Oregon Sues Trump Admin. Over Deployment of National Guard

0:00Emily Bazelon:This is Stute calling about your overdue account balance. You owe$9 ,017.86. How would you like to pay? That was the sound of Stute, the AI coworker that collects your cash for you. Stute's collecting over$200 million a month for its customers autonomously. Got cash stuck in overdue invoices? Get Stute and start collecting in days. Go to stute.ai, that's S-T-U-U-T.ai today. AI is changing how business decisions are made. If you want to be part of that, Geese College of Business can help. Our online master's in business analytics offers hands-on, project-based learning at a top-ranked school. Build programming and AI skills while creating a portfolio that stands out to employers.

0:49Emily Bazelon:Take the next step toward a data-driven career. Learn more at geeseonline.illinois.edu backslash analytics. Welcome to The Beat, everyone. I'm Ari Melber, and our top story is an alert that is not normal in the literal sense that normally we don't see this in America. The president trying to abuse or widen what our traditional executive powers and doing it on a blatantly partisan basis. Take a look at the Democratic-led cities that continuously face the threat or enactment of the deployment of troops. This week begins with the National Guard directed to Portland, Oregon, dealing with what Donald Trump says could be a full force effort to deal with protests against ICE.

1:34Now, the troops are not on the ground. This is a developing story. And the city is pushing back swiftly, suing with the legal argument that Trump would not have the authority to call in the Guard here, that that is a state power. And in a related skirmish, one where he already overstepped in California. Portlanders also turning out Sunday to protest this. Clashes escalating meanwhile in Chicago. ICE agents seen in tactical gear, walking or sort of marching downtown. Lawmakers, who of course also locally have an obligation to deal with immigration and security, say they viewed this as more of an intimidation show than serious patrols.

2:13One ICE official saying agents are making arrests based on looks, something they feel empowered to do. The Democratic governor pushing back. If federal agents marched down busy streets, harassing civilians and demanding their papers, what would we say? I don't think we'd have any trouble calling it what it is, authoritarianism. So let's not pretend it's something else when it happens in our American cities. a governor trying to summon the way that we as americans sometimes look abroad with a little more judgment than we might at home and there is a wider context the habitual threat and deployment of troops in america when there is not massive unrest when there are not multi-day riots or blackouts or the type of things that used to justify what was then state federal coordination is one sign of this kind of federal power graph.

3:12Another is a president making Watergate-level confessions about wanting to indict his enemies, evidence or not, and getting away with it, at least getting the DOJ to start the process. That's what happened last week. And as I've told you in our reporting, you can't separate the efforts to go after Trump's enemies without evidence, like former FBI Director Comey, lawmakers who've already been indicted, and others. You can't separate that from the troop deployment because it's all part of this effort to see how much power he can abuse federally. And if you want to use a partisan lens, we start with the evidence.

3:46But if you look at how this is playing, there are even some Republicans and conservatives who agree with the overwhelming legal expert and nonpartisan consensus that the rushed, unusual process to indict Mr. Comey after the president's demands isn't on the level.

4:06Emily Bazelon:I don't think there's a case. This is not a slam dunk. I don't see any way in the world that, you know, Comey would be convicted, premised on something that's not true. The indictment itself is quite weak and that it's unlikely to survive in court. It's been shot up with a Zempick. That is how lean it is. This case should be thrown out. There's a good chance because of, you know, the wholly unconstitutional authoritarian way that this was done, that the case may get tossed out well before trial. The last voice talking about the authoritarian framework for this Trump DOJ case is someone who was a Trump defense lawyer.

4:44These are not exactly big Trump critics. They're just saying what we know from the evidence, which is that there's no valid case there. We'll cover it. And if more evidence against Comey were to emerge, we'll cover that. But right now you have this rushed partisan indictment without evidence. When asked whether the DOJ should investigate another former FBI director that Trump hired, he says, I'd imagine I would think they're doing that. Last week, Trump also pushed for the firing in the free market private company Microsoft, who employs someone who is well-respected within that company and within government experience, Lisa Monaco.

5:21Her crime or sin in Trump's inverted view is that she served in a different party's administration. She was deputy attorney general. So that's not all. Trump also demanding investigations of groups that he considers contrary to his own political interests, including a not-for-profit foundation tied with money from George Soros. His executive order literally targets domestic opposition, which he calls the radical left. Jennifer Rubin, longtime writer, Washington Post veteran, warns we are not a functioning democracy bound by the rule of law against those infractions. I'm joined by the New York Times Magazine's Emily Bazelon and Christina Greer, political science professor at Fordham University.

6:05Emily, I quote Rubin there because she makes the point that any one of these things would have been a serious scandal. The call to indict people after the DOJ process finds they're not even eligible under probable cause to be pursued anymore in the Comey case is an impeachable offense. if the facts don't change based on what we know. And Rubin argues there that these things are being stacked up against each other. And we also have the push for more troops in the streets tonight, Emily. Right.

6:39Emily Bazelon:There are a lot of efforts here to expand executive power, you know, kind of on all fronts. And to go back to the indictment of James Comey, the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, who was a Trump appointee, reviewed the evidence after an investigation of his staff and decided there wasn't enough evidence to charge Comey. And so then you have Comey ordering Pam Bondi, the attorney general, to take action now with lots of exclamation points from Trump. And then you see him install his insurance lawyer as the replacement for the U.S. attorney. And now these charges are being brought.

7:19Emily Bazelon:So it's very rare for prosecutors to ever lose a case for what's called vindictive prosecution. But here what you're seeing is this very public direct line from Trump's desire to take revenge on a perceived enemy to criminal charges that carry a prison sentence. Yeah. And, Professor, I want to play what Andrew Weissman said about this, the strength of the case. Having looked at what's now the reporting about what is actually the substance of the claim here, it seems unbelievably weak. If James Comey is going to say, I didn't do it, and the only other person who's part of that conversation said he didn't do it, you really have to wonder where is the proof?

8:06Emily Bazelon:And it starts looking like there's a reason that the career prosecutors and the former of the Eastern District of Virginia were saying that you should not bring this case because who are they going to rely on? That's one case. And Professor Greer, then when we put up the many other items, the talk about whether it's autocratic, whether it's potentially the musings of a wannabe dictator, those are words. Up on the screen, we have the facts. This is what's actually being done. And this is in a single week. How important is it, Professor, that people understand that as we look for guardrails? Yeah, Ari, the swiftness of what's been happening these past few months, but especially this past this past month, have been quite intense.

8:56I mean, luckily, we do still have respectable lawyers in the DOJ who say this is a bridge too far. And actually, this doesn't fall under the purview of the law. And we can't bring a case. I mean, don't forget, you know, I mean, you're a lawyer, you know better than most. When the DOJ brings a case, I mean, there's a reason why they've got a 97 percent win rate, because they don't just go into a courtroom willy nilly. This is what Trump promised, though, just for Republicans now saying that, you know, we should have some guardrails. This is what he campaigned on. He said he would go after his enemies or people he perceives as his enemies, whether they have evidence or not.

9:32And so the only thing right now, since the Supreme Court seems to be abdicating their power, since Republicans in Congress seem to be abdicating their power, we've got some lawyers in the DOJ who are actually doing the right thing. But I think the good saving grace is that those who are bringing these charges are grossly incompetent and they don't have a proper case. But we're seeing this all over Washington, D.C., with so many cases that are being brought where judges are saying, why are you even here? You know, either the paperwork isn't filed properly or there absolutely is no case here other than the fact that the president wants it in front of me.

10:04But this is not how the law works. And so we're obviously we've been in dangerous territory. We've been in the territory that he promised. And so it's going to take a lot more than respectable lawyers standing up to the president. We need a lot more people leaning in to take some of these powers away from him, finally. And that takes us exactly what I want to ask you about, Emily, which is. Jimmy Kimmel and James Comey have very little in common and the efforts to go after them for exercising their free speech rights in America were very different. I mean, Comey faces in this environment the very real long-term personal efforts against him.

10:47So it's costly. It affects you and your family. It affects your financing. It's multimillion dollars if he uses private law firms to defend this case. And it carries the threat of jail. With Kimmel, it was the job. And yet, I'm going to put up the charge here we have of the Trump probes and Defoe's. They have different measures for different people. And you can see here, we don't have Kimmel on this list because we're sticking to the formal legal ones, but we've updated it. You have Bolton Search, lower right. Ms. Willis has now been subpoenaed. That's new. This list keeps growing. And this is, Emily, as the lawyers would say, an under-inclusive list.

11:23What does it show about what works and also perhaps the limits of the public imagination that the Kimmel case, which was crisp and clear, not legal, but about a star, somehow galvanized a quicker, broader pushback than all those other ones who are being picked at in different ways?

11:44Emily Bazelon:right well i think what you see with kimmel is americans saying wait a second you can't tell me who to watch on television there was such a clear feast free speech problem there and people could see that the trump head of the fcc brendan carr had created this bullying that led um to kimmel's suspension and there was this immediate backlash i think with criminal charges against individuals it's harder, it seems, for the public to mobilize and to figure out how to make its disapproval heard. And one thing that's important right now is that for a lot of presidents, when you see your approval ratings go down on a particular issue, that is enough to change your behavior.

12:24Emily Bazelon:That has not been consistently true for Donald Trump. And so the difference between Samuel and Comey is about mobilization, right? It's not that Americans probably think this is a good idea to indict James Comey, but they haven't mobilized. There isn't a company to boycott. There aren't subscriptions to cancel in the same way. And I think that's a challenge for the people who are trying to be in opposition and an important distinction. You know, another thing I know, I'll know, I'm watching very careful to see when Republicans in Congress are willing to distance themselves from President Trump.

13:01Emily Bazelon:They've been quite unwilling to do that. But you did see a few people speak out on Kimmel's behalf and also against the connection that Trump drew between Tylenol and autism that he drew falsely. But I have not seen Republicans speaking out about James Comey or these other misuses of prosecutorial power. Right. Not in Congress yet. And you're right. Sometimes the answer isn't all that logical, but it has other particulars. Right. The fact that people had some leverage, if you want to call it that, at a consumer boycott level with Disney is different than how they feel with their government. You can't boycott your government on the tax side.

13:42That's for sure. And a lot of people feel that the elections are pretty spaced out. So which issue will they'll be thinking about November is anyone's guess. Emily also reminds us people don't want to be told what TV to watch any more than Christina Greer wants to be told which color glass frames to wear. beat viewers know sometimes it's black, sometimes it's red, sometimes you just have to tune in to find out. I want to ask both of you to stay and Christina, I want to ask you about these mass movements. Right after our shortest break, we'll see you in 90 seconds.

14:16Emily Bazelon:In Traverse City, you'll find it's your summer to let go. Just let the rhythm of the water set you free. Full sail and eyes open, inviting you to breathe and just be. Out here, time slows as the gentle waves bring us closer than ever before. Embrace it all, then let go. Season after season in Pure Michigan. Find your season at TraverseCity.com. Is it possible for AI to work in the enterprise? The short answer is yes. The long answer is oh yes. users can pick the AI providers they prefer, and you can decide which data is off-limits, monitor all AI activity, and control every detail. This is Enterprise AI from Ireland.

15:08Emily Bazelon:AI at its best by keeping out the worst. Scaled for the enterprise. From Ireland. Normally in these ads, you expect somebody to ask you to buy something, but this is something different. I'm Julian Barnes, and I'm a reporter for The New York Times. I'm a national security reporter, and that means I'm reporting on military operations. These are fast-paced, quickly-moving situations. What exactly is happening on the ground is often shrouded in mystery. But we turn to trusted sources, satellite imagery, and expertise built up over years in in order to ferret out the facts that wouldn't otherwise come to light.

15:52Emily Bazelon:I'm here to ask you to seek out a news source that does firsthand fact-based reporting. If it's your local paper, great. If it's the Times, thank you. Because where you go for your information matters.

16:14We're back with Emily and Christina. Another headline, Professor, that I want to ask you about is where we are in this autocratic slide. We went through at the top of the program many of the facts that show it. You have lawmakers openly discussing that there could be other sham indictments. Axios, which calls itself a pretty nonpartisan outlet, says this is the first domino. Based on their reporting, Comey indictment sets MAGA retribution in motion. Michael Flynn, who has been all over these issues since the first term, says Comey's the first domino. Others must fall faster. Could embolden prosecutors to press ahead.

16:53Professor, we've seen this pattern before. Things that are initially fought and that are seen as unthinkable in our government get breached. And if there is an immediate backlash, if there's an immediate correction, then other government officials say, well, I guess that's how it is now. And so I'm curious what you think about any ways to address that dynamic. And when you look at the history of the United States, the civil rights struggle, other activists, even some of the socialists who identified as peaceful, not the ones making bombs, in the 30s saw a government that tried to criminalize the pushback to the government.

17:32What have we learned from all that? And is it still worth fighting when, for some, the threats get pretty serious? Right. I mean, it's always worth fighting. And I think this is why, you know, banning books is so detrimental to the future of our democracy. You know, so many people want to recreate the wheel or they don't even know what was done. I mean, there's so many aspects of the civil rights movement, so many different prongs. There were young people activists. There were poor people. There were people who were moved from the South to the North. I mean, there were so many different organizations, SNCC, SCLC, NAACP, the Black Panther Party.

18:06I mean, the different tactics that were used, the various coalitions that were built, say the Young Lords and the Black Panther Party, you know, across Puerto Rican and Black communities. And so to not understand or even know that these actions and these coalitions took place sort of ties people in the present moment and they don't really have a beacon. And so it's imperative that we actually go back and read what Angela Davis or Martin Luther King, I mean, he wrote several books. Most people just know about the I Have a Dream speech. And that is just one small, small pebble, that very vast history where he talks to us about books that, you know, countries abroad, but he knew that it could happen.

18:51And it was happening to Black Americans in this country for several generations. So I'm always hopeful, Ari. You know, I'm an educator. I get to spend time with the future leaders of America every week when I teach. But I do think that, unfortunately, so many people aren't looking to some of the strategies of the past to help them come together in the future. We've seen with, say, Jamal Bryant and the target boycotts. I mean, that has been exponentially successful. We've seen economic boycotts have been successful in the past. So there are ways, you know, as we were saying in the previous break, you know, Jimmy Kimmel and the backlash, the economic backlash helps get him back on the air.

19:33It's much harder when we're thinking about, you know, law firms or educational institutions or individuals who are being targeted. But there are ways that, you know, not all coalitions have to last forever. They might need to just be short term, sometimes strange bedfellows. But we must also put pressure. There is a reason why members of Congress are elected every two years. We can actually remove all 435 if we want to. And we have to remember that and not just sort of take it for the incumbent advantage that it is. Emily, your thoughts?

20:04Emily Bazelon:You know, one thing that jumps out at me when you look at these historical examples is that lots of people are chilled in their speech and in their actions against the government when the government tries to intimidate people. You can have a relatively small number of targets. And when you have a lot of power and a ton of leverage, you can still have an effect on many, many people. And it's really important for people to remember that and think about the levers that are available to them for continuing to speak up and trying to ensure that we don't have that same kind of dynamic. But I think you can already see the effect on large corporations, on some of the law firms that struck deals with the Trump administration.

20:46Emily Bazelon:And the federal government has a lot of power, which the Supreme Court seems intent on adding to. And that's creating this dynamic that we're seeing unfold where, you know, we still have our free speech rights. We're still talking about this on television. But it feels like some events are taking place that when you talk to experts, historians like Christina, these are not things that are the run of the mill way that the United States is supposed to operate. Yeah. Emily and Christina, thanks to both of you. Coming up, conservatives actually losing another new culture clash, we'll explain, and why Trump's free speech crackdown has some lessons for how we view these companies, multinationals that seem to be giving in a lot.

21:30That also deals with Jimmy Kimmel. We have all of that next.

21:42We turn now to a slightly wider look at this censorship agenda under the Trump administration and the pressure on companies. Kimmel won this battle. We've all seen that now. There are still some problems in the wider war. Activists do view the huge American pressure on Disney as a playbook for a range of future Trump clashes, which can go beyond free speech. But to begin our special report right now, remember, here's how it went down. ABC has just announced that they are pulling late night host Jimmy Kimmel's show off the air indefinitely.

22:15Emily Bazelon:These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC. All they do is hit Trump. They're licensed. They're not allowed to do that. The recent increase in searches for the phrase canceled Disney Plus since ABC suspended Kimmel's show. People spoke with their pocketbooks. They canceled Disney Plus and their Hulu subscriptions. All of it contributed to the fact that after only six days after being suspended, Jimmy Kimmel's returning to the airwaves. This show is not important. What is important is that we get to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this.

22:58Many agreed. Kimmel is back because people stood up, and that made Disney respond. Of course, this began with Disney as a company that was clearly most worried about the U.S. government hurting its bottom line. And then, because of you and the people, Disney quickly found it was actually even more worried about its customers. Now, remember, the richest, most powerful companies in the U.S. usually are quite rich and powerful because they operate in many different places. And those different countries have different laws and different systems of government. So when we hear that term, multinational companies, it's not just a description of where they operate.

23:37It's also a description of the different ways they have to operate. Because a company that wants to operate in China and the U.S. and Canada is going to have to have some different policies. On the business side, they tend to defend that. What we just lived through in America shows the sad limits of that kind of capitalist approach. Now, Americans may not see this very much when it happens abroad, but many of these companies already have long histories of accommodating all kinds of autocratic leaders who have very different demands than, say, going to Canada and just running a theme park and paying your taxes.

24:15Russia and China are a little different. And that means we already know that these companies in the U.S. that are now facing more free speech and autocratic pressure under Trump than they did previously, already know how and sometimes do undercut the values of free expression and the rule of law. They claim to follow them, of course, and some of them do more than others. But when you go abroad, it's pretty clear. Disney was not new to the process of quickly bending to a government demand if they thought that the leader was quite serious about making them do it or paying for it. Indeed, for the powerful government of China, it has previously altered and censored films to ensure its position there.

24:56It's also made deals under duress. It had the blockbuster Mulan, which led to a deal with the autocratic, no-democracy Chinese government, where Disney took the government's push to also get the rights to two Chinese films and open a theme park as part of the deal to stream that movie at all. Other companies have changed or censored references to Taiwan because the Chinese government wants to exert control over what people in and near China think and hear about Taiwan and its quest for more autonomy. Take Apple. Just last year, it pulled WhatsApp and threads from the China app store that was under a government order.