A good amount of institutions have capitulated and complied in recent months with many of the Trump administration’s actions that far overstep executive authority. At the same time, we’ve seen a few places where there has been opposition and resistance to tactics employed by the Trump 2.0 regime. Some of the most pushback has come from democratically elected attorneys general. Our guest this week points out that Trump “can’t override laws with sharpies” and that checks and balances still exist. Letitia James is the attorney general for the state of New York. She joins WITHpod to discuss why she says Trump is on a “revenge tour,” whether or not she feels the rule of law will prevail as we move forward from the first 100 days and more.
And a BIG thank you to all of our WITHpod fans for voting for us to win a People’s Voice Webby Award in the category of Best Interview or Talk Show. We truly appreciate your support.
ICYMI, WITHpod full episodes are now on YouTube. You can watch by visiting msnbc.com/withpod.
Note: This is a rough transcript. Please excuse any typos.
Chris Hayes: Hey, WithPod listeners, before we get into today’s episode, a big thank you to all of our devoted WithPod fans for voting for us to win a People’s Voice Webby Award in the category of Best Interview or Talk Show, a very crowded competitive category with lots of amazing podcasts. So it was all you. Your votes really helped to put us over the top. Thank you. Doni and I are just so, so appreciative.
(Music Playing)
Letitia James: I’m confident that the people of this great country, and some who might be sleeping right now and not paying attention will wake up. And I am confident that they will take to the streets and raise their voices and push back against those authoritarian impulses and demand that our democracy be restored.
(Music Playing)
Chris Hayes: Hello, welcome to Why Is This Happening with me, your host, Chris Hayes.
Well, one of the, I think, frustrating, at times depressing and dispiriting themes of the first three months of the new Trump administration has been watching lots of institutions basically fold, capitulate, roll over, sort of, you know, preemptively comply with an administration or a regime that is clearly aspiring towards kind of authoritarian control over particularly civil society. That’s the part that I found most disturbing, you know, universities and law firms that are independent pillar institutions of an open society that under our system of government, under our constitution, under our norms and traditions, and under our sort of theoretical conception of American liberty are free to act however they want and do whatever they want. And yes, they have to obey the law. There’s regulations. There’s interfaces they have with the federal government. But generally a pillar of our free and open society is that, you know, if you want to start Liberty University and make a religious higher ed university, you can do that. If you want to have a super lefty school where people go out to the desert and read Marx, you can do that and everything in between.
That said, while there have been a lot of institutions that have capitulated, there have been a few places where we’ve seen steadfast resistance to the Trump administration and kind of unerring opposition to what looks to all the world and to me like an authoritarian power grab.
And one of the places that’s been the most consistent, I would say off the bat, just from the jump, have been attorneys general in Democratic states, Democratic collected attorneys general. And one of those attorneys general, Letitia James, has a history with Donald Trump. It was her office that brought a successful case against his company in New York over the last year or two. And her office has joined with other attorneys general, in some cases independently, in a series of lawsuits. I have them in front of me and there’s quite literally too many to go through here. So we’ll talk about them. But I thought at this moment when there has been a lot of capitulation, but there’s also been a lot of pushback in the courts and a lot of successes by plaintiffs and litigants challenging what the Trump administration is doing, it would be a great time to sit down with the attorney general of New York, Letitia James.
Madam Attorney General, it’s great to have you on.
(Music Playing)
Letitia James: It’s great to be with you, Chris, and please call me Tish.
Chris Hayes: All right. I was going to ask you, what’s the best way to address you?
Letitia James: Just say Tish.
Chris Hayes: Okay. Well, there’s a lot to get to here. And I thought maybe we’d start with a little bit of the prehistory because there is a history here.
Letitia James: Yes.
Chris Hayes: And I wanted you to talk about, I wanted to start off presenting you with a kind of argument that Trump supporters and even people who are not diehard Trump people will make about the legal cases against Donald Trump in the last few years.
Letitia James: Yes.
Chris Hayes: And basically, they go the following way.
You liberals talk about tyranny and authoritarianism and misusing the weapons of the state. But when Donald Trump was running for office and he was the major party candidate, various people associated with Democratic officeholders, whether that was a special counsel appointed by the president or Attorney General Tish James or District Attorney of New York Alvin Bragg brought cases against him purely out of a partisan desire to kind of nab him. And how can you get all up in your dander about whatever they’re doing right now? I’m sure you’ve heard this a million times, but I think it is actually worth wrestling with, because if you abstract it enough, there’s a kernel of a point there. I think if you zoom in, that point starts to look a little more dubious. But I’d love to hear you kind of respond to that.
Letitia James: So, Chris, I have been accused of weaponizing the justice system and I have been accused of bringing a civil case against Donald Trump based on some personal and political animus. And nothing can be further from the truth. Chris, my two year investigation into the businesses of Donald Trump et a, was as a result of a congressional hearing where some pointed questions were asked by members of Congress with respect to the overvaluation of his assets. And for the attorney general of any state, but in the state of New York, where the vast majority of his assets are located, it would be irresponsible of me not to examine, to look into, to see whether or not there was any truth to these allegations. And that’s exactly what we did.
Now, some people want to point out, well, during the campaign, your campaign for the office of the attorney general, you engaged in some political rhetoric. True. But at the end of the day, at the end of the day, it’s all about facts and evidence and an analysis of the law. And what we uncovered was that he exaggerated the valuation of his assets and it resulted in a judgment to the tune of $454 million, which is on appeal in the first department.
And as a result of Trump 1.0, we brought a number of cases against Donald Trump. And here we are, Trump 2.0. And as a result of my experience in, during Trump 1.0, I decided to organize, work with other Democratic attorneys general all across this nation in responding, in analyzing Project 2025, analyzing jurisdiction, venue, claims, causes of action, you name it. And which is why we were prepared on day one, following his issuance of the first executive order, basically seeking to attack birthright citizenship or reject birthright citizenship. And that case, as you know, will be argued for the Supreme Court and it will be argued by the solicitor general of the great state of New Jersey.
Chris Hayes: You mentioned that sort of political rhetoric on the campaign. And this to me is, I just want to stay with this for a second, because it kind of gets to almost an irresolvable tension in a kind of liberal democracy, which is someone like you is elected, someone like the President of the United States is elected. There’s a certain degree to which like you can’t insulate everything from politics and you wouldn’t want to. You want some level of Democratic accountability. And yet at the same time, you don’t want a justice system functioning purely for political and partisan ends.
Letitia James: Correct. And there is that tension.
Chris Hayes: Right. And that’s what I want to ask you about. Like, yes, you said basically on the campaign trail, like we’re going to, I don’t know the exact words, we’re going to take a hard look at Donald Trump.
Letitia James: Correct.
Chris Hayes: We’re going to go after Donald Trump. At the same time, I wouldn’t want you to like, do it in a bad faith way. But then this question becomes of like, what’s the way that you prove to people that this isn’t that it’s not corrupt —
Letitia James: Correct.
Chris Hayes: — that it’s fundamentally in good faith or good faith finding.
Letitia James: So it’s important that individuals understand that in our system of justice, that there are judges who analyze the complaint, analyze the allegations, the causes of actions, the claims and analyze the evidence. And as a result of someone independently analyzing all that we put forth, the petitions that we put forth, they make a determination as to whether or not our cause of action, our claim has any merit based on the law.
It’s also important that individuals understand that politics stops at the door. We have over 800 attorneys here in the office of the New York State Attorney General. I don’t ask anyone their political affiliation. I don’t ask anyone their political leanings. All I ask is whether or not they are faithful to the Constitution and to the rule of law. And I ask all of the individuals who work here, both attorneys and non attorneys, to be critical of any decision that I make, to say that I’ve gone too far or that it’s not based on the law or that it’s grounded in politics or it’s not grounded in the values that we believe in. I have an open door policy. And so, individuals do push back and I do a self-analysis and an analysis of whatever matter that I am contemplating at the moment. And that’s why this office has been highly successful.
Donald Trump has this, I’m on his enemies list, not only because of that $454 million judgment, but also because all of the cases that we have brought during his second tenure that challenges the rule of law, that challenges the rights, the liberties and the freedoms of individuals, and particularly, those who are vulnerable and marginalized, and specifically, immigrants who right now are fearful of government.
And I was always taught that government should be a vehicle for good, that government should be used to improve the lives of others, those who are struggling, and not something that they should fear. And each and every day, as I walk in our beloved Brooklyn, people come up to me and say, Tish, I’m afraid to take my child to school. Tish, I’m afraid to go to work. Tish, I have to close down my restaurant. And even individuals, immigrants, some of them undocumented who have been witnesses to horrific crimes, I cannot serve as a witness, Tish. I’m afraid to go into that courthouse because it is no longer a safe space. There’s something fundamentally wrong with that.
Chris Hayes: Let’s stay on that for one second, and then I want to come back to the Trump thing and ask you one more question. But I want to stay on this because you just made a point that I think has really been absent from the discourse about immigration.
There is this notion that this idea of a quote “sanctuary city” in which local police, law enforcement are not going to investigate or detain or prosecute people solely for their immigration status is this ludicrous, liberal, do-gooder, bleeding heart nonsense that cities like New York undertake because they want a virtue signal.
And my understanding, having reported on this, is that the origin of this policy, and you just pointed to it, in a city with, say, a million folks who are undocumented, we don’t know the specific number, somewhere around there, if you are trying to police that city, if you are trying to find a violent criminal who just did something terrible to people, and you go into a neighborhood and all the witnesses are undocumented, and they think you’re going to nab them for that status, they are not going to talk to you, and you are not going to be able to find that person that committed that crime.
And so, purely as a matter of law enforcement, it just practically makes sense to tell people, “Look, come talk to us about crime, come talk to us about violence.” And is that, like, A, is that your understanding? And B, do you think on your last point that what’s happening now is having a tangible effect on the ability of law enforcement in a place like New York to do its job?
Letitia James: Yes, because it has had a chilling effect on the immigrant community. Again, there are communities that are literally hiding in the shadow of law enforcement, afraid to cooperate with law enforcement. Individuals who are victims of domestic violence, who are afraid to go into courthouses to get orders of protection because they are fearful of ICE. And as you know, Chris, the president of these United States issued an executive order which no longer declares houses of faith, schools, and courthouses no longer safe spaces, and basically, has left it up to ICE to make a subjective determination as to whether or not they should enter.
They used to be safe spaces where individuals can go, but not anymore. And so, places like Little Italy in East Flatbush, it’s quiet. Places like Upper Manhattan and Washington Heights, the Dominican community, quiet. Restaurants have closed. Our immigrant community right now is fearful, fearful of law enforcement. They don’t know whether or not you’re ICE or whether or not you’re some other law enforcement officer. And again, if they’ve witnessed a violent, horrific crime, or if they know of where members of the gangs are located, they’re just not going to talk because they’re afraid.
Chris Hayes: More of our conversation after this quick break.
(Break)
Chris Hayes: One of the things that you said in sort of laying out what you think distinguishes your use of the law with Donald Trump from abuse of the law is you talked about sort of the due process, basically. There are judges, there’s the complaint in the case of the civil judgment. That was after a trial when evidence was presented, right? So like, it’s not, you’re not just snapping your fingers and this happens. You have to make a case and you have to go through a bunch of processes.
I think the cynical view of people like Donald Trump, and I think this might be true of the New York City mayor as well, is if you investigated anyone, you’d find something. But like, basically the investigatory power is kind of everything. And all of that due process is kind of yada, yada, yada. But if you wanted to run, if you wanted to get a judgment about someone, you could. What do you say to that in terms of what the facts actually bore out about the way that Donald Trump, particularly, and his company was conducting its business?
Letitia James: So his investigation, he exaggerated, let me emphasize that, exaggerated the value of his assets to the tune of millions and millions and was able to secure favorable insurance and interest rates. As opposed to, and I’m sure Chris we’ll probably get to this, their claiming that I engaged in mortgage fraud. That I somehow decided that I was a resident of Virginia, which would be some commute every morning to the office of 28 Liberty, that somehow I should be held to the same standard as Donald Trump. But somehow what I did was, basically, similar to what Donald Trump engaged in. And there’s just no comparison. The allegations against me are totally baseless.
And again, it was based on a two-year investigation of his assets. And that judgment was issued by a Supreme Court justice. And there was an argument before the first department appellate division and we are awaiting a decision.
I will respond to these baseless allegations at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way. But I am 100% confident, confident that it will not result in any criminal indictment or action against me, and that it is nothing more than a revenge tour and that Donald Trump just ultimately got to the Jays and I was next.
Chris Hayes: The key allegation, again, it sounds like you don’t want to address them here, but I’m just going to put it out so people understand that a property that was owned in Virginia, a mortgage that you signed, if I’m not mistaken, for that property, that they say you falsely represented yourself as a resident of Virginia. And that that was essentially amounts to mortgage fraud since you’re a resident of New York. What is your response to that?
Letitia James: It’s baseless. Everybody knows I’m a resident of New York, specifically Brooklyn. And again, we will respond at the appropriate time in the appropriate way to these baseless allegations. And some media outlets, like the Daily News, over the weekend has indicated as much.
Chris Hayes: That’s all you want to say?
Letitia James: That’s all I’m going to say.
Chris Hayes: So let me ask about some of these lawsuits. But before I get to the lawsuits, I want to stay on our city. I think that the case that you just made, which is an interesting one, which sounds, you know, very to me, reasonable on his face. Look, there was a congressional hearing about the guy’s businesses. People said he was doing shady things. I’m the attorney general of New York. It would be crazy if we didn’t look into it. We did do a two year investigation. We sustained a civil judgment, et cetera. We presented evidence.
I feel like what has happened in New York, and I say this as a journalist and a New Yorker, in which like we now have enough of the facts, which is that basically the Trump administration cut a deal with the mayor of New York to drop criminal charges against him in exchange, quite explicitly, for cooperation with their immigration agenda. Like I don’t even really think that’s contested at this point. I mean, I think that the evidence is overwhelming that that’s basically the case. You’ve got multiple people in the, you know, Southern District of New York saying as much on the record. You’ve got the mayor appearing with the president’s immigration czar, where he’s going to be a whatever, a real cooperative guy. Let me just say, like, I don’t know the law, but that doesn’t seem kosher to me. And I guess I wonder, as the attorney general of New York, do you think it’s worth investigating the contours of this deal?
Letitia James: So let me just say that I think it’s worthy of the attorney general as an individual to endorse someone else for mayor, which is why today I endorsed Adrian Adams for mayor of the city of New York. And at a time, as I mentioned earlier, when immigrants are afraid, they need a mayor who’s going to stand up for them regardless of their immigration status. And it’s important that we push back against a federal government which is weaponizing DOJ and using the law to harm individuals who basically want the same thing that you and I want.
A lot of the immigrants who came to this country seeking asylum came here because they were afraid of prosecution in their home country. A lot of them came because of political reasons in their home country. A lot of them came because their home country was in the midst of a war. A lot of them came because they were being persecuted because of gender ideology. And you need someone to push back and to defend the rule of law and to push back against Homan and this administration’s attempts to separate families and to deport individuals in the middle of the night. I call it kidnapping without due process. And due process, as you know, Chris, is foundational to our constitution and to our way of life. And it’s unfortunate that the mayor of the city of New York is compromised. And that’s why what we need is an independent leader and someone who will be bold and courageous and fight back and stand with me.
Chris Hayes: Just going to follow up one more time, because I mean, you’re saying, look, as a politician, I think what’s incumbent on me is to endorse someone else, not to be not that’s not this individual for mayor. I’m endorsing Adrian Adams. But is it also incumbent for some investigation of what exactly the contours of this deal are? Are they sort of outside of your jurisdiction? I genuinely am asking because I don’t know. All I know is as a New Yorker and as a journalist, I’m watching this and saying, boy, this smells bad, like.
Letitia James: I mean, it does smell bad. But as the New York state attorney general, I don’t believe that we have jurisdiction to investigate the dealings of the federal government, particularly DOJ.
Chris Hayes: Yes.
Letitia James: And as and it’s reflected, obviously, by the number of individuals at DOJ who are basically exiting the door.
Chris Hayes: You mentioned the lawsuit, which was one of the first lawsuits your office was part of. And one of the sort of earliest responses to the Trump administration, which is on the question of birthright citizenship. Fourteenth Amendment of the United States clearly states in the text of that amendment that that all persons born in the United States are citizens thereof and have all the privileges and immunities of that citizenship. There’s a famous Supreme Court case settling this as birthright citizenship, having to do with Chinese immigrant —
Letitia Jamesd: Yes. Right.
Chris Hayes: — who back in the 19th century.
Letitia James: And born out of slavery as well.
Chris Hayes: Right. Born out of slavery. So this has been black letter law for a very long time. I think also the understanding of the time is that this is the meaning of it. They have presumed to revoke it in an executive order, which even if they could, I don’t think they could do it through an executive order. But that’s another question. Now, many people thought this was facially absurd. An enormous Hail Mary from them.
Letitia James: Yes.
Chris Hayes: The Supreme Court just granted oral arguments, but they granted them on a narrow question, which is right now there is a district court judge who’s issued a temporary restraining order, meaning the executive order nationwide cannot go into effect.
Letitia James: Right.
Chris Hayes: And the Supreme Court has granted oral arguments on, my understanding, the advisability constitutionality of a district court judge having a nationwide restraining order.
Letitia James: Yes. This has come up over and over again. We’ve been getting nationwide injunctions and I believe —
Chris Hayes: Injunctions, I always get this messed up. My fault.
Letitia James: That’s okay. And this is an attempt to analyze whether or not attorneys general and others can secure nationwide injunctions as opposed to district and district-wide injunctions. And it’s also important that a lot of the actions that we have been taking, as Democratic attorneys general, have resulted in nationwide injunctions which cover those individuals in red states, which are disproportionately being impacted by these e executive orders, which do not have the force of law. You cannot, cannot override a law simply by signing an order with a Sharpie. It just doesn’t work like that. And that’s why we’ve been pushing back. And it’s important that individuals understand he’s not a king. He’s just the president of these United States and their limitations on his power. And we have to say that to the American public over and over again. This really is, Chris, a teaching moment for journalists and for attorneys general with respect to the law and its operation.
Chris Hayes: Do you think that coverage of the executive orders has failed to communicate that?
Letitia James: Yes. Yes. I think, as I talk to individuals all throughout the state of New York, they always say, well, he’s the president. That’s usually how it begins, the conversation. He’s the president, Tish. And my response to them, he’s the president and he’s not a king. And he does not have the — he does not have full and complete power. And I talk about, you know, our system of government. I talk about Congress. I talk about the judiciary. And individuals, unfortunately, we need, we have to go back to the basics and understand that the power of the purse lies with Congress, that the judiciary has plays as a checks and a balance and they analyze the law and they interpret the law and that the executive, their sole responsibility is to faithfully execute the laws and not to be judge, jury and executionist. And also, at the same time, just willy nilly engage in arbitrary and capricious behavior by writing useless, lawless executive orders.
Chris Hayes: Yes, it is interesting how much this, you know, the president signed some piece of paper has been. I agree that the coverage has tended to, I think, overstate the degree of force that it has.
Letitia James: Right.
Chris Hayes: On this question of birthright citizenship, can we stay on this? This is a narrow procedural question, but I think it’s worth engaging on because, obviously, I personally see the benefits that you just noted of a nationwide injunction offered by a district court judge on a lawsuit brought by, say, a number of Democratic attorneys general that protect everyone, particularly something like as sacrosanct to me as birthright citizenship.
The argument on the other side is when the shoe’s been on the other foot, and I’ve covered this, for instance, in the district of Amarillo in Texas, where Matthew Kaczmarek, a very right wing judge through a process that I think was frankly incredibly dubious, issued a nationwide injunction of Mifepristone, one district judge being like, no one can get this pill anywhere in the country. I’m overriding the FBI. That to me, because I disagreed with the ruling, also seemed procedurally deficient. And I’m trying to be honest with myself here about when the shoe is on the other foot, how I feel about the issue.
Letitia James: It’s the same, you know, your uneasiness with these nationwide injunctions is, I think, the basis for why the United States Supreme Court decided to hear our case. But this issue of birthright citizenship is a national issue and it is born out of the ashes of slavery and it’s enshrined in our constitution, in the 14th Amendment. And so, I believe that it was proper and in order to issue a nationwide injunction. And that matter will be argued before the Supreme Court.
Chris Hayes: That point about the national, that’s a great point. I mean, you know, it’s one thing if you can acquire a pill in one place and not another, but your citizenship status, just as a practical matter, —
Letitia James: Yes.
Chris Hayes: — cannot vary from district to district, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, state to state. It cannot be the case.
Letitia James: It cannot.
Chris Hayes: But there’s a patchwork where some judges have granted an injunction, but others haven’t, which means your citizenship waxes and wanes depending on where you go on a road trip.
Letitia James: But there are some who have said, well, you can’t cherry pick it. And so, I guess it all depends upon the subject matter that’s at issue.
Chris Hayes: Are you at all worried the fact that they granted these somewhat anomalous oral arguments on this procedural question that they’re going to consider the merits and maybe there’s more appetite for overruling the Supreme Court precedent than people realized?
Letitia James: I’m hoping, but that lies in the hands of Justice Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. And so, I’m hoping that they will respect the Constitution and I’m hoping that they side with us on birthright citizenship, as it relates to nationwide injunctions. And nationwide injunctions, as it relates to all of the claims that we have brought thus far.
Chris Hayes: There are, as I said at the top of the program, literally too many cases to get through here, when I’ve looked at what your office has done. But I want to talk about a cluster of them. And I think there’s more than one, but one very early on, the OMB memo went out that sort of ordered the cessation of funding in a variety of areas. That was sort of subsequently rescinded, but the spirit of it has continued.
Letitia James: Yes.
Chris Hayes: And they have essentially been unilaterally impounding funds. Their contention, at the Trump administration, is they have the constitutional right to not spend the money that’s appropriated. You have a set of lawsuits basically saying that’s unconstitutional.
Letitia James: Yes.
Chris Hayes; And how important do you see this case? How fundamental and what’s your argument for why you’re right and they’re wrong?
Letitia James: Because Congress and not the president has power of the purse. And there are congressional and statutory obligations that are owed to Americans. And he cannot, the president cannot single handedly cut off funds for children, for veterans, and seniors, and list goes on and on and on. And these funding freezes were just really critical to so many states. And as a result, our cause of action was, one, based on the fact that he exceeded his authority. He violated the Administrative Procedure Act. I mean, it was arbitrary. And he just does not hold, he does not have the authority to basically freeze through an unlawful executive order, which does not have the force of law. And so, I’m glad that they rescinded it and it had profound impacts in the state of New York. And if you read the complaint, you will see declarations from individuals who talked about the freezing of funds and the impact that it had on their lives.
Chris Hayes: Are you confident, like that, that example of the OMB freeze, they went to the payment system on the back end, they turned a bunch of stuff off, people freaked out, there was a lawsuit, they kind of backed down. But there’s other stuff there, they’re canceling things left and right. Every day I find out some new thing they’ve canceled.
Letitia James: Yes.
Chris Hayes: And it’s always just a little unclear to me, honestly, as someone who, you know, pays pretty close attention, the like, can they do that? Like how much of this is discretionary within the federal government? Like, yes, the NIH has the power to cancel a grant if they want to cancel a grant that’s within their power. And then but clearly they can’t get rid of a congressionally constituted agency like USAID. Like that seems, obviously, preposterous.
One is how would you give the courts a grade so far? If you had to give them a grade in how well the courts have done in pushing back, restraining the sort of unconstitutional impulses at play here?
Letitia James: An A.
Chris Hayes: That’s interesting.
Letitia James: We’ve been successful in getting temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. Now the Supreme Court dealt us a bad decision, questioning our standing, our ability to bring these cases. They basically made a determination that we did not have standing, that we did not have APA claims. And so, we’ve had to refocus and amend some of our complaints and focus primarily on the congressional obligations, specifically that they have the power of the purse and not the president of these United States. It was one of those cases where we, they froze the funds. It was DOGE. And the DOGE case where you’ve got Elon Musk, who was unelected, unvetted, not just a billionaire. I’m not sure if he’s now the richest man in the world, but anyway, he knows nothing about the challenges facing every day and ordinary New Yorkers. And he is certainly not above the law. And we led a lawsuit against DOGE because he had access to the treasury department, gaining access to our sensitive and private information as New Yorkers.
And on February 21st, we won a preliminary injunction ensuring that Musk will not be able to infiltrate the treasury department. That went up on appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately, we were not successful. And so, we have had to reanalyze all of our cases and strengthen more the congressional and statutory obligations as opposed to the administrative relief.
Chris Hayes: I see. So just to be clear here, when I asked for that grade, you said an A very quickly. And then the kind of asterisk is we’re mostly have been dealing with district courts and appellate courts.
Letitia James: Yes.
Chris Hayes: And the real big question before everyone, is the Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority, including three members appointed by Donald Trump himself. I’m curious just because you have a bunch of cases before them, like how optimistic are you? What did you think about their late night intervention recently in a case to stop essentially flights going to the prison in El Salvador, which they didn’t have to do? They did it 1:00 in the morning.
Letitia James: Right.
Chris Hayes: Some people thought that it was an indicator in a 7-2 that this is a court that is coming around to understand the urgency of the need to sort of stop the worst anti-constitutional actions by the executive. I’m curious what you think.
Letitia James: Well, I think a lot of people are coming around. Even some conservative talk show hosts are coming around and recognizing that due process is foundational to our system of government and to our system of laws. And although Alito issued a really snarky dissent and Thomas, well, anyway, the point is they’re coming around. But I think they’re humans. And they’re also seeing the millions and millions of individuals who are on the streets and the thousands who have come out to hear Bernie and AOC and all of those who are standing up and recognizing that the executive right now, that President Trump and all of his sycophants are just out of control and there’s just too much chaos and confusion and fear and that they are the last bastion of hope. That institution that should serve as a check and balance on this government. And they’re doing the right thing, particularly, as it relates to due process.
And I’m hoping that Mr. Garcia is returned and returns to see his wife, as well as the others who unfortunately have been sent to El Salvador in the middle of the night without any due process.
(Music Playing)
Chris Hayes: We’ll be right back after we take this quick break.
(Break)
Chris Hayes: There’s a few different immigration cases, obviously, in the news, a whole bunch of stories. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was a Maryland resident for years, married to a US citizen, father of a US citizen who was sent to this notorious prison. There’s also these students.
Letitia James: Yes.
Chris Hayes: And I got to say, this is, it’s almost hard for me to communicate how horrific I find this because in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, who was a recent Columbia student, again, married to a US citizen, father of a newborn American citizen child. Rumeysa Ozturk, who’s in Massachusetts at Tufts, Mohsen Madawi, who was also at Columbia, these are people that even the government doesn’t say violated any law. They applied for their student visas. They were granted their student visas. They did not violate the terms of the visa, even I understand as the government sees it. I don’t think the government says they have. They’re citing some other authority. And they’re being imprisoned for their political actions, like quite clearly.
My question to you is, A, does the Constitution apply and its protections of the Bill of Rights apply to non-citizens living in the United States or in the state of New York, the ones that you represent?
Letitia James: Yes. The First Amendment applies. The right to free speech. And we cannot use alleged civil rights violations as a means to undermine academic freedom and the freedom of speech. And so, we are, there’s possibly a case that will be brought either this week or next week by the attorneys general because students at some CUNY campuses, City of University, and SUNY campuses, State University of New York, whose visas have been revoked.
Chris Hayes: Yes.
Letitia James: And they have done absolutely nothing. Some of them have not even engaged in any protest at all. They’ve not written any op-eds at all. They’ve just been revoked simply because of their status. And so, we are considering looking at that case and possibly bringing action. I’m confident that we will bring action. But I’m also pleased that these three children in Jefferson County in upstate New York, along with their parent, they were working in a dairy farm and they were picked up by ICE and detained. But as a result of protests from the residents in Jefferson County, about a thousand of them, they were released, partly because they protested in front of Mr. Homan’s residence in upstate New York, and they were released. And so, they’re home. Those children are home with them and their parent is home. So we will push back against these bullies. We will push back against these authoritarian forces and impulses. We will stand up for the rule of law. We’ve had a winning streak, which is why we are on the enemies list. And I am, again, have been threatened. But it’s really critically important that individuals understand that there are Democratic attorneys general who took oaths to our constitution and to our constituents to do our job and to uphold the rule of law and the constitution.
Chris Hayes: You just said you’ve been threatened. Do you mean legally? Do you mean in other ways as well?
Letitia James: I’ve been threatened personally. I’ve received death threats, but I can’t be paralyzed by fear, Chris. I’ve got a job to do. And although the president indicated that they were going to cancel my private protection or I don’t know what that means, because I don’t know what that means. It was purely performative politics. At the end of the day, I still go to federal buildings. I have my own detail. And as I say, my faith and fear cannot occupy the same space. I’ve got to get up each and every day with this fire in my belly to protect individuals who are under attack and my state.
Chris Hayes: I recently saw the publisher of The New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger, was at an event, I think, and he mentioned that The New York Times is spending 10 times as much in security as they were during the first Trump term.
Letitia James: Yes.
Chris Hayes: Is it something similar for your office? I don’t know if that’s 10x, but would you say that you’re spending more and that that’s more, that more resources have to be put towards that?
Letitia James: Not additional resources, but I think it’s all hands on deck. And so, there are more detectives outside of my home, my local precinct’s on alert, one police plaza is on alert. I think all of my colleagues, all of the Democratic attorneys general, whenever we do, we are doing town hall meetings. We’re calling them impact hearings. We had one in Arizona, under the leadership of AG Mays, Chris Mays. We had one in Minnesota, Keith Ellison had one. Oh, there was one in Colorado, Phil Weiser had one. And we’re hosting one here in New York on May 8th, and we’re hosting it with Indivisible. And right now we’re coordinating with law enforcement to keep all of the individuals who come out to hear from some of the Democratic attorney generals. And we want to hear from individuals, tell their stories about all the chaos and confusion and how it is impacting their life and including, but not limited to farmers. I specifically want to hear from farmers.
Chris Hayes: Why farmers?
Letitia James: I want to hear about the tariffs. You know, we get a lot of our energy from Canada, the state of New York.
Chris Hayes: Sure do.
Letitia James: And farmers are also, obviously, concerned about their bottom line. They’re concerned about antitrust. They’re concerned about their reliance upon some of the measures that were put forth by President Biden to create a green economy. And they went out and purchased equipment and now they’re not being reimbursed by the federal government because those grants have been canceled by President Trump.
So I want to hear from them. I want to hear from all of the individuals who rely upon Social Security, check to check to check. Three offices, three Social Security offices have closed in the state of New York, primarily in Westchester. I want to hear from those residents. I want to hear from residents who are concerned about Medicaid. I want to hear from individuals who rely upon Head Start. The regional office in New York of Head Start has closed. All of the employees have been fired. I want to know whether or not it’s impacted centers.
Chris Hayes: Let me just stop you there. I saw that news about the regional office of Head Start. And this is, again, this is this really blows my mind. They haven’t cut Head Start yet, to be clear, like they haven’t in I mean, meaning Congress is contemplating a budget in which they would cut Head Start. This is well reported. This is well sourced. In fact, Republicans have even mentioned it. But before they’ve passed that budget, yes, operating off the appropriations that have already been passed by a Democratic Congress, right, and even before. and baselines that were produced by those deals. I don’t understand how they can just unilaterally cancel the Head Start program.
Letitia James: Because he thinks he’s a king, just like he’s terminated probationary employees, just like he sought to fire Ms. Wilcox at the National Labor and LRB, just like he’s seeking to dismantle the CFPB, just like NIH grants that are doing groundbreaking research on cancer and Parkinson’s and heart disease, just like those teacher grants where you have teachers who benefit from grants who basically want to teach pre-K to 12, just like the dismantling of the Department of Education, which is going to impact disabled children, just like his effort to basically erase the history of all marginalized groups, DEI, just like his attack on the transgender community where he basically wants to dehumanize them and decouple them from their gender affiliation, just like there are hospitals and affiliations where we had to write a letter to these hospitals who basically offer gender affirming care. But because of these executive orders were fearful that they might be prosecuted and we had to let them know that we would support them and we had to remind them of the law and their obligations under state law, just like he wants to cancel basically the 10th Amendment.
We’re a sovereign state with obligations and rights, but he wants full fealty to the executive and to the president of these United States.
Chris Hayes: I think that you are someone who has sort of seen that for what it is pretty early on, it would be fair to say. A lot of people I think didn’t, I think it’s also fair to say. Do you feel like more people are realizing that? Like just, are people waking up to the scope of the ambition that they have to undo and remake the constitutional order?
Letitia James: So, you know, when you talk about the rule of law and the Constitution, people tend to, other than your audience, you know, they gloss over.
Chris Hayes: Yes, yes, totally.
Letitia James: But when you talk about the real impact, the direct impacts, the economic impact, when you talk about your Social Security check may not come this month, your application for Social Security might be delayed. If you call the Social Security Department, no one will pick up the phone. When you go to the office, it might be closed. When you talk about these real and direct issues and the impact on the lives of Americans, people get it and people understand. And when you talk about people being secreted away in the middle of the night without any process, without any analysis, without any evidence, and basically, you know, traverse to another country and then the President of the United States and his administration saying, “Oops, there’s nothing we can do about it.” People get it.
Chris Hayes: Yes, it’s on that last point, it’s interesting because there has been a little bit of a debate, not a huge one, but I think some debate in democratic circles and progressive circles about which issues to emphasize and some saying, you know, immigration is Trump’s strongest issue in the polling, although that number has been coming down, and due process is too abstract. People don’t really care about that. They care about the cost of eggs or, you know, the economic chaos, which I think is true. They do care about the economic chaos and I think that’s probably front of mind.
But, I don’t know. It seems to me that this, the case that’s been made on due process and Abrego Garcia has been relatively successful in the public sphere. We have some measurement of that.
Letitia James: Yes.
Chris Hayes: And it seems to suggest that. Do you ever, like, you’re someone who has an interesting job because your job is to sort of enforce the law, sort of look, watch out for consumers, uphold the law. You’re also elected. So you have to consider politics. Like, do you think that that last thing you said, that like taking someone in the middle of the night to a country they’ve never been to where they’re going to be in prison forever.
Letitia James: Yes.
Chris Hayes: That that’s an issue that quote, unquote, average people can be made to care about.
Letitia James: Well, it was evidenced by the town hall meeting hosted by Senator Grassley.
Chris Hayes: Yes.
Letitia James: In that red district, where individuals were questioning due process for Mr. Garcia.
Chris Hayes: In Iowa, yes.
Letitia James: In Iowa. And I think that illustrates it. And more and more people are asking me about due process and what does that term mean and how does it apply to their lives? And I said it should apply to all of our lives, regardless of, you know, the charge that’s been leveled against you. You should have an opportunity to present and defend yourself against baseless charges. In my case. And in the case of Mr. Garcia, baseless charges against him that he’s a member of El Tren de Aragua.
Chris Hayes: I think they I think they say he’s MS-13.
Letitia James: Oh, MS-13.
Chris Hayes: In his case, he is in the case of Mr. Abrigo Garcia, he is actually Salvadoran and they have alleged that he is MS-13. He is one of a very small group of people in those transports that were actually Salvadoran. The rest were Venezuelan who were alleged to be part of Tren de Aragua.
Letitia James: A member of a gang.
Chris Hayes: So not just a gang. They’ve called him a human trafficker. They’ve called him a terrorist —
Letitia James: Right.
Chris Hayes: — and a gang member.
Chris Hayes: And you can say a lot of things. The question is, can you demonstrate it and or prove it?
Chris Hayes: Right.
Letitia James: And Chris, let me just also say that dealing with the president and Donald Trump and all of his unlawful executive orders, that only takes up so much of my time. The vast majority of my time is focused on consumer rights, making sure that we’re safe, removing fentanyl, removing illegal guns, challenging antitrust mergers, focusing on reproductive rights, environmental rights, focusing on housing rights, protecting tenants, individuals who’ve been victims of deed theft, and workers, worker rights, and standing up for workers each and every day. That’s the vast majority of my time. But every now and then I get pulled away because of some executive order that he’s issued, which does not have the force of law and somehow tramples on our constitution and congressional obligations and moves me into action.
Chris Hayes: New York has had outsized political significance in this era, I think it’s fair to say. The president is from New York, although he has renounced his residency here. He’s now a Florida man, but he’s, obviously, a New Yorker.
Both the House minority leader and the Senate minority leader live in Brooklyn.
Letitia James: Yes.
Chris Hayes: They live just within a few miles of each other. I live near both of them. And you’ve got a very high profile mayor who has had a very high profile relationship with the president. You’ve now a very high profile mayoral race, where the former governor Andrew Cuomo is running. You’ve endorsed someone else. I have seen a lot of people say inside and outside New York, and I’m just going to repeat this without an endorsement, like, why are New York Democrats so dysfunctional? What’s wrong with the New York Democratic Party? Why isn’t it more progressive, as sometimes people say, but sometimes people just say, why does it feel like the same people keep cycling through? Where is the fresh new blood? You’re a prominent New York Democrat. I thought I’d throw that question out to you.
Letitia James: Well, first of all, New York is a power base and everything revolves around New York.
Chris Hayes: Spoken like a true New Yorker.
Letitia James: The center of where it happens.
Chris Hayes: The most obnoxious thing for the other people in the audience, but continue. It’s true to tell.
Letitia James: But, you know, it’s listen, I mean, this you know, this is where things happen. What can I say? I mean, everybody wants to be a New Yorker or pretend they want to be a New Yorker. So I don’t know. I don’t think we’re dysfunctional. It’s just I, too, live within blocks from the majority leader, minority leader in the Senate and in the House. But I do agree with you. We do need fresh blood, which is why we should not look backwards for the mayoral race. If you continue to move forward and continue to look backwards, you’re going to trip. And we cannot trip in this mayoral election.
We cannot elect individuals, obviously, who have, you know, our labor rights in general that have not been supportive of labor rights with regards to women’s rights. Clearly, you know, I was involved in investigating the former governor of who’s now running for the mayor of the city of New York. I was involved in a number of issues. I’m concerned, obviously, about his decision to close mental health facilities, which is partly responsible for the reason why we’ve got so many individuals struggling with mental illness on the streets of New York, New York state, the lack of affordable housing. The list can go on and on and on. And so, that’s why I came out today and endorsed Adrian Adams. I’m not prepared to go backwards. I’m prepared to go forward. New leadership, bold ideas, big ideas, and someone who has served as a speaker of the New York City Council without any drama.
Chris Hayes: If I, I’ll end on this question, which is a little unfair because it’s a prediction. And when people ask me to make predictions, I usually say, I don’t know the future. So, fair enough. If we speak, I’ll leave my cards on the table. I think we’re at a very high leverage moment where there is an attempt to essentially consolidate something that looks like a presidential dictatorship, more similar to the kind of system that they have in, say, Turkey than what we’ve had in the US. I don’t think that that is by any means guaranteed to be successful. In fact, I think it faces lots of obstacles. But I do think it could go either way.
And I guess my question to you is, if we if we were to speak a year from now, are you confident that the rule of law will be stronger and this president weaker in what he’s trying to do with the constitutional order or the same or worse?
Letitia James: I’m confident that the people of this great country and some who might be sleeping right now and not paying attention will wake up. And I am confident that they will take to the streets and raise their voices and push back against those authoritarian impulses and demand that our democracy be restored.
Chris Hayes: Tish James is the attorney general of the state of New York. It’s wonderful having you on the program. Thank you so much.
Letitia James: Thank you, Chris. I appreciate you.
(Music Playing)
Chris Hayes: Once again, my great thanks to New York State Attorney General Letitia James. I want to mention before we go that Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s lawyer has vehemently denied that he was in MS-13, as has his family.
Be sure to check out full WithPod episodes on YouTube by going to MSNBC.com/withpod. You can email us at withpod@gmail.com. You can get in touch with us using the hashtag #withpod. You can follow us on TikTok by searching for Withpod. You can follow me on threads, what used to be called Twitter and Blue Sky with the username Chris L. Hayes.
New episodes come out every Tuesday. Why Is This Happening is presented by MSNBC, produced by Donnie Holloway and Brendan O’Melia, engineered by Bob Mallory, featuring music by Eddie Cooper. Aisha Turner is the executive producer of MSNBC Audio. You can see more of our work, including links to things we mentioned here, by going to MSNBC.com/whyisthishappening.