Anthony Romero

I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.

I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.

The local governments, you know, the state attorneys general, the governors, the mayors, we have this whole plan around a firewall for freedom, we call it. When they're going to try to detain and deport all these hundreds of thousands, up to a million people, that's an operation that they have the legal power to do, to do the raids, but the logistics...

The local governments, you know, the state attorneys general, the governors, the mayors, we have this whole plan around a firewall for freedom, we call it. When they're going to try to detain and deport all these hundreds of thousands, up to a million people, that's an operation that they have the legal power to do, to do the raids, but the logistics...

And they're going to need mayors and governors or city councils to either give them access to police officers or not, jails. We're even going to house all these folks. And so part of what we're doing is we're preparing executive orders and we're organizing our folks to put pressures on elected officials so they don't roll over.

And they're going to need mayors and governors or city councils to either give them access to police officers or not, jails. We're even going to house all these folks. And so part of what we're doing is we're preparing executive orders and we're organizing our folks to put pressures on elected officials so they don't roll over.

They should sever these relationships they have with the federal government on immigration enforcement. They should make sure that our prisons and our jails are off limits. They should begin to think about what actions they could take to pardon immigrants who have a criminal record because they drove on a suspended license. Well, let's take them out of harm's way. They could do that now.

They should sever these relationships they have with the federal government on immigration enforcement. They should make sure that our prisons and our jails are off limits. They should begin to think about what actions they could take to pardon immigrants who have a criminal record because they drove on a suspended license. Well, let's take them out of harm's way. They could do that now.

Let's commute. They could do that now. Yes.

Let's commute. They could do that now. Yes.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

So my question is this. The nomination process is taking longer than it should. Why is that? And because we still have to do ambassadors and everything, and we're not even through the cabinet members.

So my question is this. The nomination process is taking longer than it should. Why is that? And because we still have to do ambassadors and everything, and we're not even through the cabinet members.

Yes.

Yes.

Talk to you soon.

Talk to you soon.

Hey there, Charlie. Two questions. One is a topic you touched on yesterday about special elections. And that question is, why do GOP voters not want to come out for those or like local elections? Because they just seem to want to come out for federal for some reason. And the next question is,

Hey there, Charlie. Two questions. One is a topic you touched on yesterday about special elections. And that question is, why do GOP voters not want to come out for those or like local elections? Because they just seem to want to come out for federal for some reason. And the next question is,

Federal law enforcement has all right to come into an area that's a sanctuary city to get rid of illegals. The city of Rochester in New York has told its police, who assisted this week with federal law enforcement, now that 10 to 11 guys have to go through rehabilitation and they want them fired. And it's made a big stink in the area where I live because of this.

Federal law enforcement has all right to come into an area that's a sanctuary city to get rid of illegals. The city of Rochester in New York has told its police, who assisted this week with federal law enforcement, now that 10 to 11 guys have to go through rehabilitation and they want them fired. And it's made a big stink in the area where I live because of this.

How can a city or a county tell their local law enforcement when it's in the code that they have to work with the federal law enforcement?

How can a city or a county tell their local law enforcement when it's in the code that they have to work with the federal law enforcement?

Happy Friday, Charlie. The piggyback off of Chris Rufo's part about colleges and you going on campus and doing your events and me working with colleges is – If we – how do I want to put this?

Happy Friday, Charlie. The piggyback off of Chris Rufo's part about colleges and you going on campus and doing your events and me working with colleges is – If we – how do I want to put this?

The DEI hiring and the DEI and what they're doing with free speech on campus, would it be better off to do – strip the nonprofit status away from schools so they would have to change hiring processes, change education processes, and be more streamlined to produce a better quality student and to bring in better quality workers?

The DEI hiring and the DEI and what they're doing with free speech on campus, would it be better off to do – strip the nonprofit status away from schools so they would have to change hiring processes, change education processes, and be more streamlined to produce a better quality student and to bring in better quality workers?

Because now they would have to think like a business and not like an educational institute. Yeah.

Because now they would have to think like a business and not like an educational institute. Yeah.

Hey, Charlie, what's going on? So I have a question because not many people understand what goes on in New York. Trump is meeting with Hochul today, our governor. And I know one of the things on the docket is this pipeline that goes through the New England states that he wants to have come through New York to help lower costs by $5,000 a month or a year, whatever it came out to be.

Hey, Charlie, what's going on? So I have a question because not many people understand what goes on in New York. Trump is meeting with Hochul today, our governor. And I know one of the things on the docket is this pipeline that goes through the New England states that he wants to have come through New York to help lower costs by $5,000 a month or a year, whatever it came out to be.

The issue is Hochul and the previous governor, Cuomo, have made sure that no fracking, no pipelines will come through. And come next year, any new houses built in New York State cannot have natural gas hookup. And then a couple years later, new buildings can't have natural gas hookup. So how does the EPA and how can Trump do anything to override all these?

The issue is Hochul and the previous governor, Cuomo, have made sure that no fracking, no pipelines will come through. And come next year, any new houses built in New York State cannot have natural gas hookup. And then a couple years later, new buildings can't have natural gas hookup. So how does the EPA and how can Trump do anything to override all these?

And I know they're state level, but what can they do? Because New York has a ton of natural gas.

And I know they're state level, but what can they do? Because New York has a ton of natural gas.

It's a state park.

It's a state park.

Good morning, sir. I have a question regarding the Phyllis topic. How do we identify candidates that are true to their word? you know, when they run for office, when they're in office, because they're starting to show themselves that they're not really who they are.

Good morning, sir. I have a question regarding the Phyllis topic. How do we identify candidates that are true to their word? you know, when they run for office, when they're in office, because they're starting to show themselves that they're not really who they are.

Charlie, before I – Can I say one more thing?

Charlie, before I – Can I say one more thing?

Hey, Charlie, I got a question. So I get this asked a lot. How do you guys select your campus tours? Because from what I can tell, it's mostly the south, west coast and a little bit in the north.

Hey, Charlie, I got a question. So I get this asked a lot. How do you guys select your campus tours? Because from what I can tell, it's mostly the south, west coast and a little bit in the north.

Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

There's a lot of loops.

There's a lot of loops.

Why do schools think they have a right to declaring who gets a visa when it's technically the government? Because I'm seeing a school in my area, the University of Rochester, they're losing tons of Chinese students and they're not happy about this because of the millions that the school is losing.

Why do schools think they have a right to declaring who gets a visa when it's technically the government? Because I'm seeing a school in my area, the University of Rochester, they're losing tons of Chinese students and they're not happy about this because of the millions that the school is losing.

westernize them nearly as much as you might think like oh they come here and they learn to love america and they hate china no they don't that that doesn't happen at all what do you think would be the way forward anthony here um i can say this i used to work at the university of rochester for years so i've seen what goes on there um i'll be honest the colleges act like they're their own city and state because they're so small and they don't believe that they have to abide by the rules of the local community the federal government they can do what they want

westernize them nearly as much as you might think like oh they come here and they learn to love america and they hate china no they don't that that doesn't happen at all what do you think would be the way forward anthony here um i can say this i used to work at the university of rochester for years so i've seen what goes on there um i'll be honest the colleges act like they're their own city and state because they're so small and they don't believe that they have to abide by the rules of the local community the federal government they can do what they want

Really, to be honest, I think all their tax exemptions should be taken away, and they need to understand that once you start bringing in revenue like they do, you're a business. A nonprofit like yours or, let's say, the Cancer Foundation, it's a little different, but a college is not. You're providing a service.

Really, to be honest, I think all their tax exemptions should be taken away, and they need to understand that once you start bringing in revenue like they do, you're a business. A nonprofit like yours or, let's say, the Cancer Foundation, it's a little different, but a college is not. You're providing a service.

I'm trying to finish up one now, actually.

I'm trying to finish up one now, actually.

The Constitution. Oh, isn't it great?

The Constitution. Oh, isn't it great?

Yeah. I've just been so busy at work, and I'm trying to scratch out time for that and reading.

Yeah. I've just been so busy at work, and I'm trying to scratch out time for that and reading.

Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

We're going to the rally this weekend.

We're going to the rally this weekend.

Good day, sir. So two questions. One is regarding the SCOTUS win for Trump. Sanctuary cities and states like New York, Chicago, Rochester, New York, how will they try to fight this since the highest court has already ruled in favor of Trump? And my other question has to do with the visas by the federal government.

Good day, sir. So two questions. One is regarding the SCOTUS win for Trump. Sanctuary cities and states like New York, Chicago, Rochester, New York, how will they try to fight this since the highest court has already ruled in favor of Trump? And my other question has to do with the visas by the federal government.

Totally agree. Totally agree. And we've got to take it one step at a time.

Totally agree. Totally agree. And we've got to take it one step at a time.

I think you have to call on, for instance, corporate leaders. We'll have to yank them into the pool with us. If they believe that part of what is going to protect good corporate interests or the workings of the economy is rule of law, there's got to be a moment when people are saying, can you countenance this?

I think you have to call on, for instance, corporate leaders. We'll have to yank them into the pool with us. If they believe that part of what is going to protect good corporate interests or the workings of the economy is rule of law, there's got to be a moment when people are saying, can you countenance this?

I mean, President Biden had a number of instances where he also bristled at judicial oversight and judicial review. I mean, he hated the effort to shut down the student loan program. It's one of his signature programs. Never got it through because the courts got in his way.

I mean, President Biden had a number of instances where he also bristled at judicial oversight and judicial review. I mean, he hated the effort to shut down the student loan program. It's one of his signature programs. Never got it through because the courts got in his way.

But it's really quite another matter when there's a final order of the highest court of the land and the president just says, doesn't bother me. Don't have to heed you or hear you. That is a moment when I think we'll be able to harvest the opinions of people and get people engaged in a very different way. It won't matter the content. It will matter whether or not.

But it's really quite another matter when there's a final order of the highest court of the land and the president just says, doesn't bother me. Don't have to heed you or hear you. That is a moment when I think we'll be able to harvest the opinions of people and get people engaged in a very different way. It won't matter the content. It will matter whether or not.

We will allow an executive branch to assume such extreme power.

We will allow an executive branch to assume such extreme power.

And they're on the bench, and sometimes they watch his back, and sometimes they rule in ways that are kind of— head-scratching in terms of how far they will go to protect the person who put them on the bench. Also true, 65% of the judges have been appointed by Obama and Biden. So there's a larger number of them. That will change as they start to move judicial appointments.

And they're on the bench, and sometimes they watch his back, and sometimes they rule in ways that are kind of— head-scratching in terms of how far they will go to protect the person who put them on the bench. Also true, 65% of the judges have been appointed by Obama and Biden. So there's a larger number of them. That will change as they start to move judicial appointments.

I mean, what's in front of us, I mean, let's talk a little bit what else might be in front of us, right? Yep. That's not just the onslaught of the executive orders. Now, this is where I'm going to curl or uncurl your listener's hair. I have no hair. But for instance, we have yet not seen the mass deportations that I think are on the horizon. When they start revving up that machinery,

I mean, what's in front of us, I mean, let's talk a little bit what else might be in front of us, right? Yep. That's not just the onslaught of the executive orders. Now, this is where I'm going to curl or uncurl your listener's hair. I have no hair. But for instance, we have yet not seen the mass deportations that I think are on the horizon. When they start revving up that machinery,

that's going to be massive, right? So that's number one. I think the deportations is something to watch out for.

that's going to be massive, right? So that's number one. I think the deportations is something to watch out for.

Yeah, but when they start seeing that their nannies or their gardeners or their fellow workers or the local shoeshine guy or their neighbors are getting ripped up and that U.S. citizen kids are put in then kind of family protective services as a result of it, when they start seeing, because what they ran on was saying we're going to get rid of the criminals.

Yeah, but when they start seeing that their nannies or their gardeners or their fellow workers or the local shoeshine guy or their neighbors are getting ripped up and that U.S. citizen kids are put in then kind of family protective services as a result of it, when they start seeing, because what they ran on was saying we're going to get rid of the criminals.

Well, that's clearly not what they're doing already. But when they really ramp up and they start grabbing all these individuals who are part of the social fabric, I think we'll harvest that.

Well, that's clearly not what they're doing already. But when they really ramp up and they start grabbing all these individuals who are part of the social fabric, I think we'll harvest that.

Well, there are sanctuary city laws and sanctuary jurisdiction laws that are in fact – Which are the source of contempt for the Republican Party. Yeah. And they can be defended. And it's important that like for instance the litigation they're bringing against the city of Chicago we think is really far afield. They cannot use –

Well, there are sanctuary city laws and sanctuary jurisdiction laws that are in fact – Which are the source of contempt for the Republican Party. Yeah. And they can be defended. And it's important that like for instance the litigation they're bringing against the city of Chicago we think is really far afield. They cannot use –

the power of the purse in pulling money from roads and hospitals and schools to pressure them on immigration. And that's got to be challenged in court. The governors and the state attorneys general, especially in the blue states, have enormous power to put up roadblocks.

the power of the purse in pulling money from roads and hospitals and schools to pressure them on immigration. And that's got to be challenged in court. The governors and the state attorneys general, especially in the blue states, have enormous power to put up roadblocks.

I think some of the governors are beginning to find their sense of authority in Colorado and New Mexico. How about New York? In New York, we're working on it.

I think some of the governors are beginning to find their sense of authority in Colorado and New Mexico. How about New York? In New York, we're working on it.

Well, I think the governor's really working with us. I think the mayor is a bit more complicated on the immigrants' rights issue. Eric Adams in New York? I think it's complicated.

Well, I think the governor's really working with us. I think the mayor is a bit more complicated on the immigrants' rights issue. Eric Adams in New York? I think it's complicated.

For not what we like it to be. For not standing up. Not what we want it to be.

For not what we like it to be. For not standing up. Not what we want it to be.

I think on immigrants in particular, I think the governors have enormous power and latitude. They can't obstruct federal immigration enforcement, but they don't have to collude. There are shield laws that I think the governors can also enact for trans kids, for trans individuals. Like you saw Letitia James in New York.

I think on immigrants in particular, I think the governors have enormous power and latitude. They can't obstruct federal immigration enforcement, but they don't have to collude. There are shield laws that I think the governors can also enact for trans kids, for trans individuals. Like you saw Letitia James in New York.

When this one kind of executive order then triggered the shutting down of access to medical care in New York City hospitals with people who had private insurance, the New York attorney general stepped up and said, wait a minute, if you start canceling those appointments, you're going to run afoul of our state laws.

When this one kind of executive order then triggered the shutting down of access to medical care in New York City hospitals with people who had private insurance, the New York attorney general stepped up and said, wait a minute, if you start canceling those appointments, you're going to run afoul of our state laws.

I think we could very well be there. We're at the Rubicon. Whether we've crossed it is yet to be determined. Well, describe what the Rubicon is.

I think we could very well be there. We're at the Rubicon. Whether we've crossed it is yet to be determined. Well, describe what the Rubicon is.

It's fearmongering. It's clear it's fearmongering. It's a card that he played in the election. You saw the ads he ran.

It's fearmongering. It's clear it's fearmongering. It's a card that he played in the election. You saw the ads he ran.

It was clear fear-mongering. Of a community of 1.5 million people who are really under assault, you have over 500 state laws that have been targeted on the trans community. It's really an onslaught the likes of which we haven't seen in generations. And part of what our case, we have both this case and we have the one on the transgender affirming health care, is to make equal protection arguments.

It was clear fear-mongering. Of a community of 1.5 million people who are really under assault, you have over 500 state laws that have been targeted on the trans community. It's really an onslaught the likes of which we haven't seen in generations. And part of what our case, we have both this case and we have the one on the transgender affirming health care, is to make equal protection arguments.

So that was a case we had first in the Supreme Court. We argued the Scrametti case, which is challenging a Tennessee statute that was banning gender-affirming health care for minors. And so we were in court arguing that that violated the equal protection of Tennessee citizens, including parents who are our clients in this case, parents who decide that this isn't the best interest of their case.

So that was a case we had first in the Supreme Court. We argued the Scrametti case, which is challenging a Tennessee statute that was banning gender-affirming health care for minors. And so we were in court arguing that that violated the equal protection of Tennessee citizens, including parents who are our clients in this case, parents who decide that this isn't the best interest of their case.

No, no. It's always with parents in the loop. Minors don't have the same protections under the law that adults do. That's part of what we're doing in the passport case. If we go back to the passport case, I mean, it's both equal protection because people are subjected to harassment and violence if they're misidentified with the wrong gender on their passports. It's open hunting season for them.

No, no. It's always with parents in the loop. Minors don't have the same protections under the law that adults do. That's part of what we're doing in the passport case. If we go back to the passport case, I mean, it's both equal protection because people are subjected to harassment and violence if they're misidentified with the wrong gender on their passports. It's open hunting season for them.

The Rubicon is the flagrant abuse of judicial power. If the Trump administration decides to run the gauntlet and openly defy a judicial order in a way that is not about an appeal, it's not about clarifying, it's not about getting a congressional fix, but an open defiance to a judicial order, then I think we're there.

The Rubicon is the flagrant abuse of judicial power. If the Trump administration decides to run the gauntlet and openly defy a judicial order in a way that is not about an appeal, it's not about clarifying, it's not about getting a congressional fix, but an open defiance to a judicial order, then I think we're there.

But there's also a free speech right here, David. It's just like, how can the government tell me that I cannot, I can change my name. I can legally change my name. I can change it to Antonia tomorrow. They can't stop me from doing that. So there are good First Amendment arguments also on the passports case as well.

But there's also a free speech right here, David. It's just like, how can the government tell me that I cannot, I can change my name. I can legally change my name. I can change it to Antonia tomorrow. They can't stop me from doing that. So there are good First Amendment arguments also on the passports case as well.

You know, I think the same principles apply, right? It's just that we have to make sure that the government stays out of the business of regulating people's private speech. That is probably my biggest concern right now. That hasn't yet materialized or matured. But it may.

You know, I think the same principles apply, right? It's just that we have to make sure that the government stays out of the business of regulating people's private speech. That is probably my biggest concern right now. That hasn't yet materialized or matured. But it may.

You were not comfortable with that? No. We criticized Facebook and Twitter when they deplatformed Donald Trump. I mean, they kept people like Bolsonaro and Orban on, but they deplatformed Trump. We felt that they were not calling balls and strikes as they saw them. And we applauded them when they replatformed them.

You were not comfortable with that? No. We criticized Facebook and Twitter when they deplatformed Donald Trump. I mean, they kept people like Bolsonaro and Orban on, but they deplatformed Trump. We felt that they were not calling balls and strikes as they saw them. And we applauded them when they replatformed them.

No, I think Facebook is afforded a lot of latitude because it's a private entity. The right to set its terms of service.

No, I think Facebook is afforded a lot of latitude because it's a private entity. The right to set its terms of service.

You bet. We just took the NRA case a year ago. The NRA came to us saying, saying, you're the best litigation organization on free speech. This was a case of Governor Cuomo and the administration trying to shut down the NRA because they didn't agree with its pro-gun policies. And we saw it as a free speech issue, and we brought that case and won 9-0.

You bet. We just took the NRA case a year ago. The NRA came to us saying, saying, you're the best litigation organization on free speech. This was a case of Governor Cuomo and the administration trying to shut down the NRA because they didn't agree with its pro-gun policies. And we saw it as a free speech issue, and we brought that case and won 9-0.

No, the heckler's veto is a problem, right? You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to shut down information, debate, discussions. There are limits.

No, the heckler's veto is a problem, right? You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to shut down information, debate, discussions. There are limits.

I think the biggest victories had to do with family separation, when we were able to stop them in their tracks on separating families as a deterrent to people coming to this country. It was a massive moment where people from across the political spectrum came together. Laura Bush was tweeting on this.

I think the biggest victories had to do with family separation, when we were able to stop them in their tracks on separating families as a deterrent to people coming to this country. It was a massive moment where people from across the political spectrum came together. Laura Bush was tweeting on this.

And it was a moment when we were able to use both the courts and public opinion to kind of put pressure on the Trump administration. Ultimately, rescinding their own kind of policy guidance or zero tolerance guidance on this one. I think the other ones had to do with the U.S. Census when they tried to purge the count of immigrants, of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Census.

And it was a moment when we were able to use both the courts and public opinion to kind of put pressure on the Trump administration. Ultimately, rescinding their own kind of policy guidance or zero tolerance guidance on this one. I think the other ones had to do with the U.S. Census when they tried to purge the count of immigrants, of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Census.

We litigated that twice to the Supreme Court in front of the Roberts Supreme Court and won. So I think that we are— Those are victories. What about defeats? The building of the wall. That was litigation we brought to try to stop the misappropriation of funds from one agency to build the wall in the South, and that just petered out. It was a hard case.

We litigated that twice to the Supreme Court in front of the Roberts Supreme Court and won. So I think that we are— Those are victories. What about defeats? The building of the wall. That was litigation we brought to try to stop the misappropriation of funds from one agency to build the wall in the South, and that just petered out. It was a hard case.

Well, there are 40 cases, David. There have been a bunch of lawsuits around the Doge and whether or not the Doge and Elon Musk have overextended their power.

Well, there are 40 cases, David. There have been a bunch of lawsuits around the Doge and whether or not the Doge and Elon Musk have overextended their power.

It was a hard case because you're dealing with the ability for the government to enforce its borders, which is really recognized by the courts and the general public.

It was a hard case because you're dealing with the ability for the government to enforce its borders, which is really recognized by the courts and the general public.

You're looking. I'm looking. And not finding yet. There's a lot of mumbling. You see the articles about how some Democrats are trying to find their feet from under them.

You're looking. I'm looking. And not finding yet. There's a lot of mumbling. You see the articles about how some Democrats are trying to find their feet from under them.

I don't have to run for office. I don't have to be popular. When I file my transgender rights lawsuit, I don't need 51% of the American people to agree with me. I know what's right. The equal protection arguments are what's right. I think Democrats have a harder job because they're trying to figure out how, and he's picked a fight with them on the culture war issues.

I don't have to run for office. I don't have to be popular. When I file my transgender rights lawsuit, I don't need 51% of the American people to agree with me. I know what's right. The equal protection arguments are what's right. I think Democrats have a harder job because they're trying to figure out how, and he's picked a fight with them on the culture war issues.

It's a great question. It's a great question. Are you despairing of it? No, I think it comes around. I compare this moment, David, to the 9-11 moment, right? That's when I started my job, the week before 9-11. You remember the Patriot Act was enacted with everyone's assent in Congress, except for one, Russ Feingold.

It's a great question. It's a great question. Are you despairing of it? No, I think it comes around. I compare this moment, David, to the 9-11 moment, right? That's when I started my job, the week before 9-11. You remember the Patriot Act was enacted with everyone's assent in Congress, except for one, Russ Feingold.

And so I told my folks back at the ACLU, this is a time we have to ride this moment just like we did after 9-11, where we have to build public momentum. The war on terror was very popular. The deportations that John Ashcroft did, the creation of Gitmo as a place to hold people and detain them, the whole question around— Gitmo is about to get a new lease on life, potentially.

And so I told my folks back at the ACLU, this is a time we have to ride this moment just like we did after 9-11, where we have to build public momentum. The war on terror was very popular. The deportations that John Ashcroft did, the creation of Gitmo as a place to hold people and detain them, the whole question around— Gitmo is about to get a new lease on life, potentially.

And we're litigating that one, too.

And we're litigating that one, too.

Exactly. There are some who say that they're violating the Privacy Act, that they're accessing personal identifiable information. on American citizens, their social security numbers, their tax returns, all sorts of information that are in the government data banks.

Exactly. There are some who say that they're violating the Privacy Act, that they're accessing personal identifiable information. on American citizens, their social security numbers, their tax returns, all sorts of information that are in the government data banks.

And, you know, look, so there are more than 50 or so executive orders that have come down. There are more than 40 lawsuits that have been filed in response. It's really quite a different moment. People realize that the zone is being flooded and it requires us to coordinate with each other in a way I haven't seen before. You sound pretty confident.

And, you know, look, so there are more than 50 or so executive orders that have come down. There are more than 40 lawsuits that have been filed in response. It's really quite a different moment. People realize that the zone is being flooded and it requires us to coordinate with each other in a way I haven't seen before. You sound pretty confident.

I'm not sure I'm confident in the ultimate outcome. I'm confident in the response that we're engaged with. I mean, we have filed over 10 lawsuits already in three weeks. You know, those are real lawsuits. Those are real with plaintiffs and filings and real theories.

I'm not sure I'm confident in the ultimate outcome. I'm confident in the response that we're engaged with. I mean, we have filed over 10 lawsuits already in three weeks. You know, those are real lawsuits. Those are real with plaintiffs and filings and real theories.

Knuckling under in advance, you see that in other places. I mean, look, that's what a lot of these tech leaders, that beautiful parade of billionaires who were so preening for the camera behind the president as he took the oath of office.

Knuckling under in advance, you see that in other places. I mean, look, that's what a lot of these tech leaders, that beautiful parade of billionaires who were so preening for the camera behind the president as he took the oath of office.

Now, I know some of them personally, and I know that some of them were there because they felt they had to, to defend their corporate interests, their shareholder interests. Who do you know and who are you talking about? That's better not to kiss and tell on the radio. But I think there, the knuckling under, you definitely see it in the private sector.

Now, I know some of them personally, and I know that some of them were there because they felt they had to, to defend their corporate interests, their shareholder interests. Who do you know and who are you talking about? That's better not to kiss and tell on the radio. But I think there, the knuckling under, you definitely see it in the private sector.

I think the fatigue factor is a matter of pacing ourselves. This is one of the things I tell my folks. I say, yeah, we filed 10 suits already. We have another three or four in the hopper for the next week or so. Is it possible to pace yourself considering the ferocity and speed at which things are happening? You've got to retain bandwidth.

I think the fatigue factor is a matter of pacing ourselves. This is one of the things I tell my folks. I say, yeah, we filed 10 suits already. We have another three or four in the hopper for the next week or so. Is it possible to pace yourself considering the ferocity and speed at which things are happening? You've got to retain bandwidth.

You know, if we run the gauntlet and we file all the cases that we need to right now and then don't have the ability to file them in years two, three, and four, we'll do the country no good. We have to play this game smartly. And we are picking and choosing our battles. There are some of them we say, let another group run. Who are your allies? Democracy Forward.

You know, if we run the gauntlet and we file all the cases that we need to right now and then don't have the ability to file them in years two, three, and four, we'll do the country no good. We have to play this game smartly. And we are picking and choosing our battles. There are some of them we say, let another group run. Who are your allies? Democracy Forward.

Now, whether or not they've actually accessed that, whether there's harm, whether or not the individuals who are bringing cases have standing, those are all to be determined by the judges. But there are about four cases, I think, that have been filed there thus far.

Now, whether or not they've actually accessed that, whether there's harm, whether or not the individuals who are bringing cases have standing, those are all to be determined by the judges. But there are about four cases, I think, that have been filed there thus far.

the American Federation for Government Employees, FGE, the AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood. There's a list of us, there's about 50 or 60 of us who talk multiple times a day. And so we say, okay, you got that case, we got this case.

the American Federation for Government Employees, FGE, the AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood. There's a list of us, there's about 50 or 60 of us who talk multiple times a day. And so we say, okay, you got that case, we got this case.

No, they're just kind of, everyone's very pragmatic, very focused on what the moment requires of us. And it might take us five years or 10 years But we will get there. And I think if we stay on it like water on stone, and I run an organization— Do we have five years or ten years?

No, they're just kind of, everyone's very pragmatic, very focused on what the moment requires of us. And it might take us five years or 10 years But we will get there. And I think if we stay on it like water on stone, and I run an organization— Do we have five years or ten years?

Do we have time like that? There will be flashpoints. The defiance of a final judicial order. There will be flashpoints and there will be blood. There will be blood. And there will be a need for groups to then pick up the pieces from where we are then. And I think organizations like mine that have been around 105 years have to think about the staying power. What we do today is critical.

Do we have time like that? There will be flashpoints. The defiance of a final judicial order. There will be flashpoints and there will be blood. There will be blood. And there will be a need for groups to then pick up the pieces from where we are then. And I think organizations like mine that have been around 105 years have to think about the staying power. What we do today is critical.

What we do in 10 years, in 15, in 20 years is going to be equally critical. And that's why we just have to stay on it. Anthony Romero, thank you very much. My pleasure, David. Thank you.

What we do in 10 years, in 15, in 20 years is going to be equally critical. And that's why we just have to stay on it. Anthony Romero, thank you very much. My pleasure, David. Thank you.

Then there's all the questions around shutting down or the closure of grants from the federal government, from USAID and other agencies. This is considered illegal by legal experts because Congress appropriates the money.

Then there's all the questions around shutting down or the closure of grants from the federal government, from USAID and other agencies. This is considered illegal by legal experts because Congress appropriates the money.

I have so much to say on this subject.

I have so much to say on this subject.

It's not the president's power to rewrite the appropriations from Congress.

It's not the president's power to rewrite the appropriations from Congress.

Legitimate. That's the word that jumped at me. And that's what we're arguing about, whether it's a legitimate use of the executive branch power. And it's not a new controversy. I mean, we've had these debates before. The unitary executive, remember that back in the days of George Bush. And of course, most presidents have tried to exert a much more muscular approach to executive power

Legitimate. That's the word that jumped at me. And that's what we're arguing about, whether it's a legitimate use of the executive branch power. And it's not a new controversy. I mean, we've had these debates before. The unitary executive, remember that back in the days of George Bush. And of course, most presidents have tried to exert a much more muscular approach to executive power

than I think the courts or Congress often give them the room for.

than I think the courts or Congress often give them the room for.

Well, the other thing to play on confidence is Look at the Supreme Court, the Merrick Garland moment when they were able to replace that appointment with one of their own. Six to three. It has been a generational shift in the consolidation of conservative power in the Supreme Court. If I'm a good old conservative, I'm not going to fritter away that power.

Well, the other thing to play on confidence is Look at the Supreme Court, the Merrick Garland moment when they were able to replace that appointment with one of their own. Six to three. It has been a generational shift in the consolidation of conservative power in the Supreme Court. If I'm a good old conservative, I'm not going to fritter away that power.

Why would I immediately allow my Supreme Court and my federal judges to be diminished in their status and power? And I think there will be moments when good people of conscience will stand up. I do.

Why would I immediately allow my Supreme Court and my federal judges to be diminished in their status and power? And I think there will be moments when good people of conscience will stand up. I do.

It's judges. The judges are the front line right now. It's not people in the streets as much. It's really the judges who are playing a critical role in this effort. Where do you think the Rubicon will be? On what issue and in what court? I think the one I'm most worried about is birthright citizenship.

It's judges. The judges are the front line right now. It's not people in the streets as much. It's really the judges who are playing a critical role in this effort. Where do you think the Rubicon will be? On what issue and in what court? I think the one I'm most worried about is birthright citizenship.

Yeah, that was the first executive order. That was the first case we filed two hours after he signed it. They want to eliminate the right to citizenship if you are born here.

Yeah, that was the first executive order. That was the first case we filed two hours after he signed it. They want to eliminate the right to citizenship if you are born here.

It was in the 14th Amendment. It's also in the statute. It's how we created the American citizens out of the children of slaves. It's also the way that we became a nation of immigrants and leveled the playing field. It's the great equalizer, David.

It was in the 14th Amendment. It's also in the statute. It's how we created the American citizens out of the children of slaves. It's also the way that we became a nation of immigrants and leveled the playing field. It's the great equalizer, David.

And so to go at it and say an executive order saying I'm going to repeal birthright citizenship is both trying to undo a core tenet of the Constitution and also the statutory provisions, which are equally clear. So we have belt and suspenders on when it comes to birthright citizenship. And they're trying to rip them both off. And that's what's so— And do what?

And so to go at it and say an executive order saying I'm going to repeal birthright citizenship is both trying to undo a core tenet of the Constitution and also the statutory provisions, which are equally clear. So we have belt and suspenders on when it comes to birthright citizenship. And they're trying to rip them both off. And that's what's so— And do what?

Right.

Right.

If they were allowed to repeal birthright citizenship, that means that people even who are here lawfully and whose kid is born here would not be a U.S. citizen.

If they were allowed to repeal birthright citizenship, that means that people even who are here lawfully and whose kid is born here would not be a U.S. citizen.

There would be hundreds of thousands. We have clients already in our litigation who are pregnant women whose children would be born after the date of the executive order, whose citizenship would be called into question.

There would be hundreds of thousands. We have clients already in our litigation who are pregnant women whose children would be born after the date of the executive order, whose citizenship would be called into question.

And you would have this, you would create a legal vehicle for intergenerational stigma and discrimination. I mean, it's like any of us who travel to places like Germany or Japan. These countries still struggle with what it means to be a German citizen or a Japanese citizen. You see the discrimination against Koreans in Japan. That's generations.

And you would have this, you would create a legal vehicle for intergenerational stigma and discrimination. I mean, it's like any of us who travel to places like Germany or Japan. These countries still struggle with what it means to be a German citizen or a Japanese citizen. You see the discrimination against Koreans in Japan. That's generations.

That's because they haven't had a concept like birthright citizenship like the way we do.

That's because they haven't had a concept like birthright citizenship like the way we do.

It's in the First Circuit. It's in federal court.

It's in the First Circuit. It's in federal court.

It's a good, we picked the First Circuit. You know, we're good lawyers. So we think about the clients. I mean, there are four different lawsuits that I keep track of. Ours was the first, two hours after he signed. That means that we were working up this lawsuit. For months. Months. Identifying the clients, identifying the theories, identifying the venues, honing the pleadings.

It's a good, we picked the First Circuit. You know, we're good lawyers. So we think about the clients. I mean, there are four different lawsuits that I keep track of. Ours was the first, two hours after he signed. That means that we were working up this lawsuit. For months. Months. Identifying the clients, identifying the theories, identifying the venues, honing the pleadings.

So as soon as we could see the executive order, we could fill it in and file, literally on a federal holiday, Martin Luther King Day.

So as soon as we could see the executive order, we could fill it in and file, literally on a federal holiday, Martin Luther King Day.

We have the attorneys general. We have many of them on the East Coast. I think there are two cases on the East Coast, one case on the West Coast. And the attorneys general are important contributions because they're making administrative arguments. Like, how the hell are we supposed to implement this? I looked at my birth certificate. I found it.

We have the attorneys general. We have many of them on the East Coast. I think there are two cases on the East Coast, one case on the West Coast. And the attorneys general are important contributions because they're making administrative arguments. Like, how the hell are we supposed to implement this? I looked at my birth certificate. I found it.

And it basically said, you know, Anthony D. Romero, son of Demetrio and Coralie Romero, born in New York City. There's no vehicle for these states to kind of corroborate the citizenship of the parents. How are they going to kind of do the administrative investigations on whether or not you're a citizen? If you lose— We ain't going to lose.

And it basically said, you know, Anthony D. Romero, son of Demetrio and Coralie Romero, born in New York City. There's no vehicle for these states to kind of corroborate the citizenship of the parents. How are they going to kind of do the administrative investigations on whether or not you're a citizen? If you lose— We ain't going to lose.

It would go up into the federal court of appeals and then the Supreme Court.

It would go up into the federal court of appeals and then the Supreme Court.

We win anyway.

We win anyway.

No, no. I've never been this bold. I've been in my job 23 years. I don't usually predict the outcome of our cases because my heart's been broken multiple times.

No, no. I've never been this bold. I've been in my job 23 years. I don't usually predict the outcome of our cases because my heart's been broken multiple times.

No. Why? Because I think this is really, really going a step too far. I think Roberts and the majority of the court, Alito and Thomas are the only ones I can't bet on. But I think even Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and certainly the three liberals— are there at a point where the Supreme Court would eviscerate their legitimacy among constituents and audiences that really care.

No. Why? Because I think this is really, really going a step too far. I think Roberts and the majority of the court, Alito and Thomas are the only ones I can't bet on. But I think even Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and certainly the three liberals— are there at a point where the Supreme Court would eviscerate their legitimacy among constituents and audiences that really care.

I care a lot about the Supreme Court.

I care a lot about the Supreme Court.

No, it's birthright citizenship. The rest of it is more for grabs.

No, it's birthright citizenship. The rest of it is more for grabs.

I think these other suits around congressional appropriation of funds that are now being disregarded by the executive branch. Those very well could be the precipitating factor for a constitutional crisis.

I think these other suits around congressional appropriation of funds that are now being disregarded by the executive branch. Those very well could be the precipitating factor for a constitutional crisis.

I think you keep running the gauntlet. I mean, that judge, Judge McConnell, that's the Rhode Island judge I think you're referencing. That's right. Basically, the Trump administration is arguing not that we don't have to heed you, They argue in their response to the judge, no, we are heeding you. We think your order was more limited.

I think you keep running the gauntlet. I mean, that judge, Judge McConnell, that's the Rhode Island judge I think you're referencing. That's right. Basically, the Trump administration is arguing not that we don't have to heed you, They argue in their response to the judge, no, we are heeding you. We think your order was more limited.

The judge then clarified on Monday earlier in the week saying that, no, he had meant for them to reinstate all the grants writ large. And so this will continue to move up the food chain. The crisis moment comes when the Supreme Court rules, let's say, with Judge McConnell and says the Trump administration has fragrantly disregarded a clear judicial order and thou must comply.

The judge then clarified on Monday earlier in the week saying that, no, he had meant for them to reinstate all the grants writ large. And so this will continue to move up the food chain. The crisis moment comes when the Supreme Court rules, let's say, with Judge McConnell and says the Trump administration has fragrantly disregarded a clear judicial order and thou must comply.

And if they don't comply, then we're in a different moment. So we have to exhaust all the remedies. We have to get fines. We have to ask for incarceration of individuals who flagrantly disregard judicial orders. And that includes? That includes the federal agency heads.

And if they don't comply, then we're in a different moment. So we have to exhaust all the remedies. We have to get fines. We have to ask for incarceration of individuals who flagrantly disregard judicial orders. And that includes? That includes the federal agency heads.

If he himself or the Vice President, sure. Sure, no one's above the law. Right? Right.

If he himself or the Vice President, sure. Sure, no one's above the law. Right? Right.

I mean, we've been here before. Like, for instance, we've had two lawsuits. I dug them up yesterday. We've had two different lawsuits years ago against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Chris Kobach. Back up and explain those cases. Sheriff Joe Arpaio was someone who was trying to round up immigrants. He was tough on immigrants in Arizona. SB 1070, show me your papers guy, right?

I mean, we've been here before. Like, for instance, we've had two lawsuits. I dug them up yesterday. We've had two different lawsuits years ago against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Chris Kobach. Back up and explain those cases. Sheriff Joe Arpaio was someone who was trying to round up immigrants. He was tough on immigrants in Arizona. SB 1070, show me your papers guy, right?

He was corralling people up and kind of having Gestapo-like law enforcement efforts focused on immigrants. And Chris Kobach was the one who was trying to purge people from the polls who he thought— Which was where? In Kansas. And both of these individuals we sued, and we won. And they didn't like the fact that we won. And so they tried to defy these court orders in both of those instances.

He was corralling people up and kind of having Gestapo-like law enforcement efforts focused on immigrants. And Chris Kobach was the one who was trying to purge people from the polls who he thought— Which was where? In Kansas. And both of these individuals we sued, and we won. And they didn't like the fact that we won. And so they tried to defy these court orders in both of those instances.

We would have to litigate the implementation of their contempt. And so you would threaten them with fines and threaten them with incarceration. Ultimately— You're going to do that with the president of the United States? You bet. You bet.

We would have to litigate the implementation of their contempt. And so you would threaten them with fines and threaten them with incarceration. Ultimately— You're going to do that with the president of the United States? You bet. You bet.

And part of it is to figure out how you can bring in people into the debate who are otherwise on the side of Donald Trump and Elon Musk and to say, wait a minute, this is a step too far.

And part of it is to figure out how you can bring in people into the debate who are otherwise on the side of Donald Trump and Elon Musk and to say, wait a minute, this is a step too far.

There are many conservatives. Some of them I've just begun to talk to yesterday, to kind of run by them. If he openly defines a court order, what can we do together? Now, if we do not succeed, let's say no one comes, the cavalry doesn't ride and the Alamo is by itself. Then what? Then we've got to take to the streets in a different way.

There are many conservatives. Some of them I've just begun to talk to yesterday, to kind of run by them. If he openly defines a court order, what can we do together? Now, if we do not succeed, let's say no one comes, the cavalry doesn't ride and the Alamo is by itself. Then what? Then we've got to take to the streets in a different way.

We've got to shut down this country and people of right and left.

We've got to shut down this country and people of right and left.

You know, we're just beginning to think it through. We're talking with colleagues and other organizations. There's got to be a moment when people of goodwill will just say, this is way too far.

You know, we're just beginning to think it through. We're talking with colleagues and other organizations. There's got to be a moment when people of goodwill will just say, this is way too far.

Well, there have been efforts. You know, Marbury v. Madison was a case when the original, the crucial case when the government tried to snub his nose at the role of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was not what it was. It's not as powerful or established an institution as it is today. You had FDR who tried to pack the court. It's not new that presidents bristle at judicial oversight.

Well, there have been efforts. You know, Marbury v. Madison was a case when the original, the crucial case when the government tried to snub his nose at the role of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was not what it was. It's not as powerful or established an institution as it is today. You had FDR who tried to pack the court. It's not new that presidents bristle at judicial oversight.

I mean, Clinton passed some of the most egregious court-stripping measures. For example? Where he basically tried to get the courts out of the business of looking at prisons' rights cases or immigrants' rights cases. And that had to be litigated.

I mean, Clinton passed some of the most egregious court-stripping measures. For example? Where he basically tried to get the courts out of the business of looking at prisons' rights cases or immigrants' rights cases. And that had to be litigated.

Totally agree. Totally agree. And we've got to take it one step at a time.

I think you have to call on, for instance, corporate leaders. We'll have to yank them into the pool with us. If they believe that part of what is going to protect good corporate interests or the workings of the economy is rule of law, there's got to be a moment when people are saying, can you countenance this?

I mean, President Biden had a number of instances where he also bristled at judicial oversight and judicial review. I mean, he hated the effort to shut down the student loan program. It's one of his signature programs. Never got it through because the courts got in his way.

But it's really quite another matter when there's a final order of the highest court of the land and the president just says, doesn't bother me. Don't have to heed you or hear you. That is a moment when I think we'll be able to harvest the opinions of people and get people engaged in a very different way. It won't matter the content. It will matter whether or not.

We will allow an executive branch to assume such extreme power.

And they're on the bench, and sometimes they watch his back, and sometimes they rule in ways that are kind of— head-scratching in terms of how far they will go to protect the person who put them on the bench. Also true, 65% of the judges have been appointed by Obama and Biden. So there's a larger number of them. That will change as they start to move judicial appointments.

I mean, what's in front of us, I mean, let's talk a little bit what else might be in front of us, right? Yep. That's not just the onslaught of the executive orders. Now, this is where I'm going to curl or uncurl your listener's hair. I have no hair. But for instance, we have yet not seen the mass deportations that I think are on the horizon. When they start revving up that machinery,

that's going to be massive, right? So that's number one. I think the deportations is something to watch out for.

Yeah, but when they start seeing that their nannies or their gardeners or their fellow workers or the local shoeshine guy or their neighbors are getting ripped up and that U.S. citizen kids are put in then kind of family protective services as a result of it, when they start seeing, because what they ran on was saying we're going to get rid of the criminals.

Well, that's clearly not what they're doing already. But when they really ramp up and they start grabbing all these individuals who are part of the social fabric, I think we'll harvest that.

Well, there are sanctuary city laws and sanctuary jurisdiction laws that are in fact – Which are the source of contempt for the Republican Party. Yeah. And they can be defended. And it's important that like for instance the litigation they're bringing against the city of Chicago we think is really far afield. They cannot use –

the power of the purse in pulling money from roads and hospitals and schools to pressure them on immigration. And that's got to be challenged in court. The governors and the state attorneys general, especially in the blue states, have enormous power to put up roadblocks.

I think some of the governors are beginning to find their sense of authority in Colorado and New Mexico. How about New York? In New York, we're working on it.

Well, I think the governor's really working with us. I think the mayor is a bit more complicated on the immigrants' rights issue. Eric Adams in New York? I think it's complicated.

For not what we like it to be. For not standing up. Not what we want it to be.

I think on immigrants in particular, I think the governors have enormous power and latitude. They can't obstruct federal immigration enforcement, but they don't have to collude. There are shield laws that I think the governors can also enact for trans kids, for trans individuals. Like you saw Letitia James in New York.

When this one kind of executive order then triggered the shutting down of access to medical care in New York City hospitals with people who had private insurance, the New York attorney general stepped up and said, wait a minute, if you start canceling those appointments, you're going to run afoul of our state laws.

I think we could very well be there. We're at the Rubicon. Whether we've crossed it is yet to be determined. Well, describe what the Rubicon is.

It's fearmongering. It's clear it's fearmongering. It's a card that he played in the election. You saw the ads he ran.

It was clear fear-mongering. Of a community of 1.5 million people who are really under assault, you have over 500 state laws that have been targeted on the trans community. It's really an onslaught the likes of which we haven't seen in generations. And part of what our case, we have both this case and we have the one on the transgender affirming health care, is to make equal protection arguments.

So that was a case we had first in the Supreme Court. We argued the Scrametti case, which is challenging a Tennessee statute that was banning gender-affirming health care for minors. And so we were in court arguing that that violated the equal protection of Tennessee citizens, including parents who are our clients in this case, parents who decide that this isn't the best interest of their case.

No, no. It's always with parents in the loop. Minors don't have the same protections under the law that adults do. That's part of what we're doing in the passport case. If we go back to the passport case, I mean, it's both equal protection because people are subjected to harassment and violence if they're misidentified with the wrong gender on their passports. It's open hunting season for them.

The Rubicon is the flagrant abuse of judicial power. If the Trump administration decides to run the gauntlet and openly defy a judicial order in a way that is not about an appeal, it's not about clarifying, it's not about getting a congressional fix, but an open defiance to a judicial order, then I think we're there.

But there's also a free speech right here, David. It's just like, how can the government tell me that I cannot, I can change my name. I can legally change my name. I can change it to Antonia tomorrow. They can't stop me from doing that. So there are good First Amendment arguments also on the passports case as well.

You know, I think the same principles apply, right? It's just that we have to make sure that the government stays out of the business of regulating people's private speech. That is probably my biggest concern right now. That hasn't yet materialized or matured. But it may.

You were not comfortable with that? No. We criticized Facebook and Twitter when they deplatformed Donald Trump. I mean, they kept people like Bolsonaro and Orban on, but they deplatformed Trump. We felt that they were not calling balls and strikes as they saw them. And we applauded them when they replatformed them.

No, I think Facebook is afforded a lot of latitude because it's a private entity. The right to set its terms of service.

You bet. We just took the NRA case a year ago. The NRA came to us saying, saying, you're the best litigation organization on free speech. This was a case of Governor Cuomo and the administration trying to shut down the NRA because they didn't agree with its pro-gun policies. And we saw it as a free speech issue, and we brought that case and won 9-0.

No, the heckler's veto is a problem, right? You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to shut down information, debate, discussions. There are limits.

I think the biggest victories had to do with family separation, when we were able to stop them in their tracks on separating families as a deterrent to people coming to this country. It was a massive moment where people from across the political spectrum came together. Laura Bush was tweeting on this.

And it was a moment when we were able to use both the courts and public opinion to kind of put pressure on the Trump administration. Ultimately, rescinding their own kind of policy guidance or zero tolerance guidance on this one. I think the other ones had to do with the U.S. Census when they tried to purge the count of immigrants, of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Census.

We litigated that twice to the Supreme Court in front of the Roberts Supreme Court and won. So I think that we are— Those are victories. What about defeats? The building of the wall. That was litigation we brought to try to stop the misappropriation of funds from one agency to build the wall in the South, and that just petered out. It was a hard case.

Well, there are 40 cases, David. There have been a bunch of lawsuits around the Doge and whether or not the Doge and Elon Musk have overextended their power.

It was a hard case because you're dealing with the ability for the government to enforce its borders, which is really recognized by the courts and the general public.

You're looking. I'm looking. And not finding yet. There's a lot of mumbling. You see the articles about how some Democrats are trying to find their feet from under them.

I don't have to run for office. I don't have to be popular. When I file my transgender rights lawsuit, I don't need 51% of the American people to agree with me. I know what's right. The equal protection arguments are what's right. I think Democrats have a harder job because they're trying to figure out how, and he's picked a fight with them on the culture war issues.

It's a great question. It's a great question. Are you despairing of it? No, I think it comes around. I compare this moment, David, to the 9-11 moment, right? That's when I started my job, the week before 9-11. You remember the Patriot Act was enacted with everyone's assent in Congress, except for one, Russ Feingold.

And so I told my folks back at the ACLU, this is a time we have to ride this moment just like we did after 9-11, where we have to build public momentum. The war on terror was very popular. The deportations that John Ashcroft did, the creation of Gitmo as a place to hold people and detain them, the whole question around— Gitmo is about to get a new lease on life, potentially.

And we're litigating that one, too.

Exactly. There are some who say that they're violating the Privacy Act, that they're accessing personal identifiable information. on American citizens, their social security numbers, their tax returns, all sorts of information that are in the government data banks.

And, you know, look, so there are more than 50 or so executive orders that have come down. There are more than 40 lawsuits that have been filed in response. It's really quite a different moment. People realize that the zone is being flooded and it requires us to coordinate with each other in a way I haven't seen before. You sound pretty confident.

I'm not sure I'm confident in the ultimate outcome. I'm confident in the response that we're engaged with. I mean, we have filed over 10 lawsuits already in three weeks. You know, those are real lawsuits. Those are real with plaintiffs and filings and real theories.

Knuckling under in advance, you see that in other places. I mean, look, that's what a lot of these tech leaders, that beautiful parade of billionaires who were so preening for the camera behind the president as he took the oath of office.

Now, I know some of them personally, and I know that some of them were there because they felt they had to, to defend their corporate interests, their shareholder interests. Who do you know and who are you talking about? That's better not to kiss and tell on the radio. But I think there, the knuckling under, you definitely see it in the private sector.

I think the fatigue factor is a matter of pacing ourselves. This is one of the things I tell my folks. I say, yeah, we filed 10 suits already. We have another three or four in the hopper for the next week or so. Is it possible to pace yourself considering the ferocity and speed at which things are happening? You've got to retain bandwidth.

You know, if we run the gauntlet and we file all the cases that we need to right now and then don't have the ability to file them in years two, three, and four, we'll do the country no good. We have to play this game smartly. And we are picking and choosing our battles. There are some of them we say, let another group run. Who are your allies? Democracy Forward.

Now, whether or not they've actually accessed that, whether there's harm, whether or not the individuals who are bringing cases have standing, those are all to be determined by the judges. But there are about four cases, I think, that have been filed there thus far.

the American Federation for Government Employees, FGE, the AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood. There's a list of us, there's about 50 or 60 of us who talk multiple times a day. And so we say, okay, you got that case, we got this case.

No, they're just kind of, everyone's very pragmatic, very focused on what the moment requires of us. And it might take us five years or 10 years But we will get there. And I think if we stay on it like water on stone, and I run an organization— Do we have five years or ten years?

Do we have time like that? There will be flashpoints. The defiance of a final judicial order. There will be flashpoints and there will be blood. There will be blood. And there will be a need for groups to then pick up the pieces from where we are then. And I think organizations like mine that have been around 105 years have to think about the staying power. What we do today is critical.

What we do in 10 years, in 15, in 20 years is going to be equally critical. And that's why we just have to stay on it. Anthony Romero, thank you very much. My pleasure, David. Thank you.

Then there's all the questions around shutting down or the closure of grants from the federal government, from USAID and other agencies. This is considered illegal by legal experts because Congress appropriates the money.

I have so much to say on this subject.

It's not the president's power to rewrite the appropriations from Congress.

Legitimate. That's the word that jumped at me. And that's what we're arguing about, whether it's a legitimate use of the executive branch power. And it's not a new controversy. I mean, we've had these debates before. The unitary executive, remember that back in the days of George Bush. And of course, most presidents have tried to exert a much more muscular approach to executive power

than I think the courts or Congress often give them the room for.

Well, the other thing to play on confidence is Look at the Supreme Court, the Merrick Garland moment when they were able to replace that appointment with one of their own. Six to three. It has been a generational shift in the consolidation of conservative power in the Supreme Court. If I'm a good old conservative, I'm not going to fritter away that power.

Why would I immediately allow my Supreme Court and my federal judges to be diminished in their status and power? And I think there will be moments when good people of conscience will stand up. I do.

It's judges. The judges are the front line right now. It's not people in the streets as much. It's really the judges who are playing a critical role in this effort. Where do you think the Rubicon will be? On what issue and in what court? I think the one I'm most worried about is birthright citizenship.

Yeah, that was the first executive order. That was the first case we filed two hours after he signed it. They want to eliminate the right to citizenship if you are born here.

It was in the 14th Amendment. It's also in the statute. It's how we created the American citizens out of the children of slaves. It's also the way that we became a nation of immigrants and leveled the playing field. It's the great equalizer, David.

And so to go at it and say an executive order saying I'm going to repeal birthright citizenship is both trying to undo a core tenet of the Constitution and also the statutory provisions, which are equally clear. So we have belt and suspenders on when it comes to birthright citizenship. And they're trying to rip them both off. And that's what's so— And do what?

Right.

If they were allowed to repeal birthright citizenship, that means that people even who are here lawfully and whose kid is born here would not be a U.S. citizen.

There would be hundreds of thousands. We have clients already in our litigation who are pregnant women whose children would be born after the date of the executive order, whose citizenship would be called into question.

And you would have this, you would create a legal vehicle for intergenerational stigma and discrimination. I mean, it's like any of us who travel to places like Germany or Japan. These countries still struggle with what it means to be a German citizen or a Japanese citizen. You see the discrimination against Koreans in Japan. That's generations.

That's because they haven't had a concept like birthright citizenship like the way we do.

It's in the First Circuit. It's in federal court.

It's a good, we picked the First Circuit. You know, we're good lawyers. So we think about the clients. I mean, there are four different lawsuits that I keep track of. Ours was the first, two hours after he signed. That means that we were working up this lawsuit. For months. Months. Identifying the clients, identifying the theories, identifying the venues, honing the pleadings.

So as soon as we could see the executive order, we could fill it in and file, literally on a federal holiday, Martin Luther King Day.

We have the attorneys general. We have many of them on the East Coast. I think there are two cases on the East Coast, one case on the West Coast. And the attorneys general are important contributions because they're making administrative arguments. Like, how the hell are we supposed to implement this? I looked at my birth certificate. I found it.

And it basically said, you know, Anthony D. Romero, son of Demetrio and Coralie Romero, born in New York City. There's no vehicle for these states to kind of corroborate the citizenship of the parents. How are they going to kind of do the administrative investigations on whether or not you're a citizen? If you lose— We ain't going to lose.

It would go up into the federal court of appeals and then the Supreme Court.

We win anyway.

No, no. I've never been this bold. I've been in my job 23 years. I don't usually predict the outcome of our cases because my heart's been broken multiple times.

No. Why? Because I think this is really, really going a step too far. I think Roberts and the majority of the court, Alito and Thomas are the only ones I can't bet on. But I think even Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and certainly the three liberals— are there at a point where the Supreme Court would eviscerate their legitimacy among constituents and audiences that really care.

I care a lot about the Supreme Court.

No, it's birthright citizenship. The rest of it is more for grabs.

I think these other suits around congressional appropriation of funds that are now being disregarded by the executive branch. Those very well could be the precipitating factor for a constitutional crisis.

I think you keep running the gauntlet. I mean, that judge, Judge McConnell, that's the Rhode Island judge I think you're referencing. That's right. Basically, the Trump administration is arguing not that we don't have to heed you, They argue in their response to the judge, no, we are heeding you. We think your order was more limited.

The judge then clarified on Monday earlier in the week saying that, no, he had meant for them to reinstate all the grants writ large. And so this will continue to move up the food chain. The crisis moment comes when the Supreme Court rules, let's say, with Judge McConnell and says the Trump administration has fragrantly disregarded a clear judicial order and thou must comply.

And if they don't comply, then we're in a different moment. So we have to exhaust all the remedies. We have to get fines. We have to ask for incarceration of individuals who flagrantly disregard judicial orders. And that includes? That includes the federal agency heads.

If he himself or the Vice President, sure. Sure, no one's above the law. Right? Right.

I mean, we've been here before. Like, for instance, we've had two lawsuits. I dug them up yesterday. We've had two different lawsuits years ago against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Chris Kobach. Back up and explain those cases. Sheriff Joe Arpaio was someone who was trying to round up immigrants. He was tough on immigrants in Arizona. SB 1070, show me your papers guy, right?

He was corralling people up and kind of having Gestapo-like law enforcement efforts focused on immigrants. And Chris Kobach was the one who was trying to purge people from the polls who he thought— Which was where? In Kansas. And both of these individuals we sued, and we won. And they didn't like the fact that we won. And so they tried to defy these court orders in both of those instances.

We would have to litigate the implementation of their contempt. And so you would threaten them with fines and threaten them with incarceration. Ultimately— You're going to do that with the president of the United States? You bet. You bet.

And part of it is to figure out how you can bring in people into the debate who are otherwise on the side of Donald Trump and Elon Musk and to say, wait a minute, this is a step too far.

There are many conservatives. Some of them I've just begun to talk to yesterday, to kind of run by them. If he openly defines a court order, what can we do together? Now, if we do not succeed, let's say no one comes, the cavalry doesn't ride and the Alamo is by itself. Then what? Then we've got to take to the streets in a different way.

We've got to shut down this country and people of right and left.

You know, we're just beginning to think it through. We're talking with colleagues and other organizations. There's got to be a moment when people of goodwill will just say, this is way too far.

Well, there have been efforts. You know, Marbury v. Madison was a case when the original, the crucial case when the government tried to snub his nose at the role of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was not what it was. It's not as powerful or established an institution as it is today. You had FDR who tried to pack the court. It's not new that presidents bristle at judicial oversight.

I mean, Clinton passed some of the most egregious court-stripping measures. For example? Where he basically tried to get the courts out of the business of looking at prisons' rights cases or immigrants' rights cases. And that had to be litigated.