1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,640 --> 00:00:13,320
Speaker 2: The Trump administration has taken aggressive action against sanctuary cities

3
00:00:13,360 --> 00:00:19,160
Speaker 2: and states, filing lawsuits against Colorado and Denver, Illinois and Chicago,

4
00:00:19,640 --> 00:00:24,079
Speaker 2: Los Angeles, Rochester, New York for New Jersey cities, and

5
00:00:24,320 --> 00:00:27,960
Speaker 2: just last week New York City. The basic contention of

6
00:00:28,000 --> 00:00:32,440
Speaker 2: the lawsuits is that sanctuary cities and states interfere with

7
00:00:32,600 --> 00:00:37,680
Speaker 2: federal immigration enforcement. But on Friday, a federal judge dismissed

8
00:00:37,800 --> 00:00:43,000
Speaker 2: the administration's lawsuit against Illinois and Chicago. Joining me is

9
00:00:43,000 --> 00:00:46,880
Speaker 2: immigration attorney Leon Fresco, a partnered Honda Knight. He was

10
00:00:46,920 --> 00:00:49,960
Speaker 2: the head of the Office of Civil Immigration Litigation during

11
00:00:50,000 --> 00:00:56,320
Speaker 2: the Obama administration. Leon, there's no official definition for sanctuary cities,

12
00:00:56,360 --> 00:00:59,760
Speaker 2: but can you describe what they are?

13
00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:04,520
Speaker 3: Two components of what people talk about when they mentioned

14
00:01:04,520 --> 00:01:10,360
Speaker 3: sanctuary city. So one is the issue of information sharing

15
00:01:11,160 --> 00:01:15,640
Speaker 3: with the federal government. So that is, if a specific

16
00:01:15,760 --> 00:01:21,160
Speaker 3: city or locality or county or state has information about

17
00:01:21,200 --> 00:01:24,679
Speaker 3: someone that's been arrested, the question is should they share

18
00:01:24,760 --> 00:01:29,280
Speaker 3: that information with immigration so that immigration knows that there's

19
00:01:29,319 --> 00:01:32,280
Speaker 3: now someone who's a document that that's been arrested that

20
00:01:32,360 --> 00:01:35,000
Speaker 3: they should try to pick up as part of an

21
00:01:35,319 --> 00:01:39,839
Speaker 3: initiative to pick up people with criminal violations. That's one,

22
00:01:40,319 --> 00:01:45,120
Speaker 3: and then the second is cooperation with administrative warrants or

23
00:01:45,200 --> 00:01:48,800
Speaker 3: what are called detainer requests, which is on the other end,

24
00:01:49,160 --> 00:01:53,920
Speaker 3: when I actually knows that somebody is in custody in

25
00:01:54,040 --> 00:01:58,760
Speaker 3: a city or county jail or a state facility, if

26
00:01:58,800 --> 00:02:02,160
Speaker 3: there's an ordinance that says, well, if ICE issues an

27
00:02:02,200 --> 00:02:05,880
Speaker 3: administrative warrant, which is a warrant that can be issued

28
00:02:06,320 --> 00:02:08,320
Speaker 3: just by an ICE agent, it doesn't have to go

29
00:02:08,400 --> 00:02:12,160
Speaker 3: to a court, does that compel in any way the city,

30
00:02:12,240 --> 00:02:15,880
Speaker 3: the county, or the state to actually comply with that warrant.

31
00:02:16,160 --> 00:02:19,600
Speaker 3: And so what the sanctuary provision say is no, you're

32
00:02:19,639 --> 00:02:22,320
Speaker 3: not compelled to do anything with that. If there's a

33
00:02:22,440 --> 00:02:27,400
Speaker 3: federal judicial warrant, fine, then turn the person over to

34
00:02:28,120 --> 00:02:32,320
Speaker 3: the ICE agent who's showing that federal criminal judicial warrant.

35
00:02:32,560 --> 00:02:37,320
Speaker 3: But otherwise just release them and don't do anything just

36
00:02:37,400 --> 00:02:42,440
Speaker 3: because ICE is commandeering you to perform work on its behalf.

37
00:02:42,600 --> 00:02:45,280
Speaker 3: And so those are the two things that are commonly

38
00:02:45,320 --> 00:02:49,920
Speaker 3: meant by sanctuary cities. It's not really that the city

39
00:02:50,000 --> 00:02:54,480
Speaker 3: itself is in any way sort of creating an amnesty

40
00:02:54,639 --> 00:02:59,760
Speaker 3: that legalizes undocumented people or anything like that within its borders.

41
00:03:00,120 --> 00:03:04,080
Speaker 3: What it's posentially saying is it's not going to do

42
00:03:04,120 --> 00:03:08,680
Speaker 3: anything affirmatively to help the federal government in its mission

43
00:03:08,960 --> 00:03:11,560
Speaker 3: of trying to deport people who are deportable from the

44
00:03:11,639 --> 00:03:12,400
Speaker 3: United States.

45
00:03:12,840 --> 00:03:16,960
Speaker 2: So the Trump administration has been targeting sanctuary cities, which

46
00:03:17,600 --> 00:03:21,800
Speaker 2: are generally democratic cities. I mean, having a sanctuary city

47
00:03:21,840 --> 00:03:24,840
Speaker 2: does that really hold up their immigration efforts.

48
00:03:25,400 --> 00:03:28,079
Speaker 3: So we're not talking legally, we're just talking about as

49
00:03:28,080 --> 00:03:33,280
Speaker 3: a factual matter. Absolutely. ICE would prefer one million times

50
00:03:33,320 --> 00:03:36,720
Speaker 3: out of a million to be given a list every

51
00:03:36,840 --> 00:03:40,720
Speaker 3: day from states and cities and counties across the country.

52
00:03:40,920 --> 00:03:44,320
Speaker 3: Here is a list of people that we've arrested today.

53
00:03:45,000 --> 00:03:47,680
Speaker 3: Go look at all of these people in these lists

54
00:03:48,080 --> 00:03:51,000
Speaker 3: and try to figure out if any of them are undocumented.

55
00:03:51,040 --> 00:03:54,200
Speaker 3: And there are many cities in America, some in Florida,

56
00:03:54,280 --> 00:03:57,200
Speaker 3: I'm in Texas that do this. They provide us every

57
00:03:57,280 --> 00:03:59,800
Speaker 3: day with a list of people that have been arrested.

58
00:04:00,240 --> 00:04:04,120
Speaker 3: And then ICE goes and says, well, out of these

59
00:04:04,240 --> 00:04:07,840
Speaker 3: one hundred people on this list, we care about these fourteen,

60
00:04:08,440 --> 00:04:11,000
Speaker 3: detain them tell us when you're going to release them,

61
00:04:11,560 --> 00:04:15,400
Speaker 3: call us and we'll come pick them up. And because

62
00:04:15,600 --> 00:04:19,840
Speaker 3: that doesn't happen, then those let's say fourteen people out

63
00:04:19,839 --> 00:04:22,480
Speaker 3: of that list from one hundred, ICE has to go

64
00:04:22,600 --> 00:04:25,080
Speaker 3: find them. So it would be much easier for ICE

65
00:04:25,120 --> 00:04:28,599
Speaker 3: if they could just literally be handed that human being

66
00:04:29,040 --> 00:04:32,400
Speaker 3: and put them in an ICE detention vehicle and put

67
00:04:32,440 --> 00:04:35,560
Speaker 3: them in an ICE facility. But with you have a

68
00:04:35,800 --> 00:04:39,839
Speaker 3: law that does not permit that, then those people get

69
00:04:39,880 --> 00:04:42,200
Speaker 3: released and ICE has to catch them again, just like

70
00:04:42,279 --> 00:04:44,760
Speaker 3: if they had never had any information about them in

71
00:04:44,800 --> 00:04:47,680
Speaker 3: the first place. And so as a practical matter, I

72
00:04:47,720 --> 00:04:52,440
Speaker 3: don't think anybody would dispute that it practically makes the

73
00:04:52,600 --> 00:04:57,040
Speaker 3: job of deportation of people with criminal interactions. I can't

74
00:04:57,040 --> 00:04:59,960
Speaker 3: say criminals because some of these folks who get arrested

75
00:05:00,080 --> 00:05:01,840
Speaker 3: that are going to be acquitted. So that's one of

76
00:05:01,880 --> 00:05:04,680
Speaker 3: the other problems is if you say you're deporting a

77
00:05:04,760 --> 00:05:08,920
Speaker 3: criminal non citizen, the issue is, well, are they actually

78
00:05:09,000 --> 00:05:11,880
Speaker 3: criminals in the sense but they actually did something that

79
00:05:11,960 --> 00:05:15,520
Speaker 3: they got convicted for or are they just wrongfully arrested

80
00:05:16,000 --> 00:05:18,000
Speaker 3: of something? And then you know, there's the other argument

81
00:05:18,040 --> 00:05:20,200
Speaker 3: that people make about well, yeah, but they're here illegally,

82
00:05:20,520 --> 00:05:22,800
Speaker 3: so in and of itself, you can call that person

83
00:05:23,040 --> 00:05:26,320
Speaker 3: a criminal. But putting that argument to the side, which

84
00:05:26,360 --> 00:05:30,039
Speaker 3: is a semantic argument that people debate in the political realm,

85
00:05:30,400 --> 00:05:34,760
Speaker 3: the point being that that group, whether you care about

86
00:05:34,800 --> 00:05:37,000
Speaker 3: whether they were convicted or whether you just care that

87
00:05:37,040 --> 00:05:41,280
Speaker 3: they were arrested and people shouldn't be getting arrested anyway,

88
00:05:41,320 --> 00:05:44,719
Speaker 3: whatever you think about that group, it is immensely harder

89
00:05:45,080 --> 00:05:47,479
Speaker 3: to remove anyone in that group in any of the

90
00:05:47,600 --> 00:05:52,400
Speaker 3: iterations if the cities don't give that information and share

91
00:05:52,440 --> 00:05:53,719
Speaker 3: it affirmatively with ICE.

92
00:05:54,880 --> 00:05:58,960
Speaker 2: The administration sued New York City Mayor Rick Adams and

93
00:05:59,040 --> 00:06:03,120
Speaker 2: other officials after the shooting of an off duty Customs

94
00:06:03,120 --> 00:06:06,960
Speaker 2: and Border Protection officer in a Manhattan park a little

95
00:06:06,960 --> 00:06:10,400
Speaker 2: over a week ago. They blamed New York sanctuary city

96
00:06:10,480 --> 00:06:14,799
Speaker 2: policies for the shooting. Here's Homeland Security Secretary Christy nom

97
00:06:14,920 --> 00:06:16,520
Speaker 2: two days after the shooting.

98
00:06:17,120 --> 00:06:19,880
Speaker 1: Make no mistake, this officer is in the hospital today

99
00:06:19,920 --> 00:06:22,680
Speaker 1: fighting for his life because of the policies of the

100
00:06:22,680 --> 00:06:25,039
Speaker 1: mayor of the city and the city council and the

101
00:06:25,080 --> 00:06:27,839
Speaker 1: people that were in charge of keeping the public safe.

102
00:06:28,320 --> 00:06:32,200
Speaker 2: Would the suspects have been in ice custody, if New

103
00:06:32,279 --> 00:06:34,480
Speaker 2: York wasn't a sanctuary.

104
00:06:33,960 --> 00:06:37,960
Speaker 3: City, if according to the lawsuits, one of the two

105
00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:44,719
Speaker 3: people that had been arrested absolutely did interact with eyes

106
00:06:45,080 --> 00:06:48,480
Speaker 3: in the sense that I placed an immigration detainer on

107
00:06:48,480 --> 00:06:51,040
Speaker 3: one of the two people, both who committed the crime

108
00:06:51,400 --> 00:06:54,280
Speaker 3: of the attack on the CDP officer and for Washington Park.

109
00:06:54,560 --> 00:06:57,960
Speaker 3: Both were here illegally, and both were arrested and released

110
00:06:58,000 --> 00:07:01,120
Speaker 3: in New York. But I set actually placed what was

111
00:07:01,200 --> 00:07:04,919
Speaker 3: called an immigration detainer on one of the two individuals,

112
00:07:04,920 --> 00:07:10,480
Speaker 3: meaning they told a New York City jail, please hold

113
00:07:10,520 --> 00:07:12,800
Speaker 3: this person so we can go pick them up and

114
00:07:12,880 --> 00:07:16,360
Speaker 3: tell us when you're gonna release them, and that went unanswered.

115
00:07:16,400 --> 00:07:19,120
Speaker 3: It was like, you know, it's like sending a fax

116
00:07:19,600 --> 00:07:23,400
Speaker 3: into Mars. You know, if you send the facts to Mars,

117
00:07:23,440 --> 00:07:26,960
Speaker 3: nobody is there in Mars andswering that fact. It's the

118
00:07:27,040 --> 00:07:31,920
Speaker 3: same concept here, So that detainer is ignored, and then

119
00:07:32,280 --> 00:07:35,760
Speaker 3: this individual who gets arrested then walks out and they

120
00:07:35,800 --> 00:07:39,640
Speaker 3: commit this crime against the CBP officer for Washington. The

121
00:07:39,840 --> 00:07:43,160
Speaker 3: argument being if this had been a locality like some

122
00:07:43,200 --> 00:07:46,400
Speaker 3: of the ones in Florida or in Texas, for sure

123
00:07:46,440 --> 00:07:49,680
Speaker 3: that ice detainer would have been honored, meaning at least

124
00:07:49,720 --> 00:07:52,800
Speaker 3: one of the two individuals for sure would have been

125
00:07:53,280 --> 00:07:55,480
Speaker 3: arrested and detained and would never have been able to

126
00:07:55,480 --> 00:07:57,880
Speaker 3: commit this crime. But even the second one, who didn't

127
00:07:57,880 --> 00:08:00,720
Speaker 3: have an ICE detainer, had New y York had an

128
00:08:00,880 --> 00:08:05,200
Speaker 3: especially cooperative relationship with ICE, and it would have even

129
00:08:05,200 --> 00:08:09,920
Speaker 3: given this second person the moment they were arrested, affirmatively

130
00:08:10,080 --> 00:08:13,520
Speaker 3: the information to ICE and said, hey, please do us

131
00:08:13,680 --> 00:08:17,480
Speaker 3: a favor and pick up this person because we're really

132
00:08:17,560 --> 00:08:22,160
Speaker 3: trying to enforce the immigration law. And so depending on

133
00:08:22,200 --> 00:08:25,800
Speaker 3: the scenario, either one or both would have been apprehended

134
00:08:25,840 --> 00:08:28,720
Speaker 3: and would not have been free to commit that crime.

135
00:08:29,280 --> 00:08:34,000
Speaker 2: Are all the administration's lawsuits against sanctuary cities and states

136
00:08:34,559 --> 00:08:38,520
Speaker 2: basically making the same arguments based on the supremacy clause.

137
00:08:39,120 --> 00:08:42,840
Speaker 3: They argue basically three different arguments. They say, Number one,

138
00:08:43,600 --> 00:08:49,960
Speaker 3: that there is preemption that the federal immigration law actually

139
00:08:50,559 --> 00:08:57,320
Speaker 3: requires in a sense information sharing between the federal government

140
00:08:57,679 --> 00:09:01,320
Speaker 3: and the state government in the same It's that part

141
00:09:01,520 --> 00:09:06,800
Speaker 3: of the Immigration Code says that states, cities, and counties

142
00:09:06,960 --> 00:09:12,280
Speaker 3: cannot pass any laws that prohibit the sharing of information.

143
00:09:12,480 --> 00:09:16,559
Speaker 3: And here's the key, It says regarding an individual's citizenship

144
00:09:16,720 --> 00:09:20,280
Speaker 3: and immigration status. And so the point is what does

145
00:09:20,320 --> 00:09:24,960
Speaker 3: that mean. Does that mean only that issue, meaning just

146
00:09:25,280 --> 00:09:29,120
Speaker 3: number one, are you a citizen? Are you here legally?

147
00:09:29,360 --> 00:09:32,199
Speaker 3: Or does it mean a bigger basket of information? Are

148
00:09:32,240 --> 00:09:35,120
Speaker 3: you detained? What time are you going to be released?

149
00:09:35,480 --> 00:09:39,120
Speaker 3: Where are you detained, what crime did you commit? Et cetera.

150
00:09:39,280 --> 00:09:41,960
Speaker 3: And so that say debate now, to be fair to

151
00:09:42,040 --> 00:09:44,720
Speaker 3: the states and the cities and the counties, this debate

152
00:09:44,760 --> 00:09:47,640
Speaker 3: has been had in the first Trump administration and now

153
00:09:47,679 --> 00:09:51,160
Speaker 3: in the second one, and so far the Supreme Court

154
00:09:51,160 --> 00:09:54,319
Speaker 3: hasn't weighed in, but every other court that has weighed

155
00:09:54,400 --> 00:09:57,880
Speaker 3: in has said that information is just the very narrow

156
00:09:58,040 --> 00:10:01,280
Speaker 3: is the person here legally or or not? And is

157
00:10:01,320 --> 00:10:04,240
Speaker 3: the person a citizen or not? But has nothing to

158
00:10:04,280 --> 00:10:07,680
Speaker 3: do with this broader basket of information that the federal

159
00:10:07,720 --> 00:10:11,520
Speaker 3: government seeks. But nevertheless, that's one argument. Number one, that

160
00:10:11,559 --> 00:10:13,600
Speaker 3: what the cities and the states and the counties are

161
00:10:13,600 --> 00:10:17,280
Speaker 3: doing is preempted because they have to provide this information.

162
00:10:17,800 --> 00:10:20,920
Speaker 3: And then number two, that it's preempted by the supremacy

163
00:10:20,920 --> 00:10:25,120
Speaker 3: clause because these laws discriminate against the federal government. They

164
00:10:25,120 --> 00:10:27,960
Speaker 3: give worse treatment to the federal government than they do

165
00:10:28,320 --> 00:10:31,560
Speaker 3: against others that might ask for this information. They're specifically

166
00:10:31,920 --> 00:10:36,600
Speaker 3: targeted towards not sharing information with the federal government. And finally,

167
00:10:36,720 --> 00:10:41,319
Speaker 3: they actually implicitly regulate the federal government. That's the final

168
00:10:41,440 --> 00:10:44,680
Speaker 3: argument that has made in these lawsuits, because if you're

169
00:10:44,679 --> 00:10:47,439
Speaker 3: telling the federal government here's how you have to operate

170
00:10:47,920 --> 00:10:51,640
Speaker 3: in a particular location. You have to do this, this,

171
00:10:51,679 --> 00:10:55,480
Speaker 3: and this. In order to get someone from county detention,

172
00:10:55,640 --> 00:10:57,520
Speaker 3: you have to get a federal warrant. You can't get

173
00:10:57,640 --> 00:11:00,880
Speaker 3: a civil warrant, etc. You can't ask for information. You

174
00:11:00,920 --> 00:11:04,160
Speaker 3: have to stand outside the dail and try to catch people,

175
00:11:04,400 --> 00:11:07,360
Speaker 3: or stand outside the courts and try to catch people.

176
00:11:07,960 --> 00:11:11,320
Speaker 3: Then you're regulating the federal government in a way that's

177
00:11:11,360 --> 00:11:13,680
Speaker 3: in permissible. So those are the arguments that the federal

178
00:11:13,720 --> 00:11:16,800
Speaker 3: government has made in these cases. But again, to be

179
00:11:16,880 --> 00:11:20,000
Speaker 3: fair to the states and the localities, they have not

180
00:11:20,440 --> 00:11:25,920
Speaker 3: been successful at any level district or appellate court so

181
00:11:26,040 --> 00:11:28,880
Speaker 3: far in winning any of these cases so far.

182
00:11:29,480 --> 00:11:31,840
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue

183
00:11:31,840 --> 00:11:36,679
Speaker 2: this conversation with Leon Fresco. While Venezuela's Little League team

184
00:11:36,960 --> 00:11:40,200
Speaker 2: was denied visas to take part in the league's Senior

185
00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:44,880
Speaker 2: Baseball World Series in South Carolina. You're listening to Bloomberg.

186
00:11:46,600 --> 00:11:50,280
Speaker 2: The Trump administration has found a series of lawsuits targeting

187
00:11:50,400 --> 00:11:55,320
Speaker 2: state and city policies seen as interfering with immigration enforcement.

188
00:11:55,800 --> 00:11:59,840
Speaker 2: But last Friday, a judge in Illinois dismissed the administration

189
00:12:00,240 --> 00:12:04,640
Speaker 2: lawsuit against Chicago and Illinois. I've been talking to immigration

190
00:12:04,720 --> 00:12:08,400
Speaker 2: attorney Leon Fresco, a partner at Holnden Knight. Leon. The

191
00:12:08,480 --> 00:12:12,160
Speaker 2: judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying the Trump administration didn't have

192
00:12:12,280 --> 00:12:15,520
Speaker 2: standing to bring the suit. Tell us about her ruling.

193
00:12:16,080 --> 00:12:20,160
Speaker 3: Very similar laws in Cook County in Chicago and Illinois

194
00:12:20,400 --> 00:12:22,720
Speaker 3: as the ones we were just talking about in New York.

195
00:12:23,360 --> 00:12:27,600
Speaker 3: And so the defendant Chicago, Illinois, Cook County file a

196
00:12:27,640 --> 00:12:30,679
Speaker 3: motion to dismiss, and they say, at the end of

197
00:12:30,760 --> 00:12:34,440
Speaker 3: the day, you can't sue us because you don't have standing,

198
00:12:34,559 --> 00:12:38,880
Speaker 3: because you're not affected by anything we're doing. If you

199
00:12:39,000 --> 00:12:43,120
Speaker 3: feel that you are affected by something we're doing, it's

200
00:12:43,120 --> 00:12:46,120
Speaker 3: because you're forcing us to do things. And you know

201
00:12:46,240 --> 00:12:50,440
Speaker 3: you can enforce all the immigration law you want in Chicago,

202
00:12:50,720 --> 00:12:53,079
Speaker 3: federal government. That's what the city and the county and

203
00:12:53,120 --> 00:12:55,080
Speaker 3: the state were saying. They're saying, you can enforce all

204
00:12:55,120 --> 00:12:58,600
Speaker 3: the immigration law you want. We don't have officers shooting

205
00:12:58,640 --> 00:13:01,960
Speaker 3: at you while you're trying to enforce immigration law, or

206
00:13:01,960 --> 00:13:05,680
Speaker 3: we don't have officers putting up barricades or hiding people

207
00:13:06,040 --> 00:13:08,520
Speaker 3: or anything else. The problem in these cases is you're

208
00:13:08,559 --> 00:13:11,000
Speaker 3: trying to make us do things that we don't want

209
00:13:11,080 --> 00:13:13,880
Speaker 3: to do, and so you don't have standing to make

210
00:13:14,000 --> 00:13:17,040
Speaker 3: us do things that we don't want to do, because

211
00:13:17,520 --> 00:13:21,679
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court has already held in the famous Prince case,

212
00:13:21,760 --> 00:13:24,480
Speaker 3: and that was a case where when the Brady Law

213
00:13:24,640 --> 00:13:29,000
Speaker 3: was passed that developed the national background check system. Until

214
00:13:29,040 --> 00:13:31,680
Speaker 3: that system was developed, they said for the states and

215
00:13:31,720 --> 00:13:34,679
Speaker 3: the localities they had to do the background checks. And

216
00:13:34,720 --> 00:13:37,680
Speaker 3: then the locality students said, you can't force us to

217
00:13:37,720 --> 00:13:39,960
Speaker 3: do background checks. We don't want to do that. You know,

218
00:13:39,960 --> 00:13:43,480
Speaker 3: there were some localities that didn't believe that constitutionally you

219
00:13:43,520 --> 00:13:47,679
Speaker 3: could have background checks on guns, and so the Supreme

220
00:13:47,679 --> 00:13:50,520
Speaker 3: Court agreed. They said the federal government cannot force states

221
00:13:50,600 --> 00:13:57,079
Speaker 3: and localities it's called anti commandeering into implementing federal regulatory programs.

222
00:13:57,360 --> 00:14:00,560
Speaker 3: And so that same theory that existed in the case

223
00:14:00,679 --> 00:14:03,559
Speaker 3: is being applied in these sanctuary city cases, but again

224
00:14:03,600 --> 00:14:09,640
Speaker 3: in this Chicago case, to say, if you actually are

225
00:14:09,920 --> 00:14:13,920
Speaker 3: saying you have standing because you're being hurt, you're only

226
00:14:13,960 --> 00:14:17,720
Speaker 3: being hurt because the cities aren't enforcing the law in

227
00:14:17,760 --> 00:14:22,040
Speaker 3: the way you want them to. And you can't do that.

228
00:14:22,200 --> 00:14:26,440
Speaker 3: You can't make a city or a county affirmatively do anything.

229
00:14:26,520 --> 00:14:28,760
Speaker 3: They can do what they want as long as they're

230
00:14:28,760 --> 00:14:33,160
Speaker 3: not interfering. And because there was no finding of interference,

231
00:14:33,680 --> 00:14:37,120
Speaker 3: then the idea was there's no standing because you can't

232
00:14:37,160 --> 00:14:40,200
Speaker 3: force them to cooperate. You can only force them to

233
00:14:40,240 --> 00:14:41,160
Speaker 3: not interfere.

234
00:14:41,600 --> 00:14:45,640
Speaker 2: So can we conclude that the lawsuits against other sanctuary

235
00:14:45,760 --> 00:14:49,560
Speaker 2: cities and states will likely go a similar way?

236
00:14:50,120 --> 00:14:52,560
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, unless the Supreme Court wants to announce

237
00:14:52,600 --> 00:14:56,480
Speaker 3: a new doctrine and there is a final sort of

238
00:14:57,040 --> 00:15:00,240
Speaker 3: straw that the government is grasping at, which is to say,

239
00:15:00,840 --> 00:15:05,000
Speaker 3: in the end, we want to distinguish princes from these

240
00:15:05,040 --> 00:15:09,400
Speaker 3: sanctuary city cases to the extent that what we're seeking

241
00:15:09,480 --> 00:15:13,160
Speaker 3: is only information as opposed to the faith or the

242
00:15:13,160 --> 00:15:16,440
Speaker 3: cities doing anything. So, for instance, I don't think the

243
00:15:16,440 --> 00:15:19,440
Speaker 3: federal government will ever be successful in getting the Supreme

244
00:15:19,440 --> 00:15:22,800
Speaker 3: Court to say that a city or a county or

245
00:15:22,840 --> 00:15:27,400
Speaker 3: a state has to affirmatively detain somebody because that's an

246
00:15:27,400 --> 00:15:31,280
Speaker 3: affirmative action. That's similar to prince. But the question is

247
00:15:31,320 --> 00:15:35,920
Speaker 3: on information sharing. Is that going to be something that

248
00:15:36,040 --> 00:15:39,080
Speaker 3: is covered by prince or will they be able to

249
00:15:39,360 --> 00:15:46,080
Speaker 3: achieve an information sharing exception which allows the federal government

250
00:15:46,160 --> 00:15:50,000
Speaker 3: to force states and cities to share information that they

251
00:15:50,080 --> 00:15:53,880
Speaker 3: have with regard to foreign nationals, i e. Where are they,

252
00:15:53,960 --> 00:15:56,560
Speaker 3: where they detained, when are they going to be released?

253
00:15:57,000 --> 00:16:00,640
Speaker 3: And so that is I think the final threat question.

254
00:16:00,720 --> 00:16:03,680
Speaker 3: And I would say, given that the Supreme Court has

255
00:16:03,800 --> 00:16:10,360
Speaker 3: been pretty deferential recently toward Trump's efforts to deport people

256
00:16:10,400 --> 00:16:12,960
Speaker 3: and to enforce the immigration laws, I would say that

257
00:16:12,960 --> 00:16:16,320
Speaker 3: that one is not so crazy to think that the

258
00:16:16,360 --> 00:16:20,720
Speaker 3: Immigration Court might set out an exception for information sharing.

259
00:16:20,760 --> 00:16:22,040
Speaker 3: Wep the wave and see.

260
00:16:22,520 --> 00:16:25,800
Speaker 2: I want to turn to denaturalization, which has been in

261
00:16:25,840 --> 00:16:30,080
Speaker 2: the news a bit lately. Denaturalizing citizens used to be

262
00:16:30,200 --> 00:16:36,200
Speaker 2: reserved for extreme cases like war criminals or national security threats,

263
00:16:36,600 --> 00:16:40,440
Speaker 2: but last month the Department of Justice made it one

264
00:16:40,520 --> 00:16:46,240
Speaker 2: of five enforcement priorities for the agency's Civil Division. First

265
00:16:46,280 --> 00:16:47,800
Speaker 2: of all, who are we talking about.

266
00:16:48,040 --> 00:16:51,480
Speaker 3: We're talking about people who entered the United States did

267
00:16:51,520 --> 00:16:55,040
Speaker 3: everything the right way, got green cards, local permanent residents,

268
00:16:55,240 --> 00:16:58,520
Speaker 3: waited the statutory period past the English and Civics test,

269
00:16:58,760 --> 00:17:00,880
Speaker 3: and are now US. It is so they can vote,

270
00:17:00,920 --> 00:17:05,199
Speaker 3: they can serve on juries, they can apply for security clearances,

271
00:17:05,280 --> 00:17:08,080
Speaker 3: the whole thing. Yes, these are US citizens, just like

272
00:17:08,119 --> 00:17:09,200
Speaker 3: someone who was born here.

273
00:17:10,280 --> 00:17:13,840
Speaker 2: And how difficult is it for the government to denaturalize

274
00:17:13,840 --> 00:17:15,000
Speaker 2: a citizen.

275
00:17:15,560 --> 00:17:18,679
Speaker 3: In federal court? Because when you do a denaturalization, and

276
00:17:18,720 --> 00:17:20,919
Speaker 3: this is where you know, you can issue all the

277
00:17:20,920 --> 00:17:24,199
Speaker 3: press releases you want, but in reality, when you do

278
00:17:24,240 --> 00:17:28,359
Speaker 3: a denaturalization, it is a very resource intensive action. You

279
00:17:28,440 --> 00:17:31,040
Speaker 3: actually have to get the Department of Justice and I

280
00:17:31,119 --> 00:17:35,160
Speaker 3: used to work together on filing an actual federal lawsuit

281
00:17:35,160 --> 00:17:37,679
Speaker 3: against the person, and there actually has to be the

282
00:17:37,720 --> 00:17:40,560
Speaker 3: equivalent of a trial, and you have to go in

283
00:17:40,600 --> 00:17:45,160
Speaker 3: and say that a material misrepresentation was made in either

284
00:17:45,240 --> 00:17:49,600
Speaker 3: the citizenship application or the green card application, such that

285
00:17:49,840 --> 00:17:53,879
Speaker 3: had that material misrepresentation been known at the time, there's

286
00:17:53,880 --> 00:17:57,080
Speaker 3: no way the person would have been approved in their application.

287
00:17:57,400 --> 00:18:01,080
Speaker 3: And so that's the standard, and it's a very high threshold.

288
00:18:01,080 --> 00:18:03,879
Speaker 3: There can't be something like oh, you didn't tell us

289
00:18:03,880 --> 00:18:06,400
Speaker 3: you were in the Elk Club and it turns out

290
00:18:06,880 --> 00:18:08,960
Speaker 3: you were in the Elk Club, or you didn't tell

291
00:18:09,040 --> 00:18:12,800
Speaker 3: us you were in the Five Sigma fraternity, and had

292
00:18:12,840 --> 00:18:15,000
Speaker 3: we known that, we would have approved you. No, no, no,

293
00:18:15,119 --> 00:18:19,399
Speaker 3: it has to be something serious, like cases where people

294
00:18:19,480 --> 00:18:25,399
Speaker 3: either didn't disclose criminal convictions or people didn't disclose certain

295
00:18:25,600 --> 00:18:31,080
Speaker 3: terrorists or national security issues. Then theoretically there is some argument.

296
00:18:31,119 --> 00:18:35,040
Speaker 3: Now the question is is this gonna be expanded out

297
00:18:35,480 --> 00:18:40,199
Speaker 3: to slightly more frivolous groups of people. We're gonna have

298
00:18:40,240 --> 00:18:43,080
Speaker 3: to wait and see. But I don't think at least

299
00:18:43,080 --> 00:18:46,440
Speaker 3: in the short term that's gonna happen, because the Department

300
00:18:46,440 --> 00:18:50,320
Speaker 3: of Justice at the moment is in a very big

301
00:18:50,400 --> 00:18:53,040
Speaker 3: crunt in terms of they've lost a lot of lawyers

302
00:18:53,080 --> 00:18:58,480
Speaker 3: from the department. These cases are very very resource intensive,

303
00:18:58,920 --> 00:19:02,520
Speaker 3: and so to devote lawyers to these cases when the

304
00:19:02,720 --> 00:19:06,000
Speaker 3: facts are not so compelling is not going to be

305
00:19:06,040 --> 00:19:09,439
Speaker 3: a productive use of their resources. But again, in scenarios

306
00:19:09,480 --> 00:19:14,160
Speaker 3: where a criminal conviction was not reported or with fake identities,

307
00:19:14,640 --> 00:19:18,080
Speaker 3: that kind of thing might actually be something where you'd

308
00:19:18,119 --> 00:19:20,680
Speaker 3: want to do this kind of denaturalization action.

309
00:19:21,359 --> 00:19:25,960
Speaker 2: So Trump has raised the prospect of stripping citizenship from

310
00:19:26,119 --> 00:19:31,520
Speaker 2: Elon Musk and New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zoren Mundami.

311
00:19:31,920 --> 00:19:32,640
Speaker 2: Could he do that?

312
00:19:33,560 --> 00:19:35,960
Speaker 3: So you have to go again to the theories of

313
00:19:36,000 --> 00:19:40,399
Speaker 3: these cases, which is that material misrepresentations were made on

314
00:19:40,440 --> 00:19:44,320
Speaker 3: either the green card or the citizenship cases. So on

315
00:19:44,400 --> 00:19:47,240
Speaker 3: the green card and citizenship cases, the ones that have

316
00:19:47,280 --> 00:19:49,359
Speaker 3: been made, I have no opinion, nor am I making

317
00:19:49,400 --> 00:19:51,000
Speaker 3: any allegations against anyone.

318
00:19:51,160 --> 00:19:52,280
Speaker 2: I want it against you.

319
00:19:52,480 --> 00:19:55,880
Speaker 3: But allegations that have been made are that Elon must

320
00:19:56,200 --> 00:19:59,440
Speaker 3: reportedly engaged in unauthorized work while he was on a

321
00:19:59,480 --> 00:20:02,560
Speaker 3: student in the United States, which if he did, would

322
00:20:02,600 --> 00:20:05,440
Speaker 3: have been a violation of his student visa, which if

323
00:20:05,480 --> 00:20:07,960
Speaker 3: he did. When he was asked a question on his

324
00:20:08,040 --> 00:20:11,399
Speaker 3: Green card and his citizenship applications, have you ever violated

325
00:20:11,480 --> 00:20:14,240
Speaker 3: the terms of any visa you've held that he answered no,

326
00:20:14,880 --> 00:20:17,879
Speaker 3: that would have been a dishonest answer, and then thus

327
00:20:18,040 --> 00:20:21,240
Speaker 3: you can the naturalize them that would be his. The

328
00:20:21,320 --> 00:20:25,200
Speaker 3: Mamdani one would be even more complicated because his would

329
00:20:25,240 --> 00:20:29,840
Speaker 3: be based off of memberships in certain organizations that they

330
00:20:29,880 --> 00:20:34,840
Speaker 3: would claim, Hey, this guy was cohorting with terrorist type

331
00:20:34,840 --> 00:20:39,040
Speaker 3: people and he did disclose this in his application, and

332
00:20:39,160 --> 00:20:42,359
Speaker 3: so it's similar to the Moot Khalil type of situation.

333
00:20:43,160 --> 00:20:46,040
Speaker 3: And even though my Mood Khalils is easier because he's

334
00:20:46,119 --> 00:20:49,240
Speaker 3: just a Green card holder, but it's the same concept

335
00:20:49,280 --> 00:20:51,280
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, which is, did you

336
00:20:51,440 --> 00:20:57,440
Speaker 3: fail to disclose the kinds of affiliations that you had

337
00:20:57,560 --> 00:21:00,680
Speaker 3: with entities that had you disclosed them, we would never

338
00:21:00,760 --> 00:21:03,720
Speaker 3: have approved your Green card. And so I think that

339
00:21:03,760 --> 00:21:06,399
Speaker 3: one will be much more challenging because I don't know

340
00:21:06,440 --> 00:21:10,040
Speaker 3: if there are any such organizations. I'm not aware of any,

341
00:21:10,080 --> 00:21:12,320
Speaker 3: but who knows, you know. And then the final case

342
00:21:12,359 --> 00:21:14,879
Speaker 3: that's been brought up is Rosi o'donalds. She was born

343
00:21:14,920 --> 00:21:17,920
Speaker 3: in the United States, so for her they would actually

344
00:21:18,000 --> 00:21:22,480
Speaker 3: have to find that she committed one of the expropriating acts,

345
00:21:22,880 --> 00:21:25,320
Speaker 3: which there's only a few of them, which is that

346
00:21:25,400 --> 00:21:27,600
Speaker 3: you either go to a US embassy and say hey,

347
00:21:27,680 --> 00:21:30,000
Speaker 3: I don't want to be a citizen anymore, that's the

348
00:21:30,040 --> 00:21:33,119
Speaker 3: main one, or you take up arms against the US

349
00:21:33,160 --> 00:21:35,960
Speaker 3: and a war. But she hasn't done any of that,

350
00:21:36,160 --> 00:21:40,080
Speaker 3: so there is no provision in the law I'm aware

351
00:21:40,119 --> 00:21:43,680
Speaker 3: of where Rosie o'donald's citizenship could be taken away. From

352
00:21:43,680 --> 00:21:44,919
Speaker 3: that perspective, I think.

353
00:21:44,840 --> 00:21:48,760
Speaker 2: She says, let's transition yet again, because there are so

354
00:21:48,760 --> 00:21:53,080
Speaker 2: many immigration topics in the news. Venezuela's Little League team

355
00:21:53,200 --> 00:21:56,399
Speaker 2: made it to the Senior Baseball World Series, which is

356
00:21:56,480 --> 00:22:00,879
Speaker 2: being held in South Carolina, as it always is, but

357
00:22:00,960 --> 00:22:05,159
Speaker 2: they can't make the competition because the US refused to

358
00:22:05,400 --> 00:22:06,680
Speaker 2: give them visas.

359
00:22:07,119 --> 00:22:09,160
Speaker 3: Every year there's a thing called the Little League World

360
00:22:09,200 --> 00:22:12,120
Speaker 3: Series and they put it on TV, and each year

361
00:22:12,160 --> 00:22:14,639
Speaker 3: there's more and more coverage. There used to be only coverage.

362
00:22:14,680 --> 00:22:16,520
Speaker 3: When I was a young kid, there was this coverage

363
00:22:16,520 --> 00:22:19,160
Speaker 3: of maybe like the final game or two. Now they

364
00:22:19,200 --> 00:22:21,920
Speaker 3: show the whole tournament, two, three, four weeks. I bet

365
00:22:21,920 --> 00:22:23,239
Speaker 3: there's even gambling on it.

366
00:22:23,280 --> 00:22:25,680
Speaker 2: Now. No, there's gambling on everything.

367
00:22:25,760 --> 00:22:28,719
Speaker 3: So probably yes, correct. And so the point is that

368
00:22:28,840 --> 00:22:32,359
Speaker 3: Venezuela qualified. One of the Little League teams from Venezuela

369
00:22:32,480 --> 00:22:35,359
Speaker 3: qualified to be in the Little League World Series. They

370
00:22:35,359 --> 00:22:38,960
Speaker 3: were the winner of their tournament. And because of the

371
00:22:39,040 --> 00:22:43,040
Speaker 3: travel band that was implemented several weeks ago that said

372
00:22:43,080 --> 00:22:46,200
Speaker 3: that Venezuelans who were trying to come on non immigrant visas,

373
00:22:46,240 --> 00:22:50,159
Speaker 3: meaning visas that were not visas for immigrating into the

374
00:22:50,240 --> 00:22:53,639
Speaker 3: United States like tourists visas which would be the visas

375
00:22:53,640 --> 00:22:56,680
Speaker 3: these kids would come in under. Can't comment United States

376
00:22:56,680 --> 00:23:00,560
Speaker 3: their band. Now that travel band did have a exception,

377
00:23:00,800 --> 00:23:04,080
Speaker 3: A literally had one for like the World Cup itself,

378
00:23:04,480 --> 00:23:06,719
Speaker 3: because I think they understand that. For instance, I think

379
00:23:06,760 --> 00:23:09,119
Speaker 3: I ran as qualified for the World Cup, and so

380
00:23:09,240 --> 00:23:11,000
Speaker 3: that one would be very tough if you don't let

381
00:23:11,040 --> 00:23:14,480
Speaker 3: them in for the World Cup. But secondly, you know,

382
00:23:14,880 --> 00:23:17,960
Speaker 3: for other things that are in the national interest. So

383
00:23:18,040 --> 00:23:20,640
Speaker 3: the Venezuelan kids applied for visa and they were denied,

384
00:23:21,359 --> 00:23:24,280
Speaker 3: and that was just it. They were not given a

385
00:23:24,359 --> 00:23:26,840
Speaker 3: chance to get one of these waivers. And so from

386
00:23:26,840 --> 00:23:29,800
Speaker 3: my perspective, I don't know if this perspective is shared

387
00:23:30,280 --> 00:23:32,879
Speaker 3: by others in the United States, But even when we

388
00:23:33,000 --> 00:23:37,000
Speaker 3: had the height of the Cold War with Russia, a

389
00:23:37,080 --> 00:23:40,240
Speaker 3: nuclear power who was intent on killing us and wiping

390
00:23:40,320 --> 00:23:42,440
Speaker 3: us off the face of the match, we still let

391
00:23:42,480 --> 00:23:45,439
Speaker 3: the balls showy ballet perform in New York and we

392
00:23:45,560 --> 00:23:49,320
Speaker 3: just ban them from the United States. And so somehow

393
00:23:49,320 --> 00:23:51,920
Speaker 3: we made it through the Cold War. I think we'd

394
00:23:51,960 --> 00:23:54,080
Speaker 3: be able to make it through whatever this period is

395
00:23:54,080 --> 00:23:57,640
Speaker 3: by letting some little kids play baseball. But call me crazy.

396
00:23:58,240 --> 00:24:00,919
Speaker 2: So there are these exceptions, but do you think that

397
00:24:01,040 --> 00:24:04,200
Speaker 2: fewer people will come to the United States to attend

398
00:24:04,240 --> 00:24:07,760
Speaker 2: the events because of fears of the travel ban or

399
00:24:07,960 --> 00:24:08,960
Speaker 2: other restrictions.

400
00:24:09,760 --> 00:24:12,359
Speaker 3: Absolutely. I mean we already saw that with the Club

401
00:24:12,400 --> 00:24:16,560
Speaker 3: World Cup, where we had a number of stadiums that

402
00:24:16,600 --> 00:24:20,399
Speaker 3: were quite empty in cases where you would normally have

403
00:24:20,520 --> 00:24:23,240
Speaker 3: expected the stadiums to have many more people because people

404
00:24:23,640 --> 00:24:26,480
Speaker 3: would have been having summer travel to come visit their

405
00:24:26,520 --> 00:24:29,720
Speaker 3: teams from all over the world. And there was concern

406
00:24:30,240 --> 00:24:33,720
Speaker 3: that I heard, both specifically from actual human beings, but

407
00:24:33,760 --> 00:24:37,639
Speaker 3: also that were reported by news outlets. But you know,

408
00:24:37,720 --> 00:24:41,240
Speaker 3: I just corroborated with my individual clients who said, we're

409
00:24:41,240 --> 00:24:43,440
Speaker 3: not going to come in because we're afraid that something

410
00:24:43,480 --> 00:24:45,679
Speaker 3: will happen to us if we try to enter the

411
00:24:45,800 --> 00:24:48,879
Speaker 3: United States. I mean, it is a fear that is

412
00:24:48,880 --> 00:24:52,200
Speaker 3: not justified. Just to be clear, if one looks at

413
00:24:52,200 --> 00:24:56,080
Speaker 3: this from a statistical level and says, what is the

414
00:24:56,119 --> 00:24:59,119
Speaker 3: actual chance of something bad happening to me if I

415
00:24:59,160 --> 00:25:03,560
Speaker 3: come to visit some of these events. But nevertheless, because

416
00:25:03,640 --> 00:25:07,119
Speaker 3: of various media coverage and other things, that's happening, and

417
00:25:07,160 --> 00:25:09,439
Speaker 3: I think the administration needs to be doing more to

418
00:25:09,520 --> 00:25:13,919
Speaker 3: assuade these concerns. But because that's not happening, then you

419
00:25:14,040 --> 00:25:17,440
Speaker 3: have these situations where people aren't coming to attend these events.

420
00:25:17,480 --> 00:25:19,199
Speaker 3: And I don't know what effects it's going to have

421
00:25:19,520 --> 00:25:21,320
Speaker 3: on the World Cup next year. We're gonna have to

422
00:25:21,359 --> 00:25:23,439
Speaker 3: wait and see, but it would be a shame if

423
00:25:23,480 --> 00:25:26,479
Speaker 3: any of those stadiums were empty, because I think the

424
00:25:26,520 --> 00:25:30,040
Speaker 3: President himself wants to see a great World Cup. He's

425
00:25:30,160 --> 00:25:33,520
Speaker 3: very interested in the event. You know, he attends and

426
00:25:33,560 --> 00:25:37,840
Speaker 3: holds the trophy and everything, and so from that perspective,

427
00:25:38,160 --> 00:25:40,199
Speaker 3: I would hope that the administration would do what it

428
00:25:40,240 --> 00:25:43,960
Speaker 3: can to facilitate sports in the United States. And so

429
00:25:44,400 --> 00:25:49,560
Speaker 3: I'm hopeful that they will see the error here and

430
00:25:49,720 --> 00:25:52,960
Speaker 3: let the Venezuelan kids come in, because again, I just

431
00:25:53,000 --> 00:25:56,400
Speaker 3: don't see the security concern here of letting those kids

432
00:25:56,440 --> 00:25:58,199
Speaker 3: come in and play baseball for two weeks.

433
00:25:58,520 --> 00:26:02,200
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Leon. That's Leon Fresco of Honda Knight.

434
00:26:02,680 --> 00:26:06,640
Speaker 2: Coming up next, the conservative activist who wants to widen

435
00:26:06,760 --> 00:26:14,560
Speaker 2: Trump's crusade against colleges. You're listening to Bloomberg. Columbia University

436
00:26:14,720 --> 00:26:18,680
Speaker 2: reached a landmark deal with the Trump administration to restore

437
00:26:18,800 --> 00:26:22,280
Speaker 2: federal funding for research the Ivy League school will pay

438
00:26:22,320 --> 00:26:26,000
Speaker 2: a two hundred million dollar penalty over three years, and

439
00:26:26,080 --> 00:26:30,560
Speaker 2: made other commitments intended to increase transparency and compliance with

440
00:26:30,680 --> 00:26:35,480
Speaker 2: federal civil rights laws. Christopher Rufo is a conservative activist

441
00:26:35,680 --> 00:26:39,359
Speaker 2: who's been influential in the White House's efforts to reshape

442
00:26:39,440 --> 00:26:43,679
Speaker 2: higher education, and he now wants to expand that campaign.

443
00:26:43,960 --> 00:26:46,960
Speaker 2: Joining me is Bloomberg education reporter Liam Knox, who has

444
00:26:47,000 --> 00:26:50,159
Speaker 2: written about Rufo. So Liam start by telling us a

445
00:26:50,200 --> 00:26:51,840
Speaker 2: little about Christopher Rufo.

446
00:26:52,320 --> 00:27:00,640
Speaker 4: Christopher Rufo is a fairly influential conservative activist policy designer.

447
00:27:00,720 --> 00:27:05,440
Speaker 4: He's been very influential than Trump administration's education agenda. He's

448
00:27:05,480 --> 00:27:10,240
Speaker 4: been an influential, in fact, in the conservative movement's intensified

449
00:27:10,320 --> 00:27:13,679
Speaker 4: focus on education and higher education in particular for the

450
00:27:13,680 --> 00:27:17,600
Speaker 4: past few years. He kind of rose to prominence in Florida.

451
00:27:17,640 --> 00:27:22,080
Speaker 4: A couple of years ago he helped design Governor Ronda Santis'

452
00:27:22,440 --> 00:27:25,320
Speaker 4: Don't Say Gay campaign. If you remember that was a

453
00:27:25,880 --> 00:27:29,520
Speaker 4: core architect of the anti Dei movement years ago. This

454
00:27:29,600 --> 00:27:33,320
Speaker 4: position of various conservative think tanks, including the Manhattan Institute

455
00:27:33,320 --> 00:27:36,800
Speaker 4: where he still works, and Rond de Stantists actually appointed

456
00:27:36,880 --> 00:27:40,080
Speaker 4: him to the board of the new College, which was

457
00:27:40,119 --> 00:27:43,920
Speaker 4: a Florida institution where that was basically the proving ground

458
00:27:44,359 --> 00:27:46,479
Speaker 4: in Florida for a lot of what has now become

459
00:27:46,760 --> 00:27:52,119
Speaker 4: the Trump administration's nationwide campaign to reshape higher education and

460
00:27:52,200 --> 00:27:54,879
Speaker 4: reform higher education along their own minds.

461
00:27:55,320 --> 00:27:59,440
Speaker 2: So will you explain is the effort to reform higher education?

462
00:27:59,640 --> 00:28:04,560
Speaker 2: Is it mainly an effort against DEI or an effort

463
00:28:04,600 --> 00:28:08,000
Speaker 2: against so called wokeness in higher education, or is it

464
00:28:08,040 --> 00:28:11,400
Speaker 2: about combating anti semitism on campuses.

465
00:28:12,240 --> 00:28:14,240
Speaker 4: The answer is it's all of the above, and the

466
00:28:14,280 --> 00:28:17,520
Speaker 4: focus has shifted as the news cycles have shifted. Back

467
00:28:17,560 --> 00:28:20,600
Speaker 4: in February and March, when the negotiations the terms of

468
00:28:20,640 --> 00:28:23,480
Speaker 4: negotiation were being set with some of these universities, primarily

469
00:28:23,680 --> 00:28:27,680
Speaker 4: first and foremost Columbia University, the focus really was campus

470
00:28:27,720 --> 00:28:31,400
Speaker 4: anti semitism. Claims that these universities had fostered or enabled

471
00:28:31,680 --> 00:28:35,400
Speaker 4: kind of anti Semitic harassment on campus during the encampment

472
00:28:35,400 --> 00:28:39,080
Speaker 4: protest movements. But it's grown significantly since then. And you

473
00:28:39,160 --> 00:28:41,200
Speaker 4: see that actually even in the terms of the Columbia

474
00:28:41,240 --> 00:28:45,640
Speaker 4: settlement that came out last week, they included anti DEI measures,

475
00:28:45,680 --> 00:28:49,360
Speaker 4: you know, a commitment not to discriminate based on race

476
00:28:49,800 --> 00:28:54,239
Speaker 4: or sex in various programs, commitment to be transparent in

477
00:28:54,600 --> 00:28:58,840
Speaker 4: releasing data around race and merit and admissions. It included

478
00:28:59,320 --> 00:29:03,400
Speaker 4: a lot of stipulations around international student enrollment, which the

479
00:29:03,400 --> 00:29:07,120
Speaker 4: Trump Administration's agenda has sort of encompassed as well, and

480
00:29:07,200 --> 00:29:10,880
Speaker 4: Higher ed with their campaigns to provoke student fisas and

481
00:29:11,160 --> 00:29:15,880
Speaker 4: curtail international enrollment at American universities. So it's a wide

482
00:29:16,000 --> 00:29:22,720
Speaker 4: ranging campaign that the administration is waging in the higher sphere,

483
00:29:23,080 --> 00:29:26,080
Speaker 4: and you know that has kind of always been true.

484
00:29:26,520 --> 00:29:30,200
Speaker 4: But in terms of where they're headed next, I think

485
00:29:30,200 --> 00:29:32,560
Speaker 4: it's just, you know, one of the things that are

486
00:29:32,600 --> 00:29:35,400
Speaker 4: reporting on this story with RUFO and folks in the

487
00:29:35,520 --> 00:29:39,400
Speaker 4: Education Department whose ear he has show that it's only

488
00:29:39,640 --> 00:29:40,960
Speaker 4: set to expand even.

489
00:29:40,800 --> 00:29:44,960
Speaker 2: Wider, and expand even wider, meaning expand the number of

490
00:29:45,040 --> 00:29:48,160
Speaker 2: schools that they're going to target with the loss of

491
00:29:48,240 --> 00:29:53,360
Speaker 2: federal funding, or expand what they're asking from the schools.

492
00:29:54,040 --> 00:29:56,880
Speaker 4: I think in the number of schools. The main finding

493
00:29:56,920 --> 00:29:59,880
Speaker 4: here is that, yes, the administration of the White House,

494
00:30:00,080 --> 00:30:03,120
Speaker 4: the Education Department, a number of other agencies helping human

495
00:30:03,240 --> 00:30:07,880
Speaker 4: services agencies that control federal funding for research, federal financial

496
00:30:07,920 --> 00:30:10,840
Speaker 4: aid funding, things like that. That is the main lever

497
00:30:11,200 --> 00:30:15,000
Speaker 4: kind of power that they've been using against civic institutions

498
00:30:15,080 --> 00:30:17,880
Speaker 4: that they're investigating or that they are bringing to the

499
00:30:17,880 --> 00:30:21,560
Speaker 4: negotiating table around federal funding freezes like Columbia, like Harvard.

500
00:30:21,680 --> 00:30:24,640
Speaker 4: But you know, those are just a handful of institutions

501
00:30:24,680 --> 00:30:28,720
Speaker 4: which serve a very comparatively small number of students across

502
00:30:28,760 --> 00:30:31,920
Speaker 4: the country. What Ruffo told us basically was that he'd

503
00:30:32,000 --> 00:30:35,080
Speaker 4: had some at least some level of interest from the

504
00:30:35,280 --> 00:30:38,920
Speaker 4: Education Department, from the White House in a broader plan

505
00:30:39,080 --> 00:30:41,520
Speaker 4: to not necessarily threaten every school with the loss of

506
00:30:41,560 --> 00:30:44,960
Speaker 4: federal funding, but to attach terms similar to those we

507
00:30:45,000 --> 00:30:49,040
Speaker 4: saw Columbia except last week into basically bake them into

508
00:30:49,040 --> 00:30:53,800
Speaker 4: federal contracts in research grants, you know, in kind of

509
00:30:53,920 --> 00:30:58,120
Speaker 4: Title Title six compliance that's basically civil rights low anti

510
00:30:58,200 --> 00:31:00,960
Speaker 4: discrimination law. That's another big level that they've been using,

511
00:31:01,440 --> 00:31:05,640
Speaker 4: and a slew of Department of Justice investigations around that lately.

512
00:31:05,760 --> 00:31:10,400
Speaker 4: Just today they launched another into Duke University. But you know,

513
00:31:10,440 --> 00:31:13,320
Speaker 4: basically right now, they've been doing this piecemeal, you know,

514
00:31:13,720 --> 00:31:16,600
Speaker 4: targeting you know, a few elite institutions here and there,

515
00:31:16,600 --> 00:31:19,800
Speaker 4: targeting a few dozen in some of these big batches

516
00:31:19,840 --> 00:31:23,320
Speaker 4: of civil rights investigations. The most wide ranging effects have

517
00:31:23,360 --> 00:31:28,120
Speaker 4: been felt in the elimination or the freezing of research funds,

518
00:31:28,640 --> 00:31:32,200
Speaker 4: because you know, those aren't always targeted at specific universities.

519
00:31:32,480 --> 00:31:34,600
Speaker 4: There's also been just kind of a lot of spending

520
00:31:34,640 --> 00:31:37,959
Speaker 4: cuts in that area. Rufo's plan would basically be a

521
00:31:38,000 --> 00:31:42,360
Speaker 4: blanket policy for federal funding for all universities, and there's

522
00:31:42,720 --> 00:31:45,400
Speaker 4: really very few universities that don't take federal funding in

523
00:31:45,440 --> 00:31:47,520
Speaker 4: some form or another, and so would have a near

524
00:31:47,640 --> 00:31:50,000
Speaker 4: universal impact on higher education.

525
00:31:50,440 --> 00:31:54,280
Speaker 2: He's pushing this idea. Has the administration in any sense

526
00:31:54,320 --> 00:31:56,120
Speaker 2: been receptive.

527
00:31:55,520 --> 00:31:57,960
Speaker 4: To this, it's my understanding that they have. I mean,

528
00:31:58,080 --> 00:32:02,440
Speaker 4: it's actually public that least the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon,

529
00:32:02,520 --> 00:32:05,360
Speaker 4: is supportive of it in spirit. She tweeted or posted

530
00:32:05,440 --> 00:32:08,200
Speaker 4: on x her support for Rufo's plan, calling it a

531
00:32:08,240 --> 00:32:11,760
Speaker 4: compelling road map basically to bring in this campaign wider

532
00:32:12,040 --> 00:32:14,960
Speaker 4: to other campuses across the country. And Rufo himself told

533
00:32:15,000 --> 00:32:19,360
Speaker 4: us that he had circulated the plan among political appointees

534
00:32:19,400 --> 00:32:22,440
Speaker 4: and senior officials in the White House at the Education Department,

535
00:32:23,080 --> 00:32:25,080
Speaker 4: that some of them had even helped him draft parts

536
00:32:25,120 --> 00:32:28,880
Speaker 4: of the plan of the strategy, and so it's certainly

537
00:32:28,880 --> 00:32:31,080
Speaker 4: not out of the questions to see this becoming policy soon.

538
00:32:31,760 --> 00:32:34,480
Speaker 4: When I spoke to the Education Department about it, they

539
00:32:34,920 --> 00:32:39,000
Speaker 4: basically said that there no implementation in the works, but

540
00:32:39,840 --> 00:32:43,080
Speaker 4: did not deny that it is a possibility in the future.

541
00:32:43,400 --> 00:32:45,760
Speaker 4: The one other piece that is not in the formal

542
00:32:45,800 --> 00:32:48,160
Speaker 4: plan that RUFO spoke with us about is kind of

543
00:32:48,160 --> 00:32:52,080
Speaker 4: bringing the accreditors into the next here. That's a strategy

544
00:32:52,360 --> 00:32:57,240
Speaker 4: using a college accreditation which are basically very influential but

545
00:32:57,400 --> 00:33:02,000
Speaker 4: largely at least until recently, lying under the radar. Organizations

546
00:33:02,080 --> 00:33:07,640
Speaker 4: that approve universities to receive federal financial aid, uphold standards

547
00:33:07,640 --> 00:33:12,120
Speaker 4: of educational quality, make sure that they're financially sound, these institutions,

548
00:33:12,160 --> 00:33:15,080
Speaker 4: make sure they're not breaking federal civil rights law. These

549
00:33:15,120 --> 00:33:18,440
Speaker 4: are organizations that just recently that you know, the Trump

550
00:33:18,440 --> 00:33:22,680
Speaker 4: administration is kind of bringing into its larger campaign against HIRET.

551
00:33:22,720 --> 00:33:26,520
Speaker 4: They used it against Columbia. There's a lot of talk

552
00:33:26,560 --> 00:33:29,720
Speaker 4: about what how that that's another lever another arrow in

553
00:33:29,760 --> 00:33:33,200
Speaker 4: the quiver of the administration in their bigger campaign here,

554
00:33:33,800 --> 00:33:36,920
Speaker 4: and that would be extremely universal and that you know,

555
00:33:36,960 --> 00:33:39,840
Speaker 4: that's something that the Education Department has that folks in

556
00:33:39,880 --> 00:33:43,760
Speaker 4: the Education Department have discussed and explored before. So you know,

557
00:33:43,960 --> 00:33:45,840
Speaker 4: I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility,

558
00:33:45,880 --> 00:33:48,040
Speaker 4: and it would be enormously impactful.

559
00:33:48,680 --> 00:33:53,080
Speaker 2: Rufo went to Georgetown and Harvard. Why did he develop

560
00:33:53,200 --> 00:33:57,200
Speaker 2: this antipathy? Especially, I guess to Harvard.

561
00:33:57,880 --> 00:34:00,480
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, it's it's interesting. He didn't actually go

562
00:34:00,520 --> 00:34:03,400
Speaker 4: to Harvard University. He went to the Harvard Extension School,

563
00:34:03,440 --> 00:34:06,240
Speaker 4: as is not really a part of the university. They

564
00:34:06,240 --> 00:34:09,600
Speaker 4: offer university degrees, but they don't really reject anyone, but

565
00:34:09,800 --> 00:34:12,879
Speaker 4: basically you pay for a program. You know, a lot

566
00:34:12,880 --> 00:34:17,280
Speaker 4: of adults take this just because they're interested in auditing

567
00:34:17,360 --> 00:34:20,200
Speaker 4: classes at Harvard. So he doesn't actually have any really

568
00:34:20,360 --> 00:34:22,719
Speaker 4: direct ties to the university. But he does talk about

569
00:34:22,760 --> 00:34:25,040
Speaker 4: his experience as kind of being like a come to

570
00:34:25,120 --> 00:34:29,480
Speaker 4: light moment where he became disillusioned with the way that

571
00:34:29,760 --> 00:34:35,400
Speaker 4: faculty at elite universities teach, with the focus he believes

572
00:34:35,440 --> 00:34:39,759
Speaker 4: on overly liberal political influence. So I think, you know,

573
00:34:39,800 --> 00:34:43,160
Speaker 4: that's all part of his ideological journey. He didn't speak

574
00:34:43,160 --> 00:34:45,319
Speaker 4: that much about it in his interview with Bloomberg, but

575
00:34:45,400 --> 00:34:47,960
Speaker 4: you raise a good point It's not just Chris Ruffo

576
00:34:48,000 --> 00:34:51,680
Speaker 4: who attended elite institutions, it's most of the members of

577
00:34:51,680 --> 00:34:53,840
Speaker 4: the Trump administration who are making this policy.

578
00:34:54,000 --> 00:34:57,560
Speaker 2: Do they acknowledge that if the next president comes in

579
00:34:57,800 --> 00:35:02,200
Speaker 2: and it's a Democrat president too is so called woke

580
00:35:02,400 --> 00:35:05,799
Speaker 2: and is in favor of DEI, that these policies could

581
00:35:05,840 --> 00:35:06,640
Speaker 2: all be changed.

582
00:35:06,719 --> 00:35:09,880
Speaker 4: Right, They certainly could be. That's not really part of

583
00:35:09,880 --> 00:35:12,040
Speaker 4: the discussion. I mean, I think we're really still in

584
00:35:12,040 --> 00:35:14,440
Speaker 4: the honeymoon phase here. It's only been about six months

585
00:35:14,520 --> 00:35:17,960
Speaker 4: or so of the Trump administration. There's a lot more runway.

586
00:35:18,480 --> 00:35:21,080
Speaker 4: The folks at the Education Department at the White House,

587
00:35:21,120 --> 00:35:25,320
Speaker 4: who are responsible for education policy, have been very aggressive

588
00:35:25,400 --> 00:35:28,239
Speaker 4: in pursuing it thus far. I think they see quite

589
00:35:28,280 --> 00:35:30,880
Speaker 4: a lot more room to do that, and you know,

590
00:35:31,000 --> 00:35:33,719
Speaker 4: aren't really thinking about an endpoint here, you know. I

591
00:35:33,719 --> 00:35:36,120
Speaker 4: think that one of the things Rufo discussed was that

592
00:35:36,200 --> 00:35:39,120
Speaker 4: he feels that the Trump administration's agenda on high ED

593
00:35:39,200 --> 00:35:43,640
Speaker 4: has a popular mandate, an electoral mandate, that DEI is unpopular,

594
00:35:43,960 --> 00:35:47,560
Speaker 4: that other things that universities culture there you are unpopular,

595
00:35:47,640 --> 00:35:50,320
Speaker 4: and that reshaping it is something that has popular support.

596
00:35:50,719 --> 00:35:53,560
Speaker 4: You know. I guess we'll see if that continues to

597
00:35:53,560 --> 00:35:56,319
Speaker 4: be true, you know, but that's I think that's the

598
00:35:56,480 --> 00:35:59,400
Speaker 4: perspective from which these policy makers are approaching.

599
00:36:00,640 --> 00:36:05,239
Speaker 2: Talks are underway with Cornell, Northwestern and Brown to reinstate

600
00:36:05,360 --> 00:36:09,800
Speaker 2: previously frozen funds, so we'll see what happens there. Thanks

601
00:36:09,800 --> 00:36:14,759
Speaker 2: so much, Liam. That's Bloomberg Education reporter Liam Knox, and

602
00:36:14,800 --> 00:36:16,959
Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

603
00:36:17,320 --> 00:36:19,640
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

604
00:36:19,719 --> 00:36:24,000
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

605
00:36:24,160 --> 00:36:29,200
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

606
00:36:29,600 --> 00:36:32,200
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

607
00:36:32,239 --> 00:36:36,160
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

608
00:36:36,280 --> 00:36:37,880
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg