to tell our audience, remind our audiences that we deal with evidence, and it’s based on the statistics that the Prison Policy Initiative has offered us, that you can fact check ’em to get a clear understanding. But what we do know is this here, we know that people are being rounded up. We know that agencies that supposed to protect, serve and protect people’s rights are being used to help aid and assist in rounding people up. We know that people are being housed in astronomical numbers, in inhumane environments for one reason and one reason only. All because they’re undocumented in this country. They haven’t committed no crimes. To the extent that’s being perpetuated by the Trump administration, they’re here, they’re undocumented, and the most crime that they committed is driving without license or picking tomatoes. We ask that you continue to support real news and rallying bars. We ask that you continue to evaluate this information. We ask that you weigh in on what you think about this information, but more importantly, we ask that you make a decision on what you think should be done and do that. Thank you.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • After years of pressure from community members and a coalition of over 80 organizations, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has announced plans to close the infamous California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, CA, by the fall of 2026. But organizers say this is just the beginning—they are fighting to close more prisons in California and prevent the government from re-opening shuttered facilities for immigrant detention. In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa speaks with Woods Ervin of the grassroots organization Critical Resistance about California’s prison system and the growing abolitionist movement working to dismantle it.

    Guest:

    • Woods Ervin is the National Co-Director of Campaigns and Projects at Critical Resistance, a national grassroots organization seeking to build an international movement to end the prison-industrial complex.

    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 are discussing California’s prison system and the abolition movement working to dismantle it. Joining me today is Woods Ervin. She’s the National Co-Director for Campaigns and Projects at Critical Resistance, an organization founded in the mid 1990s with the mission of ending the use of prisons and police. Woods, thank you so much for joining me today.

    Woods Ervin:

    Thank you so much for having me today, Mansa. I appreciate it.

    Mansa Musa:

    Recently the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation announced that the California Rehabilitation Center or CRC in Norco will close in the fall of 2026. Now, CIC is known for the most inhumane conditions as it relate to road infested unsafe drinking water, severe overcrowding, stifling heat and violence at the hands of the staff. Can you walk us through how this came about and were there any unlikely alliances that emerged in the fight to close prisons that people might learn from when building coalitions?

    Woods Ervin:

    Thank you so much. So that’s a really great question. So just to take us back a little bit to 2020, Critical Resistance joined a campaign, a coalition that was leading a campaign to close 10 prisons by 2025, feeling ambitious, it was 20. And the coalition is actually in an alliance. The California is United for Responsible Budget.

    And at the time around 2020, we heard from the legislative analyst office, which is a bipartisan research office within the California state infrastructure that at the very least five prisons could close without impacting the imprison population. Just with all of the work that we’ve been doing to get people out of prison over the last decade, the population had gotten to that point. So we launched this campaign and had moved a few prisons towards closure, but we were focusing on the person who had the decision making power ultimately, which was Governor Newsom. And he was just making choices around whatever prison he saw fit to close, I think in relationship to or talking to CDCR, but not necessarily to us. And so even though we knew that Gut Newsom does have the final say in whether or not our prison closes, we also thought that everyday people should also get a say in how dollars are spent.

    So we decided to engage in a site fight just to sort of test our power, our ability to be able to name a prison and then have that prison get shut down. So when we first started the campaign, it was based in what we called the People’s Plan for Prison Closure, which was a research project that Curb did back in 2019 or 2028 where they interviewed hundreds of imprison people across the state. What were the prisons that were most toxic? And given everything you listed initially, clearly CRC Norco was one of the prisons at the top of that list. So we pulled 10 prisons and we were just like between people inside wanting the prison to close. And we had heard that there were pushes from the city council and the mayor to close the prison as well. And we thought that might be good conditions for trying out focusing on CRC Norco to get it to close.

    So we did the sort of, I think some of the usual things around grassroots organizing where we, and agitated our base of supporters to send the governor letters for closure or advocating for closure. We did also engage in mobilizations to CRC Norco as direct action and also we organized with interfaith movements. So a bunch of churches from across the state that would mobilize to Norco, they did a pilgrimage of the direct action as well to show their opposition to Norco support for people inside and the desire for it to close. But we didn’t want to stop there. We did some organizing outside of the prison, which looked like what we call parking lot outreach days. So with the goal of organizing the families of people

    Mansa Musa:

    And not to cut you off and that was onsite at the institutions. When you say pa, alright, go ahead. That’s

    Woods Ervin:

    Every weekend when folks would visit their family members inside we would have a table with food and water and iceman outside. And so the goal was to one, just generally support family members of people who were in CRC Norco and then also to let them know about the campaign to encourage them to join if they were interested in doing so. And we were hoping to also then set the groundwork so that if we did win the closure of CRC Norco, then we would be prepared to mobilize with family members on that. Right,

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. And you just described organizing 1 0 1 in terms of going where the people are because as you said, y’all got this strategy to close it. But now we looking at conditions that shifted in this country in the interim of what you just said, the mentality has shifted. Now we have the raise on people, rounding people up, ice rate rounding people up because they’re now United States citizens. So we see that. How are y’all looking at alright, the close of these prisons and not allowing them to become a repurposed for federal detention and ice? Is that a part of y’all plan? Because Governor Gavin Newsome signed AB 1 37 to prevent ICE from acquiring closed facilities. Has this legislation been effective in stopping the federal government from taking over sites like FCI, Dublin and Chaco Walla Valley State Prison?

    Woods Ervin:

    Right on. So we’re definitely excited to have been able to push for AB 1 37 to get passed and that to include some of the language that would allow for prisons that we get closed to not be able to be sold to the federal government. Just like you were saying, 2020 when we started the campaign, it was a different moment when we knew in the fall of last year when Trump got elected and was spouting all the anti-immigrant rhetoric that we needed to get ahead of the issue with prisons being converted to detention centers. So the legislation AB 1 37 currently says that the state has to name a building as excess to fall into the status of not being sold. And while that is one step forward, that does then bring about a lot of challenges in terms of it’s implemented, right? So what the prisons you were speaking to Chuck Wall Valley State Prison is not currently named as excess. So we’re organizing our base to send letters to the governor to move it into that category. But we’re also thinking about this next legislative cycle. How do we figure out ways to either strengthen the legislation via amendment or if there are ways administratively to figure out some supporting the interpretation of the legislation to a little bit one more automatic, it shouldn’t be that we have to fight for every prison that we get closed to then get named as excess so that we don’t have to worry about it getting sold.

    And two, so that it’s just broader. So it covers as many of the facilities that get closed as possible. Unfortunately with a case of something like FCI Dublin, which was a federal facility, so it was already federally owned. So AB 1 37 doesn’t cover it, right? Federal property. So there’s no need to exchange hands in terms of ownership,

    Mansa Musa:

    But there’s always the question, when a prison closed, does it actually mean the conservation, are people being released or are they simply being transferred to another jail or prison? And in that regard, we are looking at the impact of the closure. Talk about the impact of closure when y’all made y’all analysis, how y’all tracking that?

    Woods Ervin:

    Yes, I can definitely speak to that. So how we’re approaching this is rooted in the answer to your first question because some of our grassroots organizing was not just with people on the outside, it was also on people with people on the inside,

    Mansa Musa:

    Right?

    Woods Ervin:

    Okay. We organized with people on the inside about if we were successful in getting Norco name for closure, what would they want to see? How would they want us to approach it? And so really at the top of their desire was for us to move for releases and not transfers. So already a lot of us just wanted to get clarity on we want what’s the highest bar, but then if we don’t have the juice or the capacity to get CR to get our prison system to release everybody what then? And so even though we’ve been continuing to push for releases, not transfers, we’re also realistic about where is there some room beyond that? So what we’ve been trying to do is then also to have, if they are going to be transferring people to try and mitigate the harm as much as possible. So what we’ve looked at is we’ve been trying to push for our process for our prison system to assess eligibility for release and create reentry plans, push for autonomy and choice in the transfer process.

    So we know that especially when thinking about programs like programming for folks inside, we’re trying to, there’s a penal code 2030 3.7 in California that should allow for people in prison to choose to be able to continue programming at their next facility. But that will require that the facility that they move to have that program program, right? So we’re pushing for in accordance with law people should be moved to a prison, continue to program and also other things like people should have adequate prep time and in planning and advance the transfer and clearly everything else maintain adequate levels of medical assistant food stocks and space to avoid overcrowding. And so those are some of the things that we are pushing for as part of our ultimate goals release is not

    Mansa Musa:

    Transferred.

    Woods Ervin:

    If they’re not going to fully comply with that, we have other demands in addition to that.

    Mansa Musa:

    I like the strategy because it’s interconnected. You close the prison and you create a transitory environment, then that means that okay, I go from maximum security to medium security to minimum security to pre-release if that’s a system that exists in California. But ultimately I don’t stay in one secure environment. My behavior is now allow me to be able to progress through the system. Whereas though before I’m just, I need a plantation, I need numbers. One of the numbers that need to be on the plantation versus ain’t no more plantations. So we close them. That mean we got to do something with the people and I like that strategy. So that’s all power to the people in that regard. Another factor here is that we had did a story on North Carolina and we found in our study, in our investigation that a lot of prisons in environments where if you got fires, floods when it rains and they don’t have a contingency plan for preparation to move people into a safer environment or close the prison and then have the people move to a more secure environment or process them out. Can you speak to that?

    Woods Ervin:

    That’s exactly right. I think we saw this back in I think 20 21, 20 22 during the fires, the fire, right? Exactly. In Susanville and we were pushing a closed California correctional center at the time. And at the time, just like CIC Norco, California Correctional Center did not have an emergency plan even though the fire was heading directly towards them. And so we literally had to intervene because family members were calling us and they didn’t know what was going to happen to their loved ones. So because the prison system didn’t have an emergency plan, a contingency plan for that, we were like not only do we need to manage the outside advocates, we have managed this situation when CDCI has all this money to do that, but then also this prison needs to close immediately. Right? Right,

    Mansa Musa:

    Exactly.

    Woods Ervin:

    That was a blatant and clear example of the inability for them to keep people inside safe.

    Mansa Musa:

    It’s only because of the advocacy of families and people much like y’all cells that bring this to national attention. That makes it an issue that has to be dealt with in a more humane manner. Fine. Let’s touch on the broad economic picture. California is basically facing a deficit now. I was looking at how much money in the 20 24, 20 25 fiscal year. They estimated 18.1 billion for that fiscal year. Alright. Talk about perhaps repurposing the facilities. Will it help strengthen the state economy, especially given the outgoing hostility from the Trump administration? So we find ourselves in a situation where you close in prison. Okay. How was this closing and repurposing those facility help strengthen the state’s economy? What’s the economic impact?

    Woods Ervin:

    I love that question. I let you ask the question. So essentially there are a couple of things. So there is the fact that there’ll be less wasteful spending. So prior to the closure of CRC Norco, California spent 250 million on repairs as we said earlier is in terrible condition. So 250 million on repairing CRC Norco that in a way that wasn’t effective given the state of the prison,

    Mansa Musa:

    Right? Right, exactly.

    Woods Ervin:

    We want to stop our prison system, our state from pouring the state’s resources into these dilapidated prisons that need to be closed and have our folks released. So that’s like baseline, right? So also as a result of this continuing trend downward of the population, so the population reductions that have been happening inside of prison, the legislative analyst office shows that California is in a position to close five more prisons and that would save 1.5 billion annual, yeah,

    Mansa Musa:

    1.5 billion

    Woods Ervin:

    Foreseeable future. And that can be put towards the deficit, but if as it currently stands, but it can also support some of the gaps in Medi-Cal food services

    And other programs, housing exactly. That are being slashed in this moment. There’s also this really interesting opportunity. So as I was saying earlier, the prison system CDCI has no plan whether it be for emergencies or for the prison closure. So what did we do? We came up with a plan and we were like, here’s an example of what we could be doing with as part of prison closures. So we are pushing for the state to not only close prisons permanently and not reopen or sell them, but then to try and transform the conditions of the prison. So that could be tear it down, use it for something else

    Like detoxify the land, give it back to the local communities, right? Give it back to put it into a program for reparations or back to this communities we’ve been working with. So that’s one example of what we could do. We’ve been working with an organization called Designing Justice, designing Spaces that does redesigns for prison facilities that could be turned into lots of other things that are generative for the local economy. And clearly from the funds that gets saved from the prison being closed that would’ve gone to that prison, could go back into the general fund at the state level, but then be set aside for the county to make decisions about their local economy and youth. Norco is a particular case. That county is relatively wealthy and conservative, so they actually don’t need the money to do what they want to do with the prison after it shuts down. So what we’re advocating for in that instance is, or instances like these and in general is that the money that would go to that, there’s money that could go to counties, but there’s also the money that should go to the counties. So there’s the counties that the prison is located in, but then there’s counties where the majority of imprison people come from like LA County and there should be more resources going to where the people who are locked up the most come from,

    Mansa Musa:

    You can divide that like you say, it is equity, economic equity because you can divide that money up in two places where it can be served the most in terms of advancement of humanity. And that’s a good strategy to counter what the Trump administration is doing. They throwing a lot of money to the states and it’s not being regulated. I’ll give you 1.9 billion or I’ll give you like 1.5 million and you just do this right here for me. And whatever happens in terms of being regulated, if you knock somebody’s brains out, if you put people in thumb locks, it don’t really matter to me as long as you contain that population that I wanted to put in that space for closing first, we want to thank you for coming to the real news and rallying the bars. Tell us about going forward, what you want our listeners and our viewers to be on the lookout for coming out with the critical resistance space.

    Woods Ervin:

    Yeah, I mean, thanks again so much for having me. And the fight continues. We’ve got four public prisons and one private prison closed. As I said earlier, we’re still going to keep trying to make sure that those prisons that we close don’t get turned into something we don’t want them to get turned into that the money goes where it needs to go. And then we still have five to six additional prisons that we want to get named for closure. And according to legislative analyst office, even though there’s been, as you were saying, the landscape has shifted and there’s more of a sort of tough on crime approach that is gaining popularity in moment, there is still room to close many more prisons in California and just given the amount of people that we’ve been able to get out and that we could potentially still get out and so we’re going to, are going to keep fighting. It would be amazing if we got the 10 prisons, the rest of the name this year. But I definitely think that even if they don’t get named this year, we’re going to fight until we reach our goal.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I want to close with the immortal words of Bob Marley, get up, stand up. Stand up for your rights. Get up. Stand up. Don’t give up the fight. And I see from what I’m seeing in California, George Jackson say, when the doors open, the real dragon will come out. Well the real dragon is out in the form of critical resistance in the form of curb. The real dragon has come out and make no mistake about y’all are actually showing the nation, when we say abolition, what that look like in terms of the full colony of it. Not just shutting the prison doors but ensuring that the people that’s in prison have a transition. The states and the counties. Well, the counties where the prisons, I have an opportunity to transition from relying on slave labor to looking at expanding your imagination, imagining some other than making money off of people’s sweat and browe.

    Woods Ervin:

    Thank you so much Mansa for having me. Thank you for being those very big kind words.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • On June 25, Tom Mwadime Mzungu took to the streets of Nairobi for the first time, joining thousands of protesters to mark the one-year anniversary of Kenya’s historic Gen Z protests—when the country’s youth shocked the world by rising with hope for a better future.

    The day also marked one year since his 36-year-old brother Andrew Kelvin Mwawasi was killed during these protests The brutal crackdown left at least 60 dead.

    “I just went alone,” 32-year-old Mwadime recalls, sitting beside his grieving mother at her home in Juja, a town north of Nairobi. “I was carrying so much pain and anger, and I needed to let it out.”

    As Mwadime marched forward, the harsh sting of tear gas filled his lungs for the first time, and the looming presence of armed riot police bore down on him. “I just asked God to protect me and walked without fear,” he says, his voice determined.

    “I needed to fight for my brother. When the government ignores you, going to the streets is the only way to hold on. Being there that day meant I was finally standing up for him.”

    “I needed to fight for my brother. When the government ignores you, going to the streets is the only way to hold on. Being there that day meant I was finally standing up for him.”

    Since last year’s protests against a controversial finance bill that would have sharply raised taxes, over 100 demonstrators have been killed and thousands arbitrarily detained or abducted, intensifying public anger at President William Ruto and his administration over state violence, soaring living costs, and corruption. Observers warn the government’s escalating crackdown on protesters, activists, and human rights defenders is unprecedented.

    For the families who lost loved ones during the Gen Z uprising more than a year ago, the pain remains raw and justice elusive. 

    “In Kenya, there’s no justice,” says Mwadime, his eyes red and clouded with tears. “The government wants the world to believe the protesters are criminals and terrorists to justify their murders.”

    “The government wants the world to believe the protesters are criminals and terrorists to justify their murders.”

    “I’m sick of this system, sick of this government,” he adds, his voice tightening. “Ruto needs to step down. We’ve had enough.”

    ‘Stop killing kids’

    Missing Voices, a coalition of Kenyan human rights groups, documented 104 cases of police killings and 55 enforced disappearances last year—a 450% increase from 2023 and the highest number of disappearances recorded in a single year.

    During the one-year anniversary protests, at least 16 people were killed and hundreds injured. On July 7, security forces killed at least 38 people during the annual Saba Saba demonstrations, marking the country’s historic pro-democracy movement. Most of those killed were under 25, including two children. Nearly 1,500 people have been arrested, with hundreds charged with arson or terrorism—a move rights groups warn sets a dangerous precedent under Ruto.

    “They need to just stop killing the kids,” whispers 55-year-old Patience Kishaga Gertrude, Mwadime’s mother, through sobs. It has taken her over a year to find the strength to speak publicly about her son, Kelvin, and she struggles to get a single word out. “The government needs to just sit down and talk to them and stop all this killing.”

    Patience Kishaga Gertrude holds a photo of her son Kelvin, who was killed in last year’s protests. It has taken her more than a year to find the strength to speak about him.
    Patience Kishaga Gertrude holds a photo of her son Kelvin, who was killed in last year’s protests. It has taken her more than a year to find the strength to speak about him. Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.
    Kelvin’s younger brother places a memorial poster on a sofa at their mother’s apartment in Juja, north of Nairobi.
    Kelvin’s younger brother places a memorial poster on a sofa at their mother’s apartment in Juja, north of Nairobi. Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.

    Kelvin was killed on the night of June 25 during what became known as the “Githurai massacre,” when security forces opened fire on protesters in Githurai, a neighborhood north of Nairobi. Estimates of the death toll vary, but witnesses claim around a dozen people were killed, while a BBC investigation found no evidence of mass killings. 

    Kelvin was not part of the protests, his family says, but was heading home from his job when police forces began shooting, causing people to flee. His body was found on the street with a gunshot wound to his head.

    By the time the family was informed, police had already moved his body to Nairobi’s city mortuary, where Mwadime was forced to identify the disfigured, swollen body of his eldest brother. Mwadime immediately went to a police station to report the killing, but says he was met with abuse.

    “It was so infuriating,” he says. “The officers just shrugged everything off and said my brother was a thug, and it wasn’t the police who shot him.”

    “They just kept turning us around, playing with us, and not giving us any clear information,” he continues. “This is what they do until you just give up. They just add more trauma and pain on top of what you’re already feeling.”

    The post-mortem concluded Kelvin was killed by a bullet wound to the head, but the bullet exited the back of his head and was not recovered. The family believes Kelvin was severely beaten before being shot close-range. In a morgue photo, his head appears shattered, his eyes and nose bruised and swollen, and dried blood collected under his nostrils.

    Families often distrust preliminary investigative processes, since officers themselves secure crime scenes and collect evidence. Activists note that bullets, crucial links between killings and the shooter, are rarely recovered, and cover-ups are common.

    “We have to rely on the police to cooperate and provide evidence, yet they are the ones who are doing the killings,” Mwadime says, his voice heavy with frustration. 

    “We have to rely on the police to cooperate and provide evidence, yet they are the ones who are doing the killings.”

    The family reported Kelvin’s murder to the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), created to provide civilian oversight of Kenya’s police. But despite repeated follow-ups, the case has made no progress. 

    “IPOA is just useless,” Mwadime laments. “Unless you attract media attention, no one cares.”

    High-profile cases highlight this disparity. Rex Kanyike Masai, one of the first killed in last year’s protests, drew widespread coverage and public outrage, prompting IPOA to launch a detailed investigation. The agency identified Police Constable Isaiah Murangiri Ndumba as the shooter, leading to an ongoing inquest.

    Gillian Munyao, mother of Rex Kanyike Masai — among the first killed in last year’s protests — sits with her other son during a court hearing in the ongoing inquest into his murder. Masai is one of the few victims of police killings whose case has led to a detailed investigation.
    Gillian Munyao, mother of Rex Kanyike Masai — among the first killed in last year’s protests — sits with her other son during a court hearing in the ongoing inquest into his murder. Masai is one of the few victims of police killings whose case has led to a detailed investigation. Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.

    Similarly, 22-year-old mask vendor Boniface Kariuki was shot point-blank in June during demonstrations sparked by the killing of teacher and blogger Albert Ojwang. Video evidence led to a murder charge against the officer involved, while three officers were also charged in the death of Ojwang.

    But such prosecutions are rare. More than a decade after its creation, IPOA has secured only a handful of convictions despite thousands of complaints.

    Ernest Cornel, spokesperson for the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), tells TRNN that IPOA is staffed largely by former police officers, with commissioners appointed by the President and approved by parliament, meaning it “cannot purport to be independent.”

    Investigations often advance only when public pressure or media attention is high, not just based on evidence. “Even with overwhelming evidence, IPOA can still fail to act,” Cornel explains. “What matters is how much pressure the public applies.”

    Most families who have lost loved ones to police bullets never step into a courtroom. They are left alone to navigate their sorrow, which stretches on without relief.

    “We feel lost,” Gertrude says, her words stuttering through weeps. “We feel abandoned and ignored. Even if the government just acknowledged my son’s death, it would help my heart. He didn’t deserve to be killed.”

    “Now I’m feeling so much pain and it never gets better,” she continues. “If I see someone who looks like Kelvin, I just start screaming and crying. I’m always breaking down.”

    Mwadime says the sight of a police officer sends a jolt through him. “I have this anger in me when I see them,” he says. “I feel like attacking them because any one of them could be the officer who killed my brother.”

    From Messiah to Anti-Christ

    In 2022, Ruto won Kenya’s presidency by casting himself as the champion of the “hustler nation,” embodied in his United Democratic Alliance (UDA) party’s slogan Kazi ni Kazi (“Work is Work” in Swahili), promoting the dignity of work in the informal economy. A self-described hustler from humble beginnings, he ran on a “bottom-up” platform promising jobs for the youth, small-business loans, and lower living costs.

    “I was a big supporter of Ruto,” 49-year-old Caroline Mutisya tells TRNN from her home in Machakos in eastern Kenya. On the wall hangs a memorial poster of her 25-year-old son Ericsson, killed in last year’s protests. 

    “When he won, I was so excited. I thought he would lift up the mama mbogas [informal female vegetable vendors] and the boda boda [motorcycle taxi] drivers. I truly believed he was going to change Kenya.”

    “But now here we are,” Mutisya says with a sigh, her eyes glassy as she scrolls through photos on her phone from June 25. In one image, Ericsson’s bloodied body lies on the street; in another, it has been placed before the gates of parliament, where protesters carried him and laid him down as lawmakers looked on.

    Caroline Mutisya shows a photo on her phone of her son Ericsson’s body, laid by protesters at parliament’s gates.
    Caroline Mutisya shows a photo on her phone of her son Ericsson’s body, laid by protesters at parliament’s gates. Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.
    Caroline Mutisya sits in her Machakos home beneath a memorial poster of her son, Ericsson, who she says was killed in “cold blood.”
    Caroline Mutisya sits in her Machakos home beneath a memorial poster of her son, Ericsson, who she says was killed in “cold blood.” Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.

    Once in office, Ruto quickly abandoned his promises. He scrapped subsidies on fuel and maize flour, driving up living costs for low-income earners he had pledged to support. He also pushed for new taxes while indulging in extravagant government spending—earning the derisive nickname “Zakayo,” after the biblical tax collector Zacchaeus. To many, his approach bore the mark of dictatorship.

    “The problem with Ruto is that he gave Kenyans so much hope,” says 29-year-old activist Sophie Mugure Njehia. “He convinced us he was our Messiah. But once in office, he revealed himself as the anti-Christ—doing the exact opposite of what he had promised.”

     “He convinced us he was our Messiah. But once in office, he revealed himself as the anti-Christ—doing the exact opposite of what he had promised.”

    “Ruto talked about how he would make sure that ordinary Kenyans will have more money in their pockets,” she says. “But then all he is doing is taking money from our pockets.”

    Despite his young age, Ericsson had worked tirelessly to open his own butcher shop in Nairobi, eventually hiring four employees. But as the rising cost of living drove customers away, he was forced to let two employees go.

    “My son was not one to complain,” Mutisya recalls. “But I could see the frustration building. He felt he was working hard, doing everything right—yet the government was punishing him.”

    By the time the 2024 Finance Bill was introduced, young Kenyans were already seething. The bill proposed a 16% VAT on essentials like bread and mobile money transactions, which would disproportionately hit low- and middle-income households. It also targeted the digital economy—taxing content creation and online sales—striking at a vital income source for many youths. 

    The government framed the proposals as a way to raise revenue to service debt. But even as it pushed taxes that would hit struggling youths and slashed social services, Ruto’s administration set aside large sums to refurbish state buildings—spending seen as lavish and at odds with its austerity pledges.

    On June 18, 2024—the day parliament was to debate the bill—months of online outrage spilled into the streets. The historic demonstrations united a generation from all walks of life: from residents of informal settlements to content creators, business owners, and NGO workers. 

    But this hope gave way to grief when police responded with brutal force. Within days, at least two protesters were killed and hundreds injured. On June 25, outrage erupted after lawmakers passed the bill: protesters broke through police barricades, tore down parliament fences, and briefly entered the grounds before security forces cleared them out. 

    In the BBC Africa Eye documentary Blood Parliament, which investigated the June 25 killings at parliament, footage shows a plainclothes officer—identified as being from the Central Nairobi police station—advancing toward protesters and shouting “uaa!”—Swahili for “kill.” An officer with a concealed face kneels; gunfire erupts, and seven protesters—including Ericsson—collapse. The same officer can be heard continuing to urge his colleagues to “kill.”

    The violence only galvanized the protesters. Hundreds breached parliament grounds with arms raised, moving slowly and squatting to show they posed no threat. Overwhelmed guards were unable to stop them as some entered the building. Chaos followed—windows were smashed, part of the building set ablaze, and lawmakers fled, some escaping in ambulances. Two lawmakers who had supported the bill, unable to flee due to disabilities, were shielded by protesters they later described as “very kind.”

    The mayhem lasted only minutes before protesters began retreating. As they fled, a Kenya Defence Force (KDF) officer opened fire, killing 27-year-old university student Eric Shieni.

    By the end of the day, the country’s streets were strewn with the bloodied bodies of young protesters, leaving the nation in shock. 

    That night, Ruto claimed the protests had been infiltrated by “organized criminals” and announced the army’s deployment. Yet none of the three young men killed at parliament that day were armed or connected to criminal networks. The following day, he announced the withdrawal of the bill. 

    But for many, the damage was already irreparable, prompting widespread calls for his resignation.

    “My son was murdered in cold blood,” Mutisya says, tears overtaking her. “He was only carrying his phone—no weapons. What threat could he have posed to the police?”

    She speaks with rising indignation. “The same man I had put all my hope in was now on television calling my son a criminal. That broke my heart. My son was humble and hard-working. He was our family’s angel.”

    “These were young people who wanted a better country, and they were killed for that.”

    ‘Sheer brazenness’

    Police violence is not new in Kenya, but under Ruto, rights groups warn that state repression is reaching alarming new heights.

    Weeks after the protests, plainclothes security forces continued abducting and targeting perceived protest leaders. Abductors used unmarked cars with constantly changing plates. Those taken were held without due process in unlawful facilities, including forests and abandoned buildings, and denied contact with families or lawyers.

    Bodies of missing people surfaced in quarries, forests, and mortuaries, some showing signs of torture. More than a year on, over a dozen abductees remain unaccounted for.

    As police violence escalated, many young Kenyans moved their activism online—but authorities quickly extended their crackdown to the digital sphere. Officials have disrupted internet access, imposed restrictive rules on social media companies, and advanced legislation to allow real-time monitoring of users that would grant the government expansive surveillance powers. 

    Officials have disrupted internet access, imposed restrictive rules on social media companies, and advanced legislation to allow real-time monitoring of users that would grant the government expansive surveillance powers.

    Young Kenyans have been abducted, beaten, and tortured for posting satirical images of Ruto online. Police have also targeted prominent online activists, including developer Rose Njeri, who was detained after launching a platform for the public to email parliament about the new finance bill, and political commentator Ojwang, who was abducted, tortured, and killed after accusing a high-ranking police official of corruption on social media.

    Civic and artistic spaces have not been spared. Authorities pressured the BBC to cancel a screening of Blood Parliament and detained filmmakers. Ruto’s office also attempted to ban a high school play examining Gen Z’s frustrations with Kenya’s leadership. The ban was overturned by a court, but police responded to its staging with violence, assaulting journalists and firing teargas.

    According to KHRC’s Cornel, Ruto’s administration has shown “sheer brazenness” in police excesses, with top officials openly endorsing deadly force. While Ruto apologized and introduced a compensation plan for protest victims, he also ordered police to shoot protesters in the legs so “they can go to hospital on their way to court.”

    While Ruto apologized and introduced a compensation plan for protest victims, he also ordered police to shoot protesters in the legs so “they can go to hospital on their way to court.”

    “In our analysis, ordering police to shoot protesters in the legs is effectively a shoot-to-kill directive,” Cornel says. “Regardless of the body part, gunshot victims can die from bleeding without immediate care—and in Kenya’s failing healthcare system, those shot are likely to die.” Masai, killed in last year’s protests, bled to death from a gunshot wound to his upper thigh.

    Kenya’s Interior Cabinet Secretary has also instructed police to kill anyone who “attempts to attack” them—a directive rights groups say grants officers a license to kill with impunity.

    Human rights groups have additionally condemned the authorities’ use of informal vigilante groups—dubbed “state-hired goons”—to suppress protests. Armed with clubs, whips, and other crude weapons, these militias are accused of beating and robbing demonstrators and committing sexual assault.

    The Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC) describes them as “criminal gangs and hired militia,” whose deployment on June 25 anniversary protests coincided with a state ban on live broadcast coverage. According to GI-TOC, they are funded by senior politicians to depict peaceful protesters as violent actors. 

    “The state hires vigilantes to sow chaos and discredit protesters,” Cornel tells TRNN. “It’s also a way for the state and police to dodge blame.” 

    This is not a new tactic in Kenya; past governments used informal militias to suppress voter turnout or opposition. “But under Ruto, we are witnessing an unabashed audacity in committing these crimes—escalating them in broad daylight, without even trying to hide,” Cornel says.

    On July 6, a day before the Saba Saba protests, a press conference at the offices of KHRC by Kenyan mothers whose children were killed or forcibly disappeared during demonstrations was violently broken up by a group of about 50 men, with some wielding sticks and pickaxes. They forced their way past locked gates, sending activists and journalists fleeing.

    “We can say without a doubt that this militia was hired and operated under the protection of the state to silence dissent,” Cornel says.

    While Ruto has intensified long-employed tactics, he has also reached for a sharper weapon: the country’s anti-terror laws.

    Of the hundreds arrested over the last two months, at least 221—most under 25 years old—have been charged with terrorism and other serious offenses, with high bail conditions. At least 75 of these cases are being pursued under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, a law designed for insurgent groups like Al Shabaab. 

    Previous administrations in Kenya have misused anti-terrorism laws to intimidate critics. This, however, is the first time a government has applied them so broadly and publicly against protesters—an approach meant to deter protests and civic participation altogether, Cornel says. 

    These developments are also intended to sap the youth movement’s resources, activists say. Organizers are forced to spend time and resources locating detained protesters, providing legal aid, and fundraising for bail.

    Mwanase Ahmed, a 33-year-old prominent activist, says these grassroots efforts have secured the release of at least 200 people. “But, now we’re spending so much of our time and resources defending ourselves, tracking down the missing, and covering legal fees and bail, instead of strategizing on how to change our country for the better.”

    Betrayed hope

    For Jacinta Onyango, her 12-year-old son Kennedy embodied all her hopes. Two of her other children have sickle cell anemia, leaving them often bedridden. But Kennedy’s sharp mind and gift for art lit a path she thought might lead her family to a better life.

    “He had really big dreams,” the 35-year-old says, clutching a wad of tissues, her face wet with tears. “He wanted to be an artist—a really big one. He was already talking about getting a scholarship to study art in the United States.”

    She spreads out some of Kennedy’s drawings on a table in her two-room home in Ongata Rongai, a Nairobi satellite town, including his last piece of the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem. 

    “He promised me that this one would pay our rent,” Onyango murmurs. Her husband, 36-year-old Michael Odero, sits quietly beside her, his jaw tight and eyes brimming with tears he won’t let fall.

    At her home in Ongata Rongai, Jacinta Onyango shows a photo of her late son Kennedy.
    At her home in Ongata Rongai, Jacinta Onyango shows a photo of her late son Kennedy. Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.
    Michael Odaro and Jacinta Onyango sit in their two-room home in Ongata Rongai, with drawings by their 12-year-old son Kennedy spread across the table. Kennedy was shot and killed by police while on his way to collect a schoolbook from a classmate during protests.
    Michael Odaro and Jacinta Onyango sit in their two-room home in Ongata Rongai, with drawings by their 12-year-old son Kennedy spread across the table. Kennedy was shot and killed by police while on his way to collect a schoolbook from a classmate during protests. Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.
    At the family’s home in Ongata Rongai, Kennedy’s youngest brother sorts through his late brother’s drawings.
    At the family’s home in Ongata Rongai, Kennedy’s youngest brother sorts through his late brother’s drawings. Photo by Jaclynn Ashly.

    “A big part of his heart belonged to the Palestinian people,” she says, a faint smile slipping through the grief as she recalls her son’s compassion. “He felt their pain as if it were his own.”

    On June 28 last year, amid still simmering protests, Kennedy set out to a classmate’s house to borrow a book he needed for homework. He never made it. A police bullet tore into his back. “It looked like he had been mauled by a lion,” Onyango says, her voice breaking as she remembers identifying his body. 

    A week later, Onyango’s phone rang. On the other end was President Ruto.

    “He told me he was very sorry for what happened to my son,” Onyango recounts. “He said not to worry—that he would personally make sure my son got justice, that someone would be held accountable. He promised to call me soon and that we would sit down and talk.”

    “He gave me so much comfort,” she continues. “It eased some of the pain, because I believed the president was with me—and surely we would get justice for Kennedy. I felt like he was a father to me.”

    But more than a year later, the call the family had placed all their trust in still hasn’t come. They tried calling the number back and sent message after message—but received only silence.

    “That man is a liar,” Onyango snaps, her voice rising. “He fooled us, pretending to be a good person, and then abandoned us. He dangled hope in front of us, then used it to torture us. It would have been better if he’d never called at all. He made our grief so much worse.”

    Onyango’s anger is not hers alone. It’s shared by many Kenyans who feel the sting of betrayed hope. 

    “My son’s soul can’t rest in peace until we get justice,” Onyango says, her lips trembling. “And if his soul is not at peace, then we can never be at peace.”

    “But I don’t know what I’m supposed to do. I don’t know who to speak to or which direction to go. It feels like we will be stuck like this forever.”

    Onyango’s grief swallows her words, and she falls silent. Her husband, Odero, sitting beside her, picks up where her voice falters. 

    “Go tell the world what’s happening here,” he orders this reporter. “Tell them this government is rotten—that they kill human beings like chickens.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Sept. 15, 2025. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

    Senior Trump administration officials on Monday made fresh threats to crack down on a nonexistent left-wing “domestic terror movement” following last week’s assassination of Charlie Kirk—a move that critics called an attempt to exploit the far-right firebrand’s murder to advance an authoritarian agenda targeting nonviolent opposition.

    Even as investigators work to determine the motive of Kirk’s killer, members of Trump’s inner circle and supporters have amplified an unfounded narrative of a coordinated leftist movement targeting conservatives.

    According to The New York Times:

    On Monday, two senior administration officials, who spoke anonymously to describe the internal planning, said that Cabinet secretaries and federal department heads were working to identify organizations that funded or supported violence against conservatives. The goal, they said, was to categorize left-wing activity that led to violence as domestic terrorism, an escalation that critics said could lay the groundwork for crushing anti-conservative dissent more broadly.

    Appearing on the latest episode of “The Charlie Kirk Show” podcast—which was guest hosted by US Vice President JD Vance—White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said that “we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people.”

    “It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name,” Miller vowed.

    Vance said during the podcast that he wanted to explore “all of the ways that we’re trying to figure out how to prevent this festering violence that you see on the far left from becoming even more and more mainstream.”

    “You have the crazies on the far left who are saying, ‘Oh, Stephen Miller and JD Vance, they’re going to go after constitutionally protected speech,‘” the vice president said. “We’re going to go after the network that foments, facilitates, and engages in violence.”

    Vance, who like Trump and numerous supporters claim to champion free speech, also took aim at “people who are celebrating” Kirk’s killing.

    Another unnamed administration official told the Times Monday that government agencies would be investigating people, including those accused of vandalizing Tesla electric vehicles and dealerships and allegedly assaulting federal immigration agents, in an effort to implicate US leftists in political violence.

    Vance and Miller’s threats ignored right-wing violence—which statistically outpaces left-wing attacks—including the recent assassinations of Democratic Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman, who were murdered in June by a right-wing masked gunman disguised as a police officer.

    Investigative reporter Jason Paladino reported last week that the US Department of Justice apparently removed an academic study previously published on the National Institute for Justice’s online library showing that “since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives” versus “42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives” committed by “far-left extremists.”

    “Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism.”The Trump DOJ scrubbed this study from their website.

    Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan.bsky.social) 2025-09-13T01:43:34.653Z

    Responding to Miller’s remarks, New Republic staff writer Greg Sargent noted on social media that “Stephen Miller was directly involved in one of the largest acts of organized domestic political violence the United States has seen in modern times, the January 6 [2021] insurrection.”

    Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) weighed in Monday on Miller’s attempt to exploit Kirk’s murder, writing on the social media site Bluesky that “it’s never acceptable to kill someone for their political beliefs. But the Trump [administration] exploiting the shooting of Charlie Kirk to follow their authoritarian instincts and crack down on the left is incredibly disturbing.”

    “We must end any form of political violence—and reject those who try to exploit it,” she added.

    Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom noted Monday on social media that Miller “has already publicly labeled the Democratic Party as a terrorist organization.”

    “This isn’t about crime and safety,” Newsom added. “It’s about dismantling our democratic institutions. We cannot allow acts of political violence to be weaponized and used to threaten tens of millions of Americans.”

    The progressive Working Families Party (WFP) said Monday on social media that “JD Vance and Stephen Miller want to use the horrifying murder of Charlie Kirk to target and dismantle pro-democracy groups.”

    “Their comments call to mind some of the darkest periods in US history,” WFP continued. “They’re dividing people based on what box we ticked on our voter registration.”

    Vance and Miller “want to stoke fear and resentment to justify their un-American crackdowns on free speech, mass abductions of working people, and military takeovers of our cities,” WFP added. “This isn’t going to fly. We’ve survived crises like this before as a country, and we can choose to live in a place where our political freedoms are protected, where we settle disagreements with words not weapons, and where no one has to fear losing a loved one to gun violence.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • 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.