This video examines two interconnected topics: the ongoing legal battle over abortion pill access via telehealth, where Louisiana's attorney general has sued the FDA to restrict mail-order abortion pills, and an analysis of the 2024 midterm elections, where Democrats face challenges including voter dissatisfaction, potential overconfidence despite positive polling, and structural electoral disadvantages despite some recent victories.
安装我们的扩展，即时搜索任意视频内容
Katie Couric Live: SCOTUS, Abortion & the Battle for the Midterms本站添加:
I thank you all for joining us. As always, this is our weekly Substack show kind of slashrecap catch up with what's happening. Um, so much is happening we can't catch up with everything. Hi Karen Oana. Hi. Um, anyway, uh, I'm very excited because we're going to be talking, you know, I talked to my team. I have a great team.
They're so smart. and we were talking about what should we do this week on Substack and we realized that it's really this week marks 6 months until the midterm elections and so we decided that this would be a really good Oh shoot am I turn my notifications on Julia >> I'll you will sorry you guys here >> one second >> yeah time yeah thank you anyway we thought this would be a really good opportunity to kind of talk about What's happening with the midterms? I'm trying to get this >> ring light going.
>> Anyway, what's happening with Yeah.
What's happening with the elections? Uh some of the issues that might be motivating voters in November. Um how what's being done by both parties and honestly the election interference that's already brewing. We're going to be talking to a great reporter from ProPublica about that. After my friend Jessica Valente, we're going to be talking to Frank Brun who's been writing about sort of uh overconfidence or worried about overconfidence uh for the midterms on the part of the Democrats.
But first, we really wanted to talk to Jessica because she has really devoted her career in recent years now to covering abortion in America. And there was a very significant back-to-back court rulings on abortion pill access that have thrust reproductive rights back into the national spotlight just 6 months before the midterms. They're never out of the spotlight for Jessica because she writes a terrific newsletter called Abortion Every Day where she really covers uh like very few media outlets everything that's happening in when it comes to reproductive rights.
So, I thought I would let you explain why the last few days, Jessica, have been particularly significant in the abortion conversation.
>> Sure. And there's a lot of moving parts and so I'm going to do my best to to keep it simple.
The most important thing to know just from the jump is that you can still get abortion pills by mail. If anyone is worried about that, there's been a lot of back and forth with court orders and so I just want to assure people that you can absolutely still get abortion pills by mail. Um, Republicans have been desperate to stop abortion pills in general, but tellaalth specifically because it is how most people are sidest stepping bans in um in ban states.
Right? So we went from about 5% of abortions uh in America being provided via teleaalth to now nearly 30% of abortions being provided via teleaalth.
Again the majority nearly all of the abortions that are happening in banned states are happening with abortion pills that have been shipped in from pro-choice states. But sorry to interrupt you, Jessica, but my understanding is more than half of all abortions are actually uh are are those that have used Miffrist.
>> 2/3 2/3 of Yeah. twothirds of of abortions are medication abortions and then nearly 30% are medication abortions via teleaalth, right? So, not like you're going to a doctor in person, you're talking to someone online, or you're having the pills shipped to you.
Um, and so that is just a tremendous, tremendous number. And so Republican AGs have been in this sort of race to put an end to health and to eliminate the shield laws that allow doctors in pro-choice states to ship those pills into banned states. And right now, Louisiana's attorney general, Liz Merl, is leading the charge. She brought a suit against the FDA over these rules that allow meristristone. Specifically, there's two medications you take to to end a pregnancy that allow methopristone to be shipped. The fifth circuit court of appeals, which is a very like notoriously conservative court, agreed with her. And then a few days later, the Supreme Court said, "We're going to put a pause on that."
>> Let me ask you. Yes. So, so just to repeat because that was a lot of information. It's a lot. It's a lot. a federal appeals court ruling restricted mail access uh of mythopristone prescriptions uh one of the most commonly used abortion methods as we just said. Then on Monday the Supreme Court so yesterday >> Mhm. The Supreme Court said they were going to temporarily restore access while it further considers the case setting the stage for a potential decision that could have obviously wide-ranging consequences. So it this this this generated this case started in Louisiana with as you said this very anti-abortion attorney general who has made it uh her mission right to outlaw abortion pills being shipped in from pro-choice states to anti-abort to so because obviously clinics have have uh shut down and this is how most abortions are happening. So I guess the question for for you and and this is sort of a legal question and it's probably it's a dumb question so warning everyone but this is a case in Louisiana right? So, if the federal appeals court ruled in her favor, said we cannot, you know, pro-choice states can't uh can't ship uh abortion pills to to other states.
>> Why? So, let's talk about that has national consequences. Can you just explain that?
>> Yeah. So, right, it's it's not limited to Louisiana. uh because the suit is against the FDA and federal regulations on this medication.
It does not just apply to Louisiana.
Luckily, this doesn't mean I think it's important to be clear that your state law has changed around abortion, that criminal law has changed around abortion, right? This is this is just a ruling that impacts FDA regulations and FDA labeling, like what what is allowed with with the FDA. And so, yeah, that impacts all of us. That means that even those of us in New York where abortion rights are protected would not be able to have uh abortion pills shipped to us.
And even if you're in a pro-choice state and you can go to a clinic, if you're in a rural area, there's all sorts of reasons that someone would need tellalth.
>> So, what they're saying is the it's the mailing that's the problem. So, even if I if as I said as you said, if you live in New York, >> which is a uh pro-choice state, and you wanted to get your hands on Miffa Prrist, if it's not uh can you not just go get it within New York State or would you have to get it out of state or how explain that to me?
>> You could get it um in the state, but you would have to go in person. the medication would have to be dispensed to you in person by a health care provider.
You couldn't have a teleaalth appointment. Um, you couldn't give your doctor a call and you would have to literally go in person and have them hand the the pill to you. It used to be that you had to take the pill in in front of them. And so, it's just about creating all of these extra unnecessary steps. Though, I I want to say it's not just about making the pill inaccessible.
It's about prosecuting providers from pro-choice states because Liz Merl, the AG in Louisiana, has extradition orders out on two uh abortion providers, one in California and one in New York. And so the the other big part of this case is that ban states want the ability to extradite abortion providers from pro-choice states and make them beholden to the laws in anti-abortion states and send them to to prison for life really.
And so there's this whole other piece I think that is getting missed a lot in the conversation. And yes, this is about access and it's so incredibly important, but it's also about punishment and their like really deep desire to to put doctors in jail.
>> I'm really glad you pointed that out.
That is obviously an incredibly important component of this. But talk also, Jessica, if you will, about what this means to women who want to get an abortion but live in a state that prohibits it.
It's it's so distressing and I'm glad that you asked because I think what happens with these cases a lot is that we talk about the court orders. We talk about sort of the political news of it without going back to the basics that this is someone's life, someone's health that is being jerked around quite quite a few people. I have a young friend in her 20s who has a friend in Texas who found out she was pregnant right on the same day that the fifth circuit came down with their decision and of course was just devastated. Again, folks in banned states, if they are having an abortion in that banned state, if they're not traveling out of state, they are doing it using medication abortion that has been shipped in um from a from a pro-choice state. And so this is devastating. And I think it's really vital to understand that health is holding together access by a threat, right? We're already seeing the way that pro-choice states have been inundated with patients from ban states, the way that the health care system is really stretched so incredibly thin. And I'm sure probably some of your readers noticed if they're in a pro-choice state, it's becoming increasingly difficult to get up near your appointment to get care because all of the providers are dealing with this influx of outofstate patients. And to their benefit, pro-choice states have very much stepped up. Pro-choice leaders in these states have very much stepped up and they're trying to do their best to take care of all of these patients.
But without tella health it's it would be devastating >> you know um my followers are so smart someone is asking if interstate commerce is protected in the constitution then shouldn't tell from outside of one's own state be protected >> I am pretty sure that Denko which is one of the abortion pill manufacturers has brought a suit arguing justice and it didn't go anywhere unfortunately the the big the big question I think that will end up in front of the Supreme Court, this is where this is going, is state sovereignty, right? Louisiana argues that by shipping abortion pills into Louisiana, pro-choice states are interfering with Louisiana laws that it effectively nullifies their abortion ban and so that that interferes with their state sovereignty. In response, attorneys general in pro-choice states are saying, "Well, your ban on teleaalth interferes with our state sovereignty because we say that pro-choice doctors can ship uh abortion pills wherever they want, and you don't get to dictate how doctors in our state practice medicine."
And so, there is this real conflict that is going to need to be dealt with at some point or another. And everyone is expecting it to to get to the Supreme Court. Well, Justice Alo issued the stay that puts the fifth circuit uh order on hold and restores access. You know, as you point out, there's a lot of confusion about it, but they restored access to Miffris, but that expires on Monday, May 11th. So, what happens now?
And were we surprised that the Supreme Court sort of put this on hold?
You know, I don't think anyone really knew what was going to happen. I think some folks thought that they would, some folks thought that they wouldn't. It it all feels very up in the air. I think what happens next is going to in part be determined by what the Trump administration does, right? We haven't heard from them yet. It's their FDA that is being sued. So far, the Trump administration has worked really hard to stay out of big public fights on abortion. and they don't want to deal with it before the midterms. In fact, they asked the court to pause this suit from Louisiana uh until they could finish what they called a safety study of my pristone, but it's like a totally bogus bunk thing that they're doing to try to sort of, you know, delay the inevitable. And so, a lot of us are waiting to see what the FDA will do. Is the FDA going to appeal this fifth circuit ruling? Are they going to go along with it? Um, it puts Trump in sort of a terrible position because either he needs to piss off anti-abortion activists who want him to go along with this ruling or he makes voters very upset who overwhelmingly do not want any sort of bans or restrictions even in anti-abortion states. And so it's this sort of difficult position that he's been put in his administration. And I think the fact of the matter is maybe the under uh sort of the undercurrent of all this is that abortions the rate of abortions you know you're the expert have not has not really decreased as all >> right and so a lot of these pro-life people who believe that Donald Trump would be the most prolife president in history um are angry that the numbers aren't reflecting any kind of any of the policy changes or uh you know state laws that have changed, right?
>> They're furious. They're furious with Donald Trump. They're furious with the administration. They're furious with women. They don't like it when women break their rules, right? Like all of these rules are in place in part because there is this desperation to control women and their bodies. And so the idea that women are getting around these laws just really makes them upset to no end.
And you also have to remember it took them 50 years to get here. They fought for 50 years spending billions of dollars, all of this political work to get to this moment. And now it's been four years since the end of Row and they have not reduced the abortion rate even by a little. I think that's in part because of teleaalth and because of the Trump administration's unwillingness to get into this, but I think it's also evidence of how strong the abortion rights movement is and how much when people want care, they will get care, right? Like we we know this. There's no stopping abortion. There's no stopping abortion pills. This community is always going to be there for each other. And I think the last four years have been evidence of that. You know te tell me again sorry you might have said this but I missed it. So what happens after May May 11th right I mean will will my pristone become impossible to get? Is that when they will make a decision? I I'm confused about that. Yeah, I think the the expectation as far as I understand is that they will probably um continue the stay is my best guess that they're going to continue this the stay while the the case is heard while litigation goes forward um whether it is with the Supreme Court or not. And so that is my my best guess. I do want to say though even if mephipopristone is not available misoprotol so there's two medications you take to to end a pregnancy mephipristone and misoprotol people can still uh safely and effectively end their pregnancies with just the second medication it's not ideal right there's a reason that that folks want both but people around the world have been doing it for decades and so I think it's important for for folks to know that there will still be a way for them to get abortion pills by mail even if that stay is is lifted.
>> Well, why weren't they included in the in the decision? Why didn't Louisiana consider include both of those pills then?
>> You know, I think it's just the mythopristone is is the one that has been at the center of this fight for a long time. And I think it's because misoprotool is used for so many other things and it's a much more commonly available drug. I think their assumption was if they could end my pristone it would pretty much do away with with the entire thing and I think the other part of it is the confusion just over the last couple of days even though people could still have misopreto only abortions the confusion was so widespread that conservatives in the anti-abortion movement really took advantage of it to make it appear like it was completely illegal to have abortion pills shipped to you right like They're relying on a lot of this this fear and this sort of chilling effect, which we've seen even with abortion pills being available by mail. I can't tell you how many women I hear from who think it's illegal to leave their state to get an abortion, right? Like they think it it's illegal for them to do to do anything. The conservative movement has been very effective in really instilling a lot of fear around this issue. And can it be um can't people face consequences if they even drive someone to another state to get abortion an abortion or at least that was something that they were kind of threatening to do? Did that ever come to fruition?
You can depending on the state like in Texas you could be brought up um with a civil suit. Someone could attack you with a civil suit. They would like very much uh to make that criminal. And I think if you asked Republicans, they would argue that it is criminal. And I think that we may see a prosecutor go after someone um in in that regard. But honestly, it almost doesn't matter in some ways what the law says because we're seeing across the country that anti-abortion prosecutors and cops are going after people anyway, despite what the law says. The law says you can't prosecute someone for having an abortion. But a woman in Georgia has been arrested and charged with murder for having an abortion. I've covered stories of women who've been arrested for flushing their miscarriages. Right.
And so the law is just one part of it.
How these policies are enacted is a completely different story. And that's not to I mean you've also covered a lot of stories Jessica about women who are having miscarriages who are severely or need to have uh you know an abortion because their life is at risk and or there's something terribly wrong with their the baby and and we've heard of you've been reporting on stories of women bleeding out in parking lots outside hospitals.
>> Yeah. It's it's really incredibly distressing and again I think it's so important that we're getting back to basics and getting back to the idea that people's lives are being really incredibly damaged by these laws.
There's a woman in Florida um right now who gave an interview about uh being forced to carry a doomed pregnancy to term. They know that there is no hope for this pregnancy. She can't leave the state. She doesn't have the the money to leave the state and now it's too late.
And so she's gonna have to carry this pregnancy to term. It's just cruelty upon cruelty. It's makes no sense. And no one, again, no one wants this. No voters want the what abortion bans are doing to this country right now.
>> How many states have banned abortion outright?
>> It it depends what you mean by ban. It's about half, right? Because some states like you have a state like South Carolina that has a 6 week abortion ban and probably Republicans would argue that that is not a total abortion ban.
Most people don't know that they're pregnant by by 6 weeks. And so you're really talking about the the entire South just I think at last count it was it's millions of American women who live in states with abortion bans. You're talking just about a huge percentage of the population. And again, as you said, Katie, there are miscarriage is so common.
Pregnancy complications are so common.
I'm someone who nearly died from my own pregnancy. Anyone who has had children knows that this is not some easy undertaking. Pregnancy is dangerous, especially in America. Our maternal mortality rate is just completely abysmal. And so it's not it's not nothing asking people forcing people to carry pregnancies to term when they don't want to.
>> Sarah Thompson writes that there is a lawsuit ongoing in Arkansas. Several women who had to leave the state or died due to fetal issu fetal issues or miscarriages. I'm sure you're aware of that because you're aware of everything in this space.
Yeah, that's um there's a really terrific organization called Amplify uh legal who who who have brought that suit and I'm really glad that they have.
What what always strikes me is that the stories that we're hearing are really just the tip of the iceberg, right?
You're talking about people who felt comfortable coming forward, who felt like they could talk to the media, who felt comfortable getting a lawyer. That is not the vast majority of of cases.
The vast majority of cases we will never hear about but they are absolutely happening.
>> Can you tell us more about these uh attorneys general uh these democratic attorneys general? I guess they're about are there 22 of them?
>> 22. Yeah.
>> Tell us about again what they're doing and why and the argument they're making.
>> Yeah. Their argument really um they have I think three different arguments. It's that stone is safe and effective, that there's no truth to the idea that methipone is not safe. They're arguing that the FDA was um making scientifically sound decisions when they allowed meriststoneone to be available by tellahalth and that state sovereignty argument that by eradicating tellahalth for meristone anti-abortion states are interfering with their state sovereignty and that the federal court by taking the anti-abortion state side have sort of improperly um argued state sovereignty for one side and not the other, right? They're they're pointing out, well, this is an issue of state sovereignty on both sides. Why are you going immediately with the anti-abortion side? And so, they're pointing out a lot of the hypocrisy there and reminding people that this is a safe and effective medication that has been used for decades, right? like there is this real effort right now from the anti-abortion movement to paint this medication as somehow dangerous or risky or back alley. They are attaching they have a huge messaging campaign uh attaching language like trafficking uh you know it's drug trafficking to to bring this medication into the state. We're talking about healthcare. We're talking about a medication that has been used for decades uh that they are really just trying to demonize so that they can excuse restricting something that no one wants to see restricted. Could the FDA act unilaterally and say, "Okay, uh, we hear you, fifth district appeals court or whatever, and yes, okay, you're putting uh you're you're putting a pause on this Supreme Court, but we, the FDA, have decided, guess what? In deference to anti-abortion states, >> we are only going to allow pills my pristone to be mailed to states where abortion is legal.
>> Interesting. I don't I don't know actually. My understanding is that they can't the FDA. I might say, "Okay, well, all right. I get that uh in these states where I mean, not that I obviously approve of this in any way, shape, form, but uh we will follow this this decision or whatever whatever the Supreme Court decides or the lower court decision and we will take it upon our ourselves to not mail these abortion drugs to states where abortion is illegal."
I think it's because it's a labeling issue, right? They can't really control um the law or what a provider does. The FDA doesn't have jurisdiction, I guess, uh over providers, right? Like, >> yeah, they have they have it over manufacturers. And so, it really is about a labeling issue and saying what is this? And it's supposed to be that they are making rules around the science of it, around the medicine of it, not around the legal questions. that is for AGs and courts to work out. I am interested to see how they respond. They have made a big show of saying okay we hear you and so we are going to um conduct this big safety review of meriststoneone and then make a decision about whether or not health will continue.
My feeling is that that was done again just to push the issue past the midterm so that they don't have to deal with it.
They really don't want any of that voter heat.
>> Well, let's that's what that's actually how I was going to end our conversation, Jessica, to talk about how potent issue this continues to be. You know, gosh, we're so inundated with so many things to be concerned about. are women and men in this country who believe in a woman's right to choose and in reproductive rights. Is this still an animating issue for people for in the upcoming midterms and just in general?
>> I think absolutely yes. And I think something that people forget is that this is an issue that only gets more powerful for Democrats over time because over time more people are impacted by these bans. I don't know if I've told you this story, Katie, but I was giving a speech a couple of months ago in a um New England area. I don't want to be too specific. And this older gentleman came up to me and told me the story of his daughter who had moved to Florida without knowing that she was pregnant.
She miscarried. She was unable to get care for that miscarriage. She was getting sicker and sicker as the days went on. Her boyfriend made the very smart decision to get her out of the state to put her on a plane. The doctor in her home state says, "It's a miracle you survived." It is not unusual for people to come up and tell me those kinds of stories. But what was unusual was that this guy did not come to hear me speak. He was there running the lights for the event, for the event space. And to me, that was such like an important reminder of how widespread the impact is, >> but also these bands. also how it affects so disproportionately people uh who are lowincome, you know, living in poverty. Often there's a racial component. And I think about that guy's daughter and her boyfriend and that he could afford to put her on a plane and and and send her to another state so she could get the medical care she needed. Think about all the people who don't have the means to do that and they are stuck and not getting the medical care that they should be giving.
It's honestly it's just unconscionable really.
>> I think that's the exact right word.
They're they're being deliberately trapped in states where they cannot get adequate healthcare and that's what it comes down to.
>> So just in closing, how do you see this whole thing? I mean, it's hard to say, obviously. And you're not you're not Carnack. That's a very age uh uh very old reference for only people of a certain age who used to watch Johnny Carson. Yeah. Guilty. Anyway, but how how do you see this all netting out, Jessica? I mean, um it's hard. I guess it's really hard to say, but I mean, do you think the Supreme Court is going to I mean, they they they're hard to predict. I mean, they've been very supportive of of Donald Trump and they've been surprising at times, right?
>> Um, >> so any sense of if they take it up and I guess maybe they would pause it and take it up in the fall, I guess.
>> Yeah, I think that's right.
>> Any sense what they might decide?
>> I would never try to guess. I don't have any faith in the Supreme Court um for for obvious reasons. What I do know for sure, I think none of us really know what's going to happen there. What we do know for sure is that abortion pills are not going to go anywhere. People are going to continue to order them and providers will continue to ship them.
And this very robust abortion rights movement and network is going to continue to make sure that people can get care no matter what an extremist uh attorney general in Louisiana says or no matter what a Trump appointed court says. But as you said, you know, now they're threatening to penalize and criminalize uh some of these providers, these teleaalth providers who are prescribing these pills to people in anti-choice states, right? So >> that's something to really be concerned about as well. And I guess there will be a taste a test case involving that uh pretty soon.
>> There there will definitely be a test case. And that's why it's in so it's so important if you live in a pro-choice state to really thank your governor, thank your attorney general's office for being strong on reproductive rights. Ask them to continue to stand strong. Ask them to to support providers who ship abortion medication out of state. You know, we created these shield laws for a reason to protect healthcare and to protect healthcare providers. And so now we're seeing those laws put to the test and it's time for us all to to step up and make sure We all do our jobs.
>> All right. Well, Jessica Valente, uh, uh, the author of Abortion Every Day, you all follow Jessica on Substack. If you really want detailed information about what is happening, literally on a daily on a weekly, if not daily, basis when it comes to the fight for reproductive rights. Um, always great to see you, Jessica.
>> You, too. Thank you.
>> Thank you. All right. Now, we're going to go to Frank Brun. And here's Frank.
And >> we need to put a pillow underneath you just to lift you up.
>> Oh, you need to lift me up.
>> Yeah.
>> Really? I think I'm shrinking everyone.
>> It looks It looks a little funny.
>> It does. Okay. Oh, yeah. It does. So, >> thank you.
>> I need a booster seat. Everyone, >> is that better? It's I think it's partially because of the way this is working. Frank, hi.
>> Hey, how are you?
>> I'm good. Thanks for doing this. It's always great to see you. Always great to read you. Can you tilt your camera down a little bit because now you have too much head room and I I just got another pillow to sit on over. Is that better?
>> Yeah, that's good. I mean, you could tilt it down a little more. Do you have a pillow you can sit on?
>> That.
>> Yeah, that's good. Anyway, hi everyone.
This is Frank Brun, one of my favorite people on the planet, one of my favorite writers. He is a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times where he's worked for more than 25 years. He's also a professor of public policy at Duke.
Um, and just an all-around great person who just is very, I think, sharp and very witty in his writing. Okay, enough enough sucking up to you, Frank. Anyway, um you know, we we're doing this uh stack kind of catch up on the midterms because this week marks six months to the midterms. And I did read with some consternation a recent column of yours, Frank, and I'm going to quote from it.
For Democrats, the good news just keeps on coming. Did I just write that? I'm in shock that I had legitimate cause to that. It's true. The party ended 2024 in such profound devastation and stumbled through so much of 2025 in a days that I'd begun to wonder if if it were operating under a cosmic hex never again to feel a flicker of hope, a tickle of joy. But here we are dot dot dot. At the same time, everyone Frank Mr. Buzzkills writes uh that that you in this column you warn that the Democrats could very well be setting themselves up for a premature elation problem. Um so I want you to kind of enumerate for everyone watching why you are concerned that the Democrats might be victims of overconfidence.
>> Well, because overconfidence is a trap in any situation like this. We had since I wrote that column, the Washington Post uh and ABC News and I think Ipsos altogether came out with a poll that showed Trump's approval rating down to 37%. And his disapproval I think up near up in the 60s or something. Um it was it was a hor horrid horrid poll for him.
And I think it is very easy. It's human nature to look at that sort of thing and and think okay we have this in the bag.
you know, the trend lines all seem to be it's hard to imagine his approval rating rising a whole bunch given that Iran grinds on and on given what people are paying at the pump and that sort of thing. And so I just think it's always a danger to feel like you have it in the bag. But there are a number of things um that are unchanged that are not good for Democrats that they need to remember so that they don't uh engage in premature elation. Um, and one of them, in fact, you you kind of list them, Frank, in this column, you pointed out to a few warnings that Democrats should heed, and I thought we could just quickly go through them.
>> That is, voters still dislike them. You write a lot. Just 34% of voters have a favorable view of the Democratic party while 57% have an unfavorable one. Um, how do you make sense of this continued dissatisfaction with Democrats and why aren't uh why aren't they so disliked?
>> H um I think at this point it's being fed by two different streams. one is those voters who believe that the Democratic party sort of lost its mind when it comes to cultural and social issues and went so far to the left um as to be offensive to a lot of those voters or see or at least it didn't seem like Democrats were operating in reality. But I think right now it's fed by another stream too, which is there are many um activist progressive Democrats who feel like the party is sleepwalking through the threat to America is not showing the sort of spine, the sort of vigor, the sort of uh fight that it needs to in the context of the direess of the circumstances. Those are two different groups, but you put them together and I think that's where you get those numbers for the Democratic party. I mean, I don't know as an observer. I don't know if the second part is a fair assessment because I mean, I think their their hands are tied, right? I mean, they there's no divided government. They don't control the House or the Senate or the White House. Uh they can scream bloody murder. They can go on every talk show and and talk about it. But realistically, pragmatically, Frank, what more could they be doing? And in your view, what more should there be do?
Should they be doing?
>> No, I share I share your perspective. I agree with everything you just said. I was just giving you an analysis of where some of that disapproval comes from. And I've written in the past that it is unfair. As you said, their hands are tied. There's not a whole lot they can do. They can mount court challenges and they have adnauseium all over the place.
And in many situations, it has frozen things in their tracks or it has at least left the ultimate fate of certain things in doubt in a very good way. I have not seen Democrats asleep at the wheel when it comes to court challenges.
Um they can go out on the streets and protest as they have. Uh that has limited utility. Um you saw people actually really have an impact though in Minneapolis, right? So to your point that they're doing what they can, um the way in which citizens have stood up to ICE and to federal agents in Chicago, in Minneapolis, that has made a difference.
That has put a chill in the administration. Um you know, you and I are journalists. We talk a lot about the future of journalism. We talk a lot at times about citizen journalism. You want to see the power, the goodism, which also has its perils. You want to see that in action. Look at what has happened in these cities where citizens with smartphones and good instincts and tenacity and bravery have actually held the federal government and federal forces to account. So I think they're doing pretty much everything they can.
Part of what I think frustrates many Democratic supporters, many Democratic voters is there is no clear leader for the party now. But again, that's normal at this stage of the cycle. We are two and a half years away from the 2028 presidential election and in fact for the next year and it will accelerate really quickly after the midterms. We are going to see a very spirited sometimes contentious audition for leadership of the party and then we'll see where it is. I wanted to dig into this other part that you were attributing some dissatisfaction or one of the main reasons for dissatisfaction with Democrats and that's this this this notion that the Democratic party has become or had become too progressive.
Um, and I sometimes feel that's an unfair uh uh criticism in some ways, but I'd love to hear your point of view on this, Frank, especially because you're on a college campus. I wouldn't say Duke is the most progressive school on the planet, but I think you're probably in touch with what is happening on campuses all across the country or what did happen. Can I I'd love you to unpack this this feeling that Democrats went to left. Is it transgender issues? Is it Palestinian uh rights on college campuses? Um you know what is it Black Lives Matter? Was it me too? I mean what are some of the components that have made uh some Americans uncomfortable with the Democratic agenda? And of course you have you have Zoran Mandani here in New York City, a Democratic socialist. But can you just kind of you're so smart.
Can you just talk me through it and help me understand it?
>> Well, I'm no smarter than you are because you actually I think off just off the top of your head listed some of the main components. I think what what seemed to many people like a support for the Palestinian cause that was actually a kind of validation of Hamas um and and a kind of and and an act of extraordinary amnesia about what happened on October 7th, you know, and and perpetrated by Hamas. I think that was a big part of it. I think I think when it comes to transgender issues, I think if we're talking simply about housing rights, employment rights, equal rights on the you know, I think most Americans don't look at the Democratic party and say, "You've lost your mind."
When you start talking about athletic competitions, when you start talking about medical interventions for people below a certain age, I think Democrats were way too quick to assume that people could be made comfortable with that or were comfortable with that and didn't engage some of the very real and important questions being asked about that. But I think that has changed since 2024. I think the party understands that. And when you mentioned college campuses, it's an example of what happens that keeps some of these dissatisfaction numbers with Democrats so high and isn't quite fair. Uh voters are painting with a very broad brush.
There is >> I was going to say that's I feel like like there's no nuance. there's no like uh and and I don't know whether it's messaging uh our our bifurcated media landscape but you know if you if you had to talk about the number of people in the transgender people who are wanting to compete in a sport uh you know different than their gender identity at birth or whatever it is so minuscule so so minuscule and it has taken such an outsized role in the argument and I think honestly sometimes I think frank because Republicans are much craftier and shrewder about framing these arguments and Democrats are more this is a blanket statement seem to be more intellectual and nuanced and and those those nuanced conversations get get lost in this very binary world we're living in.
>> I think that's exactly right. Um, but to say something a bit more critical of Democrats, which I also think is true. I think Democrats have been, and again I'm painting with a really broad brush now, have been too quick to dismiss questions from and the misgivings of people whom they >> that kind of like >> it's sort of self-righteous shaming of people who didn't kind of join them and and didn't feel, you know, who even expressed discomfort that was, I think, equated with being a bad person, right?
>> Yeah. Let me give you a really good example of that one that's near and dear to my heart because I'm a gay man and I've written extensively over the years about gay rights. But you go back to 2012 and I get a little nervous when I throw on dates because I don't have notes in front of me and sometimes my memory is not great, but I think I'm good on this one. You go back to 2012 and until Joe Biden got out ahead of his skis, as they like to say, Barack Obama was on the record as not supporting uh marriage equality.
Clinton was on the record as not supporting marriage equality. All of them sort of snapped to and said publicly what they'd always felt privately, you know, around early 2013.
By late 2013, by early 2014, Democrats, liberals are talking as if you are the most irredeemable, unforgivable bigot in the world if you are not now for marriage equality. So if you are a 66-y old Baptist woman in Atlanta who's nine months behind Barack Obama, you're in the basket of deplorables. That's ridiculous, right? And and and I think the party has a tendency to do that in a way that is extremely politically self-injurious. But I want to go back.
You mentioned college campuses. One of the things that being at Duke, being on a college campus has reminded me is that those of us in the media too often traffic and caricature. I arrived at Duke and based on media coverage, coverage by our friends, by our peers, could have been by us at a given moment in time, I thought I was going to be walking through tiptoeing across a minefield of I'm about to be cancelled.
I'm going to say one false syllabus and my students are going to freak out. Not the case. I have found nine out of 10 students are intellectually curious.
They actually appreciate the need to encounter a viewpoint that's not their own. if that is introduced to them in the right way with the right language um they are open to the discussion but that's not the impression you get in media coverage and one problem here is all of us in the media we go to the story of conflict we go to the sexy story and it sometimes gives a very very false impression of what the majority of people are saying and thinking and worrying about. Do you think Duke though, Frank, is representative of of a lot of college campuses? I mean, I would I would guess that the environment at Duke may be quite different, say, than the environment at Colombia.
>> It is. We have fewer, to use one of the terms uh of the day, we have fewer social justice warriors at Duke. And it's for a very simple reason. If you are someone who can get into a school with an acceptance rate below seven, we're below 6%. and you choose Duke over Yale, over Colia, over Brown, you're choosing a different kind of environment. You love the idea that you love the kind of southern romance thing sports and all of that. That said, compared to the population in general, any elite university at the altitude of Duke is going to have a much more progressive student body than the population is progressive. So yes, I'm not living in the best sample set to wildly mixed metaphors, but what I'm saying ma is I think that would be true at any university that we have. I mean, how many students at Colombia were really in those tents? How many students at Colombia were really raising pompoms for Hamas? Too many were raising pom poms for Hamas, but we're still talking about a minority. And most students were in the library studying for finals because I will tell you there is something nine out of 10 students care about much more than social justice or anything else and it's getting a really good grade so they can get a really good job and that is not reflected in media coverage. You know, one of the other reasons getting back to your column about why, you know, you're concerned about overconfidence on the part of Democrats is that you write that not all elections over the past six or so months and not all the data point to a swelling blue wave. So, um I don't know about you, Frank, but I've seen a lot of Democratic victories being reported in the last six or so months.
You know, you took like my home state of Virginia, you have Abigail Spanberger, the first female governor. Yay. Of of Virginia, and you have uh uh Mikey Cheryl, right? Uh and and there have been a number of other I can't name them off the top of my head, but I keep hearing about these Democratic victories. Are you saying that that help me understand why that's not reason to at least be hopeful for Democrats?
>> Oh, it's absolutely reason to be hopeful. It's great reason to be hopeful. It's reason to be very hopeful, but it's no reason to make assumptions.
That's what I'm saying. And as with most things in the world, if you look at it from one angle, you see pure pure unaloyed enormous hope. From another angle, you see something a little bit more nuanced, right? Um Abigail Spamberger had a very weak opponent.
Mike Sher went big in New Jersey. New Jersey really is a blue state. Um, now go to the more recent vote on redistricting. Redistricting in Virginia margin victory was only about three percentage points. That's a lot different from Abigail Spanberger's victory. So what does that mean? And then you go to the generic congressional ballot, right? Which right now by about five points voters say I'm more likely to vote for the Democrat than the Republican in a congressional election.
That's four points lower than in 2018, midway through Donald Trump's first term. And I would submit to you midway through his current second term, it's been a way bigger debacle with much more aggressive, extreme, alarming behavior.
And yet the congressional ballot numbers are not as bad for Republicans right now than in 2018. That concerns me.
>> How do you explain that?
>> I think a lot of people are inure and turned turn like they're just tuned out to some degree. I think that's a lot of it. And uh and actually if you if you want to I don't have this number in front of me, but if you looked at the Democratic party's approval disapproval numbers in 2018 versus now, the Democratic Party has lost ground with voters since 2018. And that's partly why that generic congressional ballot number has gone down because people don't like either alternative.
>> Yeah. let you know the another reason that you're um just saying woe everybody is you you write that the map isn't kind to Democrats. You lay out a pretty tough electoral landscape for Democrats with limited oper opportunities and a very narrow margin for mistakes. Can you elaborate on that, Frank?
>> Sure. The Senate Well, the Senate is the best example of that, but this is true to some extent in the House as well. But for Democrats to take control of the Senate, they need to flip four seats, right? And that's after holding on to Michigan and and Georgia, two states that Trump just won, right? So, first they have to hold on to those two, and either one could be tough, Georgia particularly. I think they will hold on to those two. Now, they need four more.
It looks like they're going to get my state of North Carolina. It looks like our former governor Roy Cooper will flip that seat from red to blue. Um then they got to get three more after that, right?
Ohio's looking better and better. Um in recent polls, Sherrod Brown seems to be doing well, but then you still need two more after that, right? You need Maine.
Uh and it really uh there's a lot of divided opinion about whether Graham Platner's emergence as a presumptive Democratic nominee is a good thing or a problem. And now you still need more after that. Now we're starting >> one more one more after that, right?
>> Well, then you need either Iowa or Texas, right? Um and both there are reasons for hope, but if one's looking at recent history, that's that's that's wishfulness. Um, right now, right now, there's a recent poll that shows James Terico, the Democratic nominee in Texas, in a hypothetical matchup against either John Cornin or Ken Paxton. We don't know whom he's going to be up against. That shows him winning by a few points, but you and I both know because we've been covering this stuff forever that every two, four years, it's like Texas. Texas is looking bluer. Take a look at Texas.
And then Texas doesn't >> Oh, yeah. Betto Aoric, the big, you know, savior. But wait, I I forget.
Sorry. I don't know how you hold all this stuff in your head, Frank. But when is there going to be there's a runoff between Cornin and um who's the other guy? Um >> Paxton, >> thank you. Paxton. Uh >> May 26th, I believe it is. It's this month at the end of the month. May 26th.
Yeah.
>> So be very interesting to see. I don't know. I'm very impressed by James Terico. Are you?
>> Absolutely. I think he's been a brilliant campaigner. He has got I mean they're different. They're not they're not kind of political carbon copies, but he has got some of that same thing that Zoran Zoran Mandami has, which is this sort of this sort of sense of optimism coupled with youthfulness coupled with a seemingly really good attentive ear to what's bothering people and young people in particular. I think, you know, we haven't talked about this and I didn't write about it in the column that you've been reading from or citing. Um, but I think one of the most important things in this midterm election is how many young people turn turn out. And for any of your young listeners listening, you have to frigin vote. Your turnout never matches though that never comes close to that of people over 65, people over 55.
Um, Momani got a youth turnout in New York City that was unlike anything in decades. If that happens in these midterms, the Republicans are in enormous trouble.
But that's an if.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think there I I was talking to somebody the other day. I think that election day should be a national holiday and that people should get fined if they don't vote.
>> I don't I wouldn't go to the fine. I think that goes beyond what I like to believe we protected about individual liberty. But I think >> I guess but >> we need to make it easier to easier to vote easier for people to vote. And that brings us to the most important thing we haven't mentioned is take all of this analysis and shove it aside. We are at a moment when we have no idea what our president will do to try to suppress the kind of turnout he doesn't want. He has made statements like I don't think we should even have elections at all.
Right? He's he has steadfastly and consistently um said that the vote was rigged or wrong here, there, and everywhere. And it sure sounds like he's trying to set up the possibility, should he believe it's doable or wise, to kind of basically suspend things, to take over things, to challenge things, to invalidate things. We're in we're we're on really new terrain in that regard.
And that could throw all of this analysis out the window, >> which is really terrifying. And I'm going to be talking after we finish our conversation, Frank, with a ProPublica reporter. you should, you know, pay attention to what they've uncovered and what they're the kind of um election interference that obviously he's not just talking about that is actually happening in the here and now. That is really frightening. Before we go though, Frank, I wanted to ask you a little bit about the Senate race in Maine. And I'm embarrassed to tell everyone watching, I have not been following it that closely.
It's uh this Democratic nominee Graham Platner. Somebody just dropped out. K, what's who's who just >> uh Janet Mills, the governor?
>> Janet Mills, sorry, not Kay, sorry.
Janet Mills just dropped out. Um, and tell us a little bit about Graham Platner and why he's so controversial and then we'll talk about Democratic purity tests.
>> Um, Graham Platner is controversial. I mean, there there are reasons why people have paws that are non-controversial.
He's I think he's 41. Um, has never held elected office. I think >> he's he's an oyster farmer. Right.
>> Right. Right. but I mean has has like almost zero political experience and we're talking about the Senate here. Um the reason he's controversial though is that um in the last decade or so within the last decade or so uh maybe a little maybe you have to go back 13 or 14 years various points um he used to be very active on social media on Reddit and he used to be really unbound on social media and said a lot of stuff for these now disavowed but that you know give people it all gives people pause and gives them a question who's the real Graham Platner he has there are homophobic social media media posts There are social media posts that seem to advocate violence against the cops.
There are social media posts that that uh and and there's a tattoo situation.
>> I was going to say, isn't there a swastika tattoo or something?
>> It's not a swastika that's been misreported. It's a symbol that's a little bit um a little bit more kind of obstruuse than that. So, I mean, one of the things he says is he didn't understand that the symbol had Nazi associations. And the reason some people are okay with that explanation, I mean, I can't speak to what he knew or didn't know is it's not a swastik that that that explanation wouldn't fly.
>> I'm sorry you guys, I I misstate.
>> No, no, no. But I mean, it's it's all of that stuff added together. He is basically saying, I'm paraphrasing and condensing terribly like this is a t this is this is youthful indiscretion.
This is a time in my life when I was lost, angry, and young, and I wasn't really paying attention to what I'm doing. Um, some people, for some people who've seen him speak, he's extremely charismatic. He's extremely articulate.
He taps into a lot of people's frustrations. For some people, that explanation flies and they and they and and I got a lot of emails when I was talking about my own reservations in print saying, "You need to go to his events. You need to listen to him more.
um you're being way too negative because you don't have present direct experience. Other people are like, "This sounds to me like any politician who now wants something, who wants votes, who wants an office, and is saying, you know, just erase the last 15 years. That wasn't me. This is me." You know, it's true.
>> Yeah. You said you would vote for him without joy and without hesitation. Um, and and I'm not sure if this is directly related to purity tests because I think this is a different situation. But having said that, you know, it purity tests are are kind of I always think of Democrats as being in a circular firing squad. They they they don't seem to um they let what is it called? The they let perfect be the enemy of the good. Is that the expression? And and why why is that? Why are Democrats so quick to kind of eat their young and and kind of kill the competition or kill some of the people if they don't meet certain standards?
I'm being so inarticulate with the most articulate person I know, but you know what I'm saying.
>> No, I I I know exactly what you're saying. So, you're clearly not being inarticulate. Um, I think I think part of it is, and again, this is really broad brush stuff, you know, so take it, you know, that that's my kind of caveat and and concession. Um, I think Democrats, liberals tend to be more idealistic than Republicans, conservatives. Um, idealistic in ways that are sometimes unrealistic, you know, to their disadvantage. And I think when you're an idealist, you often have less patience with people who aren't kind of like matching that ideal. And that that I think is one of the things that animates and informs a circular firing squad. Um, you know, I've done I do a weekly conversation in print with my Times colleague Brett Stevens. He was recently at Duke and we did an event together and he came to a class of mine and he said he thinks it's because liberals are more morally sensorious.
Right. He he he a big word.
>> He um they're more li they're more judgmental is what he >> Yes, I I I know what that means.
>> Which is the which is kind of >> it's kind of almost the palendrome of what I said. It's like similar. It's like the same letters arranged in a different order. An anagram or a palendrome of what I said or something like that. I use palendrome wrong. An anagram of what I said.
>> Okay.
>> I don't know that I don't I don't know how you get more judgmental than the religious right. You know, I mean, >> but there is but but I do think I do think there are some differences there.
You could call them judgmental. You could call them idealistic where there's less patience for people who have not gotten with the program.
>> And do you think that's changed a little bit? I think, you know, as you said, it it seems to have hurt Democrats in the past. Do you think they're waking up and saying they need to be less judgmental and more inclusive and more I guess even more patient in people who don't necessarily you know who aren't in lock step with every thing they believe on every issue.
I don't know if that has happened in people's hearts, but I believe some of the good election returns that you were citing earlier suggest that it has happened in people's actions when they go to the polls and >> also in also in the way candidates are expressing themselves. You know, you look at Mikey Cheryl and Abigail Spanberger and they're both pretty centrist, right?
>> Absolutely. And they're also they're also being very careful about which issues they allow themselves to talk about at length and which issues they emphasize. And that's a big story of the last seven months in the Democratic success. They're like, "We will quickly answer, if at all, your question about trans this or that. We will quickly answer, if at all, your question about some other hot button issue that is not really what most people talk about or vote on. And then we will pivot back to what you're paying in utility prices.
will pivot back to what you're paying at the pump. We'll pivot back to the the sense you have that your children are not going to be as well off as you were and have the opportunities and and those that those are the those are the issues that animate most voters and Democrats are finding a new discipline for the moment.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And to to kind of turn a phrase on James Carville, it's affordability, stupid. I think if people keep, you know, talking about affordability, it seems to work in Democrats favor.
We're we we're about out of time, but there are just two final points I wanted to ask you about. One is the money picture is mixed. That's one of the reasons you say Democrats may have strong individual candidates financially, but Republicans appear to have the edge in outside money and party infrastructure. They have more than an edge. Don't they have a boatload of money compared to the Democrats? And and how how worrisome is that to you?
>> Very very worrisome. I I don't think this election is going to turn on the spending on advertising and those sorts of things. I think this election is going to turn turn on people's daily experience. I think that's what you're seeing in the polls right now. I think more and more voters are aware of and are and immunize themselves against a certain kind of advertising and a certain kind of propaganda. But they know they know what they're paying for gas. They know what they're paying for eggs to use that one which is always um that said we're talking about elections that could turn on very small margins and in that sense the party that can use money to turn out votes to hammer home a message it matters I'm worried but I don't know what's going to happen between now and election day um and the fact that Democrats are doing far worse when it comes to super PAC money when it comes to committee money that sort of stuff far far worse but their individual candidates John Oaf whom we mentioned earlier being one of them in Georgia who are doing terrific with fundraising. And the reason this is really hard to game out is there are restrictions on what you can do with super PAC money, what you can do with some of that group money. You you would prefer a dollar to an individual candidate rather than a dollar to a political group. And when you kind of factor all of that in, the Democratic disadvantage may not be as injurious um as the ROM numbers suggest.
And so it's really hard to game this stuff out, >> you know, and maybe you can write about this, Frank, in a in a future column, but you know, I I I was just reading somebody peace, love, and understanding.
Hello, peace, love, and understanding wrote economic justice for all tax the rich. I do sense sort of I don't know in the ether, and this isn't I and I'm I'm going to wrap soon. Can you tell my ProPublica friend? I'll be right there.
um you know this this real disgust and people sick of these billionaire slash you know potential trillionaire uh and income inequality and um you know you saw it kind of reflected in how people viewed the Met ball this year and and the fact that Jeff Bezos and Lawrence Sanchez Bezos you know sponsored it and kind taken over and by billionaires and paytoplay and that just kind of uh this idea I think also perpetrated by the Epstein files that the rich are not held accountable or they are held to different standards than everyone else.
And and I wonder if that is going to to impact the way people feel about the Republican party in general when you see all these tech billionaires showing up at Donald Trump's inauguration. and you see all these huge corporate, you know, big shots giving money for the presidential library so their merger could go through. I just think there's a lot of I mean, class resentment was always there, but I think people are increasingly grossed out by billionaires and and I think that would be an interesting column. Not that you haven't written about that already, but and a lot of people have, but I don't know. I feel like it's really taking hold in a palpable way right now.
>> I mean, I'm increasingly grossed out by them. Aren't you? I mean, I I mean I mean, but that's why you saw that's why you saw the the nomenclature and the turnout for the Bernie Sanders AOC fighting oligarchy tour, whatever it was called. Then there was that whole debate within the Democratic party about whether anyone knows what oligarchy means and shouldn't you put different language to it. But I think the answer to your question is I think there is more class resentment than there was two years ago or four years ago. I think there should be more class resentment than there was. The question is whether Democrats can be successful in saying if you're looking at how to how to direct that class resentment. You want to direct it at Republicans, not us. There have been many years of Democratic misbehavior on the economic front that have blurred in people's minds who's to blame for this. And I think that's one of the things Bernie Sanders has been fighting so hard to do. And I have very mixed feelings about Bernie Sanders. But I think he's one, if he's been trying to make anything clear, same goes with Elizabeth Warren, it's no, no, no. We're much more as a party on your side than they are, and we're much less guilty of the sins of super wealth than they are.
They've been trying to draw that distinction. We'll see if they've been successful.
>> With the latest voting rights act by this, you know, decision by the Supreme Court, the redistricting battles aren't done. you wrote that two weeks ago before the Supreme Court decision uh basically uh you know overturning certain aspects of the Voting Rights Act and giving a green light to all these southern southern states to say have at it redist redistrict away people. Um how concerned are you about what's to come as a result of that decision and then I'm going to let you go.
>> Yeah. No, no. I I'm concerned because if say Virginia was the Democratic party fighting the Republicans to a draw, we now have like Florida looking at creating three to four extra seats. We have since the Supreme Court decision Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, all looking at their maps and and seeing can we redraw them this close to the midterms. Now, those are not states with a lot of districts and a lot of representatives, but every vote counts. I mean, my my my nightmare is Democrats kind of get 52, 53, 54% of the votes in aggregate that are cast for House races and end up like two seats down because of these Jerry manders and because of other structural factors. Um, and you know, that's when we're going to have a renewed, if that happens, God help us, we're going to have to have a renewed conversation about whether our democracy is set up in a way that we have truly representative government or whether we have government by the minority, you know, which is the big story all the time with the Senate. And now I'll shut up.
>> No, you thank you, Frank. It's always great to talk to you. Thank you for spending some time with all of us this afternoon. And um everyone please subscribe to uh Frank's how it comes out every Sunday.
Is that right?
>> Monday mornings. Monday mornings.
>> Monday. Monday morning. I love reading it. I love when um readers write in with sentences they love. That's so much fun.
>> Great. They're so generous. They're great. It's great sourcing. Yeah.
>> Anyway, all right. Great to see you, Frank. Thanks again. Big kiss. I'll talk to you soon.
>> Thank you. Great seeing you.
>> Okay. Okay. Bye. All right. Now, finally, is what's Jen's last name?
Field >> Field or Field. Field. Okay. I just wasn't sure how to pronounce it. Okay.
We're going to go to Jen. This There we go. Thank you, Julia. We're wrapping up with a very important ProPublica article that we thought was really worthy of your time to hear about everyone. Um, hi. I'm so sorry to keep you waiting.
Jim, how are you?
>> I'm good. How are you?
>> I'm fine. Thanks so much for doing this.
Um, I just want to kind of introduce you because you're an investigative reporter at ProPublica, which has been doing fantastic work for uh for for quite a while now. And Jen focuses on election integrity, voting rights and threats to democracy. Her work examines everything from voting access and election security to misinformation, voter disenfranchisement, and the pressures facing election officials and voters. You're particularly focused on how voting laws and policies have evolved in recent years. And before I I want I want to let people know kind of your background.
Before ProPublica, uh Jen, you covered elections and democracies in Arizona for vote beat. You spent more than a decade reporting on government and politics across Maryland, Virginia, uh Maryland, Washington DC, and Arizona, including the Arizona Republic. And since 2020, your reporting has played a key role in uncovering efforts to challenge election outcomes, including major investigations into the stop the steel movement. U you're also part of an award-winning team recognized with the Scris Howard.
Scripps Howard, is that right? Yeah.
Award for distinguished service to the First Amendment. Did I get everything right?
>> You did. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you, Jen. All right. Okay.
Anyway, your recent article on the midterms called Inside Trump's effort to take over the midterm elections, Jen, really got our attention over here at Katie Kurrick Media. You lay out in detail how federal guard rails that once protected election integrity have been weakened since 2020. Can you give us a broad overview, Jen, of what you found reporting this article?
>> Sure. So yes, we know that in 2020 there was lots of pressure inside the federal government from Trump to overturn that election, specifically to Attorney General William Bar um and other top officials. So we wanted to know behind the scenes what took place among career staff that had been there for years, knew the election laws, um how did they try to stand up against that idea? And so we found that you know dozens of officials from DHS DOJ took part in that effort. Um we gave a a new example from this meeting with um Attorney General Bar where they told him the election was not stolen and then he went and uh said he was going to kamicazi himself into the White House and resigned because you know he knew that uh Trump was not wanting to hear the truth. So now all of those people that supplied that evidence to bar and others are gone. Trump has dismantled their teams across DOJ, DHS, and in their place he has put people who actually helped try to overturn that election back in 2020.
>> Well, let's so so basically you're saying by you know luck luckily Bill Bar you know was approached by these people.
he went and said, you know, how big a role did he have? Obviously, he resigned, but how important was his standing up against the uh Donald Trump in sort of the grand scheme of things?
>> I think overall you see all of these roadblocks that took place in his effort to overturn the election and this was one of the major roadblocks was the Department of Justice. He wanted the Department of Justice to seize voting machines across the country. you know, he wanted to take these extraordinary measures to overturn the results. And so, you have someone in a leadership position who was willing to say no.
After he left, his staff was then uh, you know, kept going and kept saying we are not, you know, in support of these investigations. And so, it's just, you know, taking a look at the whole picture of who was involved in blocking that now and they're they're gone.
>> Yeah. We'll talk about sort of the DOJ now versus then in a moment, but let's talk about some of the other sort of guard rails that you write about that have been dismantled. Um, one is the Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency or CISA, right? Um, within the Department of Homeland Security. tell us about what has happened if what was in place when Trump tried to do this the first time and what is left of it that won't be of much much use. Right.
>> Right. So it's interesting because this team arose out of the 2016 concerns that Russia had tried to interfere in our elections. We created this federal infrastructure in this agency to watch over election security to make sure our machines weren't being hacked to make sure that foreign interference was not a thing. So this team got to know state officials got to know local officials and were there to tell them this is how to protect your systems against foreign interference. And that's why when they g came to Bill Bar they knew so much about what had happened at the local level during 2020. Um and now the first thing Trump does among the first things is that he dismantles that entire elections team.
>> Then also in addition to CISA, your reporting found that uh the National Security Council's election security group was also I guess gutted. Tell us what this National Security Council election security group is is tasked with doing and what happened. that group was really looking at, like I said, the foreign interference. There were many different parts of our federal infrastructure that oversaw uh federal interference in elections, whether it be from Russia or um other countries. And so that working group was really to look bring everyone together that had intelligence on uh all of those issues and make sure that everyone was on the same page as to how to protect our elections. And there's also the foreign malign influence center which is a branch of the office of the director of national intelligence. Tell us what that group did and what happened to it.
>> Yeah, same thing there where they were they were involved in making sure that they uh saw and uh I guess they kept track and investigated all of the areas where there were potential interference attempts. And so they were kind of the filter when it came to that. uh not prosecuting but really investigating and now you know that team has really been dismantled. It's been restructured in a way that uh you know sources told us it's no longer effective in that. So, so you're saying basically your reporting shows that all these people who would push back against an unbridled, you know, executive, chief executive to say, you know, throw the results out or we're going to come up with this bogus investigation. We're going to make all these accusations.
Now, there are very few people to push back on those claims to say, "Hey, wait a second. That's not right and we're not going to be a party to this.
>> Right. And even more than that, there's this public integrity team within a Department of Justice.
>> Yeah. Let's talk I want to talk about that in a minute cuz I that's so fascinating and that's in your piece, too. But you're you're reporting all talk about sort of the broad DOJ because you you just said that Bill Bar, you know, is honestly kind of a hero in this story in some ways uh because he stood up. But I know that the Justice Department now has weakened the role it plays in election security. What what has the department done? Yeah, there will there were many different areas of the department like the FBI would investigate election crimes, right?
There was the voting section uh that enforced all of our civil rights laws for voting. Um and then there was this public integrity uh team that made sure that law enforcement wasn't corrupt. All of those teams, these are people that either resigned or were pushed out among the new administration. And so all of this protection that was in place across the department is now gone.
>> Wow. Okay. So, let's move on to what you kind of started talking about. Uh this this group within the Justice Department that calls itself Team America. Um who are they? What are they doing? And why do they scare the be Jesus out of me?
So, so basically we have you know his new appointees who has he brought in to try to uh ensure that his mission for elections which is much different than the prior mission you know his mission is focused on uh seeing through his claims about 2020 reinvestigating that election. It's focused on proving his non-citizen voting uh uh myths that there's millions of non-citizens votings in our election which we have no proof of. And so he's brought on people who believe in those ideas and are now seeing through, you know, anything they can do on those two topics is they're meeting and they're talking about what they need to do to bring those two things to life. I know that this is the team that played a role in helping the Justice Department demand that states turn over their voter roles as well as DHS's ability to search for non-citizen voters. Um, can you tell us more about that and the Trump administration's efforts to get this confidential information? It's pretty faking insane. So, there are a few different attorneys that have joined that are um it's trying to see through this mission of grabbing state voter roles. States are admin elections are administered at the state and local level. If there aren't citizens on the roles, a lot of local clerks are already looking for them. And so now what they're saying is no, the federal government needs to do this. They need your voter roles. We are demanding your voter roles. If you don't give it to them, uh including personal information like social security numbers, driver's license numbers that they can then look through. They are then going to court and suing these states. Um they've sued more than 30 states at this point, Republican states included, that know their laws and know they can't hand over this information.
Well, wait. So, bec because I thought ultimately like even taking out all these people who are part of the federal government responsible for election integrity.
The states run the elections, right? And that's why it was so important that Brad Raffensburgger told President Trump to pound sand when he asked for 11,748 whatever votes so he could win the state of Georgia. I mean, isn't that um don't states present some kind of guard rail even if the federal government is has dismantled them? Of course they do. And you're so right on that. Local election officials in particular, they are the ones with the voting machines. They are the ones managing their voter roles and they can absolutely try to decline any attempt from the federal government. The problem we're seeing now is a real push from the federal government to seize these materials. Anyway, in Georgia, the FBI rate on their ballots. We just saw in Michigan 2024 results. Now they want those. And now we're hearing that there's demands for actual staff information, people who ran those elections. And this is all coming from the White House and from the Department of Justice. So, as much as you can push back against it at the local level, there is a lot of fear in the election community that some of these things their hands are tied.
>> And I you write, perhaps nothing better reflects the breakdown of the guard rails that thwarted Trump's rashest impulses in 2020 than his creation last fall of a special White House post reinvestigating his loss to Biden. tell us about this position and who Trump appointed and why it should be concerning to all of us.
>> So this is he appointed Kurt Olsen who was actually involved in the 2020 effort to overturn the election. He had legal theories uh that he supplied on that and he also was involved in Arizona trying to overturn uh Kerry Lakes election as well. So he's been in this election scene for a while now. Now he's a White House appointee and our reporting learned new details about how he's been involved in these new efforts.
>> Wow. and and NPR had reporting out yesterday that a new analysis by states United Action, which is a nonprofit that seeks to protect elections, found that in 23 states, including five presidential swing states, candidates who have denied election results, are running for offices that will have a direct role in certifying future elections.
So, what was your reaction to that reporting?
We don't know how well these candidates are going to do is the first thing that I heard. You know, it is concerning that there's still candidates running on this platform of election uh denialism of people that don't believe 2020 um was accurate and fair. But in 2022, we saw a lot of backlash on that actually where people saw January 6th and they saw that the the violence that came from that and they rejected some of these candidates.
So, I think we have to see that the current environment and um you know, a lot of people say it'll be a Democratic sweep and that's where the challenges might come from these candidates, right?
They might see these close election results. They might have this theory that the elections are stolen and they might challenge the results. So, I think that's another concern I'm hearing right now. So, so I mean obviously all this is happening and I think probably people watching this are like holy [ __ ] what can we do about this? Um and are feeling sort of powerless. Is you know is there anything that can be done to fight this erosion of free and fair elections in this country and the and and the safeguards that were designed to ensure that election integrity stood. I mean, I'm sure in your reporting you're talking to people who are trying to make sure that this doesn't happen. Um, what are you finding out about that? And what can sort of the average person who just wants to make sure that democracy holds is can do something, you know?
>> That's a good question. And one of my sources that was a former um FBI uh official emphasized the fact that there's not a lot of attention on Congress on this, right? There is, you know, we have three branches of government. Um and you know, there's there's a lot of uh push, I guess, from people like that who have watched the dismantling. Why aren't people contacting Congress and uh you know why aren't they demanding some kind of accountability or just ensuring that we have the task force that we used to have for the elections that there is election security. Um so that's one thing I've heard and the other thing from local officials they just say we wish voters would get more involved. We wish they would understand how our elections work and spread that to their neighbors. We are part of their community and we want them to come and tour our locations and understand what we're doing here. So, I think there's just a general idea that people need to be more involved.
>> Yeah, definitely. Well, and and and also they need to read ProPublica and stories like yours that are so well reported that really kind of connect the dots and help people understand this whole litany of things that are going on that we're not even hearing about because there's so much news out there. But in aggregate, they pose a real threat to, as I said, free and fair elections.
>> Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
>> Yeah. Thank you for your reporting, Jen.
And please tell everyone at ProPublica, we we think they all rock.
>> Oh, that's um and and we we hope that you're >> getting the support you need to continue doing the incredible reporting you're doing.
>> Absolutely. Thank you.
>> Okay. Nice to meet you, Jen. Thank you.
Thank you.
相关推荐
US-Iran War LIVE: US Launches New Strikes On Iranian Military Site Near Bandar Abbas | WION Live
WION
6K views•2026-05-28
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
TRUMP LIVE | POTUS makes massive announcement on Iran nuke deal in high-stakes cabinet meeting
TheEconomicTimes
536 views•2026-05-28
The Silence Around Alex Coughlan | #80
RealEddieHobbs
2K views•2026-05-28
Did China Get to Marco Rubio?
ChinaUnscripted
1K views•2026-05-28
Sonko Is Now Speaker. But Who Are the Two Men Who Made His Return Possible?
djbwakali
11K views•2026-05-28
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
