scientific research as well as immigration enforcement.

>> i would like to ask everyone to take a seat. i want to recognize and thank my colleagues from the house for joining us. with the ranking member congressman raskin and several members of the committee we will introduce as we start. we have some senators on their way. some are promising to introduce our witnesses so we would hope they arrive in a timely fashion we are going to start to make opening statements and take it from there right? good. this meeting will come to order thank you ranking member raskin for cochairing the spotlight form with me. our countries currently facing several catastrophic challenges that the trump administration is ignoring or estimating in favor of fermenting a domestic

political crisis through the lawless and cruel directives. an unfortunate congressional republicans have chosen to ignore this. the last two weeks alone have graphically illustrated this, president trump ordered an unprecedented deployment of the u.s. military in los angeles and federal agents shoved and handcuffed our colleague senator padilla while he was trying to get answers to these abuses. days later a horrific political assassination occurred in minnesota. about the house and senate judiciary sheet here without delay from attorney general bondi and fbi director patel about what they are doing to address the unacceptable level of political violence in our country. we need to hear from the homeland security secretary noem about the treatment of senator padilla. we all saw it. this administration's mass deportation campaign has a lot of questions as well. but instead of focusing on the

problem at hand are republican counterparts are insulating the administration from scrutiny. this lack of oversight and accountability would not stand and ouster of the committee on the side. i constantly fought for agency oversight and accountability from a democratic administration. to take just a few examples of issues that we could and should be addressing at the moment. the trump administration has removed thousands of senior officials with decades of national security experience and placed a 22-year-old recent college graduate with note threat prevention experience in charge of our primary terrorism prevention center. in our dangerous world, this and dereliction is especially troubling. the justice and homeland security department have diverted thousands of law enforcement agents away from combating drug trafficking, terrorism, violent crimes against children, cyber crimes

and gun violence to participate in a mass deportation campaign. and now the trump administration is fighting to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the united states to noncitizens despite the clear language of the 14th amendment. i would ask donald trump what he thanks he can pursue what is a clear violation of our constitution as we learned in a recent tv interview the president of united states quote does not know unquote if he needs to uphold the constitution. i kind of think he does. in addition to the administration openly reviling and denouncing the rule of law president trump and his allies have also persisted in launching on a precedent unacceptable tax on the federal judiciary. one particularly egregious example on memorial day the president referred to members on the bench as quote usa aiding judges and quote monsters who won her country to go to [bleep]. the president's exact words. this kind of inflammatory

language as part of the presidents effort to de- legitimize the courts. because the orders of that issue that he is not agree with. they are to intimidate the federal judiciary more broadly. it should be condemned by all political leaders regardless of party. the lawlessness of this administration is having damaging effects on the rights, liberties and pocketbooks of everybody. and this disturbing environment many americans have no greater ally within their state's attorney general who are engaged in multi- efforts to protect the constitution, the public interest in the whole of federal government to account. they are protecting the 14th mm its guarantee of birthright citizenship. challenging unlawful detention procedures and fighting the administration's refusal to disperse funds appropriate by congress. i'm sure they did not anticipate it would face executive orders in modern memory.

we have to respond. they're also stepping up to protect lbd gq plus rights, voting rights, public education, fighting to push back against the terrorizing of our immigrant neighbors and trumps transparent efforts to orchestrate military takeover of the cities. i appreciate the work of the states attorneys general have done to defend our constituents. i want to continue that partnership today. thanks for coming to speak on the issue. house judiciary ranking member raskin and they will introduce our witnesses. for your exemplary leadership and the rights of the people i want to thank all went to thank you for traveling to washington about 250 years ago america declared its independence from

the absolute despotism of king george and the british empire in the monarchal society the king is the law but in the free society the level be king. in the declaration of independence jefferson said all men and we can add women worse created equal or social to serve the unalienable rights of the people. a decade later at the constitution set forth a clear mission statement in the preamble defining the purposes of the government not the whims and omissions rather run the collective purposes of "one nation" we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union establish justice and domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general welfare and preserved to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty do hereby ordain and establish the constitution of these united states of america. and then the very next sentence

open article one by investing all legislative powers in the congress of the united states up in the first article gives us the power to pass budgets and taxes. to govern commerce among the states, and with foreign nations to declare war to regulate naturalization and immigration. to promote the progress of science and many other purposes. then in article one section eight clause 18 and all other powers necessary and proper for the execution of the foregoing powers. article two, on the executive branch by contrast is a slim several paragraphs by the most striking part is section four which states the president shall be removed from office on impeachment or conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. sometimes our colleagues will say we have three coequal branches. really? first of all, co- equals not even a word, okay? secondly if we are co- equal why

is that congress has the power to impeach, try, and convict the president and remove a president but the president does not have the power to impeach, try, convict and remove us? the framers, the founders were most seriously afraid of a president who would act like a mad king drunk on power avaricious and determined to take all other powers into himself. madison and those papers defined tierney as the collapse of all powers, legislative, executive, judicial into one power. that was the very definition of it. well, section two names a president commander-in-chief, not of the country, not of the government, but of the army and navy and the militias in time of actual service. so, what is the core job of the president? the core job of the president's you take care that the laws are faithfully executed. in other words take the laws

that have been passed by the house, by the senate, signed into law by the president and execute them. implement them. the president get his powers only from two places the constitution says in the supreme court has repeatedly reaffirmed the president gets his a power either directly from the constitution or directly from a grant of congress. that is it for that's the whole meaning of the supreme court's decision in 1952 there are no other powers that the president gets just by virtue of being the commander-in-chief or being the president. article three is our judicial power in the supreme court and inferior courts to clarify legal rights and responsibilities in actual cases in controversy is the court put it in 1803 and marbury versus madison is emphatically the providence of the duty of the judicial department to say with the law is.

note vice president vance, the set up to the president to define what the limits are on the power of the president for that's up to the supreme court that the whole meaning of judicial review and marbury versus madison bird senator durbin says we must defend the independence and the integrity and the security of the judicial branch of government. went for federal judges, two appointed by democrats to appointed by republicans struck down donald trump's executive order purporting the nullify nullifiedbirthright citizenshipe constitution, a number of our colleagues in the house began to call for the impeachment of these judges without explaining what they had done wrong. without explaining any fallacy in their analysis. just calling for their impeachment there've only been 15 federal judges impeached and all of american history by the congress of the united states in it's always for corruption, or bribery, or income tax evasion.

it's for actually engaging in a crime, a high crime or misdemeanor not because the congress disagrees with their analysis. much less because congress disagrees with their correct analysis of a legal problem. it is never happened before the bill of rights was added to protect the rights and freedoms of people against abuse by the government whether it is congress passing laws and infringe on liberty. or a president making up laws, usurping congressional powers, or violating constitutional rights, or indeed states a trespassing the rights of the people. now here's the amazing thing, the framers understood, like lord acton the power of corruption the absolutely. and so the reins a constitutional system where power would be vertically divided, shared and distributed between the federal government in the states and localities as well as distributed among the legislative executive and judicial branches of government. the branches would check one

another's abuse ambitions and the people would exercise their freedoms of speech, press, assembly, petition of government and so on to counterbalance the tyrannical propensities of government generally. rather dramatic confrontation today were every facet of the framers divine has been activated to try to save constitutional democracy and freedom. from the date took office, trumpets try to exercise powers like a king trampling the rights of the people, usurping the powers of congress, denouncing judges and threatening to defy the rulings of courts in violating the legitimate authority of states and their elected officials print last saturday june 14 which was flag day on the president's birthdate he chose to stage a $45 million military parade in the streets of washington and response at least 7 million anti- monarchical americans assembled in over 2000 protesters cities

and towns across america for the unveiling of no kings day and magnificent demonstration of the indistinguishable resiliency of popular constitutional democracy in the face of dictatorial design against the people. but the people marching in the streets from philadelphia, to los angeles to the boundary waters of minnesota to new orleans are not alone in this process. they reflect a powerful opposition in motion political leaders at the state level are fighting back in court along with their allies in congress and we are winning this fight every day in courtrooms across america. more than three to 20 lawsuits have been filed since donald trump stephen miller, pete hegseth, marco rubio and elon musk took office federal courts across the land have remarkably issued 197 preliminary injunctions temporary restraining order is against this reign of lawlessness. the witnesses before us today

the attorney generals for the people of massachusetts, minnesota, new jersey and illinois are leaders in the fight for the constitution of federal laws that have been abandoned by the president. these chief states are winning significant battles in front of judges appointed by both republican presidents and democratic presidency. they are even winning in courts or judges preside who were appointed by president trump himself. state attorneys general have brought at least 30 lawsuits against the new administration successfully blocking its reckless and loveless actions lr the challenge trumps efforts to nullify birthright citizenship and one injunction to stop the order they challenge trumps funding freeze in a court order lift the freeze deliver the funds to state and local programs. when trump did not pay up they went back to court to make him comply. they challenge doge unconstitutional gathering of private data moans of americans

just a few weeks ago one ruling that will allow the suit to move forward for the student demonstration article about billions of dollars in public health money in one injunction against the rescissions so these funds to be delivered to the people of the states and localities. to dismantle voting rights and t front and temporary injunction its major portions of this order requiring every citizen in america to prove their citizenship every time they go to vote. trumps a push against the race of the people is losing in court with judges striking down unconstitutional orders issuing scathing rebukes to his lawlessness. of the birthright citizenship order of been on the bench for over four decades i cannot member another case or question presented was as clear as this he went on to ask where were the lawyers when the decision was made to sign this executive order? and said it boggled his mind any member of the bar would contend the order was constitutional but

that was the judge appointed by ronald reagan to the bench. congressional democrats have joined the state attorneys general in this fight although we are limited in what we can bring ourselves by virtue of very restrictive legal standing doctrines against members of congress suing the president. we have filed detailed amicus briefs in support of the state attorneys general suits identifying our unique interests and unyielding determination to defend federal laws we have passed against executive. we have won some and we have lost some would expect nothing less under the rule of law. we will defend the rule of law will not be intimidated by trumps threats and his or authoritarian tactics those of us who aspire to nothing but the servant of the people and we all serve the interest of the people. to every state ag who is with us today into those not with us here better in the battle is ans an honor to be in this fight

with you the constitution's values and the rights of our people. thank you, mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank you congressman raskin will introduce the four witnesses and then proceeded to take the testimony i think them all and they find introduce my attorney general. and then came the year 2004. the state senator and his area would be the united states senator whose name is obama was created in a hard-fought primary ensued. it emerged as the winner the state senator from obama's previous district he worked on so many issues i cannot do him

justice in just a few minutes. he has been one of the leaders for those who have joined us today and asserting the rights of the american people to stop the success that we are seeing in the demonstration of this new administration. thank you for being here introducing the next attorney general andrea campbell is ed of massachusetts pickwick thank you, thank dick durbin thank you jamie raskin, thank you for your great leadership on these issues. it is great to see my old pal here. it is my great honor to introduce massachusetts attorney general andrea campbell today. attorney general is eight tightening of the legal profession and a devoted public servant. in this very critical moment in our nation's history she has been leading the charge against donald trump and standing up for

the rule of law attorney general campbell and her top-notch staff have been diligently litigating cases to vindicate the rights of massachusetts and our nation. she is fighting to protect the national institutes of health funding for medical research to defend birthright citizenship to support harvard university gives retaliatory attacks but to to protectscientific research ad education programs and she is doing so much more with a great legal team. attorney campbell has dedicated her life to serving the public she began her legal career of defending the rights of children and their families after a stint as employment attorney she served as general counsel at at themetropolitan area planning commission and she defended issues like health care access, affordable housing and she continued her work and service of the public good by serving as legal counsel to the governor developed patrick for 2015 she won a seat on the boston city

council in 2018 she became the first black woman to be elected city council president in the history of the city of boston. attorney general campbell is absolutely on the cutting edge we are very lucky to have her front massachusetts is our nation is very lucky to have you leading our legal fights at this time pay thank you for being here pickwick thank you, senator markey. we'll turn this over too congressman for the next two introductions. >> thank you very much. my on church introduce first the attorney general of minnesota keith ellison has served faithfully and effectively in that role since 2019 he is in his second term prior to that of the honor of serving with him in the u.s. house of representatives six terms in the house 12 years representing fifth congressional district and had a very productive and effective time there as well. prior to that served in the

minnesota state house was a civil rights attorney i would say mr. chairman i been in politics long enough to recognize two kinds of politicians. i've seen tower politicians tower politicians andjustice poh is eight justice politicians through and through he is perfectly situated as the attorney general of minnesota. finally i am pleased to introduce my new friend attorney general mathew of new jersey he served as eight jeep for the people of new jersey since 2022 pepe4 there is a chief counsel to governor murphy and also had an extensive and successful career in private legal practice as a partner in the white-collar criminal defense and business litigation practice groups. i also went to recognize i think there's a few other attorneys and generals stopping today the attorney general for the district of columbia at brian schwab is here with us i want to thank you for joining us for this session as well. >> thank you before we return to

our witnesses on to briefly lay out the mechanics of the meeting each witness will have five minutes to provide an opening statement there will be a round of questions each senator and member of congress while five minutes to ask so please try to remain close to the schedule if you can print attorney general may proceed with your opening statement. >> thank you chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, special thanks to my home state congressman garcia who allowed me too share an airplane with him this morning. i am honored to testify in front of you with my fellow state ag colleagues. the four of us and i recognize ag schwab who is here along with 18 other colleagues have been engaged in the legal battles of our lives. over the last five months. in anticipation of this crisis our nation faces we begin our

preparation for this over a year ago. today i went to speak clearly and factually about three specific areas where the trump administration's actions have had a deeply harmful impact. terrorists, education funding and diversity equity and inclusion. my office very commonly across different presidential administrations including the first trump administration has worked in partnerships with federal agencies on criminal matters environmental matters i will continue to seek opportunities to do whatever is possible. under the constitution of federal law the president has enormous power. but in our democracy there are limits on that power we have challenged instances where the administration has clearly crossed the line.

whether or not i disagreed with the president trump on his policy agenda, he must act in a lawful way that is consistent with the constitution and the laws that congress has enacted. unfortunately the president and his administration have chosen, with many of their actions to ignore the constitution and federal law. what when constitutional guarantees are ignored, all americans are at risk. one example of executive overreach impacted nearly every american is the trump administration executive orders imposing higher tariffs on most products worldwide. only congress has the authority to lay and collect taxes for the ministration is attempted to invoke the national emergency economic powers act. however law applies only when an

emergency presents an unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad. this is indeed the first time in american history at present has imposed tariffs based on this. and for good reason it does not give the president the power to impose these tariffs. two courts have so far examined the merits of these claims both have agreed the imposition of these tariffs is on on lawful use of presidential power. international trade is essential to states economies. the administration chairs hurt small businesses that rely on international imports and make it more difficult for our residents to purchase the basic goods they need at affordable prices. the administration is working to attack another critical building block of this country. the education of our children.

the total workforce of the department of education has been cut in half since january 20. secretary mcmahon has called lay off the first step on that road to a total shutdown of the department. even though both the department of education itself and many of its divisions and responsibilities were created and required to exist under federal law. the administration propose a billions in budget cuts to the department including slashing funding for afterschool programs, teacher training and student loan forgiveness. it has terminated more than $1 billion in funding for k-12 schools to respond to the impact of covid pandemic. we continue to fight to preserve funding for all of these essential programs that serve our schoolchildren and educators.

the administration's attack on diversity, equity and inclusion has not been limited to our schools. the president sweeping executive order borders and actions attempting to rollback progress on diversity, equity and inclusion and access ability knows no bounds. the administration has targeted private sector employers, law firms, university employers, it has a limited diversity, equity and inclusion programs within the federal government. and erased historical resources explaining our country's shared history. we know the president claims about diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility are simply untrue. factually and legally. nonetheless they are harmful. i am proud to say my state ag colleagues and i have been tirelessly fighting back against the trump administration constitutional and unlawful actions.

we are unafraid to defend the rule of law with litigation, legal support and public communications that are informed, urgent and unwavering. we have done so on behalf of all americans and american institutions. thank you for inviting me too speak today. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you general. general campbell? >> thank you setter, good afternoon everyone. they get to the members of the joint committee for allowing me the opportunity teacher to testy today. including ranking members in both the house and the senate. thank you to my senator for the kind introduction and kind words and of course they could to representative for your leadership and now in previous years going forward i'm grateful. i'm honored to be here on my sadly it's only democratic ag's that are standing up at this moment in time for its an honor and privilege to work with them.

those who are in attendance and those who of course who could not attend. we all work together as partners in true collaboration leaving our egos at the door most importantly rolling up our sleeves to do the work. as a president going to take reckless and unlawful actions frivolously stepping up we take these responsibilities seriously and hold not only a president but anyone accountable who violates our laws, infringes on the rights of a residence. as president trump continues to repeatedly disregard the constitution break federal law frequently abuses of power it is eight jews who were holding him

to account on behalf of our state and the american people. indeed we been exercising courage to defend the constitution not just for our respective states and it residents prefer democracy and the rule of law itself. since the president took office in january my colleagues and i state ag's about thousands of legal actions to uphold the rule of law and defend our state. there more than espousing the principles of upholding the rule of law putting it into practice every single day or developing targets on our backs. the president try to legally cut billions of dollars and meet at least successfully to block the

cuts and restore critical funding to her institutions. when the president tried to legally cut dollars in funding for vital state services, such as childcare, each of these cases the present has attempted to circumvent congresses power of the purse as defined in the constitution is exactly what state ag's have stopped. secured countless victories for our resident protecting our securing personal data preserving the integrity of our elections and so much more. because our legal system and courts we know are still working, we will keep at it last week when our great judges in massachusetts this one happens to have been appointed by

president ronald reagan, ruled in our favor to restore critical nih funding with a powerful rebuke against what the judge deemed to be appalling and discriminatory action in this administration. he did not mince his words brutal president trump may believe he is accountable to no one, not even the american people, eight jews are showing up everyday to make it crystal clear he is solely mistaken. no it is and should be above the law. in the face of executive orders intended to so fear and division we've issued guidance affirming the existing rights of our residents. rights that have not and cannot be eliminate by the stroke of a sharpie and that remain protected under state laws. this guidance being equally and just as important as our litigation efforts. things like the ability to implement initiatives that fostered the ei. for our doctors to provide lifesaving gender affirming care for folks to understand the role

of ice and the difference of 10 or state authority and federal authority when it comes to immigration and so much more. not just that the federal government stepped out of certain areas we have stepped in to fill those voids. we have enhanced artwork on consumer protection but we've enhanced and expanded our work on civil rights, on the environment. if anything, we are doing all of this all will the president seeks to weaken various agencies and the financial protection bureau. state ag's we've been punching above our weights and playing a vital role in this moment. i often say it massachusetts is small but if you like mohamed ali in this moment i'm going to keep on fighting. we are fighting for our democracy, our constitution, a system of checks and balances, the rule of law our children the next generation to come.

frontline defenders of crucial american institutions not just for the present moment, but for the generations to come. we will continue to fight to uphold the law and protect our residents. recognize the real harm this is causing on folks while we do it. laid off federal worker, the sick child now that a potentially life-saving clinical trial, single mother struggling to afford childcare and so much more. it is an honor and privilege to be here served as a first black woman attorney general of massachusetts for the first woman of color to win statewide office there. i do not take that honor lightly. it's an honor and privilege to serve, i look forward to answering your questions today, thank you all for having me. thank you for. >> thank you general campbell. i might add just as a footnote this is the committee when we charted under president biden i was responsible for the nomination of ketanji brown jackson, the first african-american woman on the u.s. supreme court. so we share that celebration with your arrival here today. >> thank you for.

>> attorney general ellison you are no stranger to capital helper taken away brickwork sets right thing to senator byrd thank you to the entire community thank you, senator durbin and all of you. first of all i must thank you for inviting us, state ag's to the most important capital in the world when it comes to the length, breadth, and strength of american democracy. the democracy to the same constitution on the planets. talk about the work we are doing now is incredibly important we are all very grateful because of it. her face to the question of whether the oldest democracy in the world is durable enough to withstand an overreaching executive. and i think the answer is, it is durable enough of we are durable enough. at the start my comments by

saying that my friend, speaker melissa hortman would have been proud to know this hearing is going on today. she was a woman of great, great principle and character. i met her when she was a legal aid lawyer in minnesota in 1997. sheet represent a woman who was abused and mistreated by her landlord. and she brought a lawsuit against that landlord and one the highest verdict of that time by $490,000 on behalf of this indigent woman who was absurdly mistreated by her landlord. melissa followed her strong confidence to the state legislature she and i served together before went to congress. she built a career that was the envy of anyone who watched her

go. she was targeted because she tried to feed the hungry, universal school meals is a bill sheet lead and pass in the state of minnesota she was targeted because she tried to clothe the naked in the form of our state child tax credit where she made sure all families had the substance they needed and reduce child poverty in the state of minnesota. she welcomed a stranger. through her work week passed in minnesota you get a drivers license if you can prove you can drive a car. he is the best of us in her spirit is in the room with us today. many of the things donald trump is trying to do by executive order could be done. but one would need to introduce a bill to abolish the department of education. you need to introduce a bill to go to the consumer financial protection bureau. you would need to change the

constitution through the legitimate process that exists to get rid of birthright citizenship enshrined in the 14th amendment. what you cannot do as president is issue an executive order like an edict or a proclamation to just change american lives. and so, state ag's along with many others have stood up to defend the system of law. in february state attorney general sued the administration of illegal executive order out and federal funding to medical institutions that provide gender affirming care and potentially criminalize the provision of it for the order of violent violent separationof powers, yol protection clause the tenth amendment and the court later impose a preliminary the plaintiff states. we sued over to cut federal funding to schools and

transgender schools. broadly deny the civil rights of the people we sued for two reasons they were wrong on the law orders and threats about the separation of powers, the tenth amendment and title ix itself. we sued because this is a bolding plain and simple. sometimes countries face a moment like this. a moment when a leader bent on destroying entire communities instilling fear, trampling the rule of law comes in to power and the question remains what will the people of the nation do? at the end of the day is much as i am proud of the excellent legal work that all of us have done and many people in our community have done, i believe the true freedom of the american people lies in the hearts of the american people and if they will

stand up, we will endure. count on state ag's, the ones who believe in liberty and justice for all. to continue to fight none of us are tired we can do this longer than they can do it the lessons of history tell us that leaders who try to deprive people of their rights do not stop at one community. after they destroyed one, they will go to another, and another, and another these are the moments when you have to say no. especially if the community sees as a vulnerability. especially if the committee sees a leader take opportunity away from children, from sick people from sick impoverished people and harm entire economies. so, allow me too say thank you against this esteemed a body

this senate and the house of representatives who have brought real meaning to the idea of separation of powers by holding this hearing today, you are doing something. doing something important. putting ideas and perspective and may be little hope for the future in front of the american people and i want to say thank you for doing that. melissa hortman understood that this was important to do. my fellow ag's and i understand this. and clearly, by gore invitation here, you understand this. we will keep fighting for this spirit of america belonging. thank you. >> thank you general ellison. general platkin from missouri. >> thank you for the invitation to testify today i want to thank all of the members of both the

senate and the house committee for having us in lifting up this work. i was struck as i was coming in your thought about the first time i ever came into the capital. my grandfather was a career naval officer and federal civil servant i never could've thought then that i'll be sitting here jumbo colleagues i have such tremendous respect for ag's kwame raoul, campbell, and schwab behind us as well as 18 oh seven fighting systematically for five months against the administration and a president that is meant [bleep] bent on disregarding the law and hurting the residents of our state. as a chief law enforcement officer of new jersey it is my job to protect the residents of my state. when anyone violates the law and harms new jerseyans i have a constitutional obligation to take action. that is true for opioid distributors and manufacturers, who have devastated our community's it's true for social media companies creating a huge

mental health price crisis it's true for gun companies and yes it's true for president who violates the law and hurts people in our states. i know all of my colleagues agree with that. we did not ask for this fight but we certainly will not back down from it. i like to highlight briefly three ways this administration lawlessness and assault under the rule of law has been both unprecedented and deeply damaging to our country. first, this is been discussed but the administration is flagrantly disregarded the constitution is presented of raskin noted look at the attempts to eliminate birthright citizenship on the very first day of the term. this right was enshrined after we fought a bloodied civil war to settle the debate about weathers born on american soil or in fact citizens of this nation. vestment backed by well over a century of supreme court precedent. nothing gives the president the power to unilaterally strip citizenship from babies boyd on american soil.

that's what i'm proud to lead a coalition of our colleagues and challenging this unconstitutional order. we want a court ruling to stop this policy from going into effect wheat defendant birthright citizenship before the united state supreme court last month. we will not back down in the fight to protect this fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. second, this administration is undermined public safety at every turn. instead of working with us to give our resident safety trump administration is defunding law enforcement and letting weapons of war back on tour streets. they threaten to withhold funding for critical law enforcement counterterrorism, emergency services and disaster relief work unless states redirect criminal enforcement resources to federal, civil immigration enforcement at the expense of combating violent crime, drug trafficking, gun violence and domestic violence. just last week we obtained an injunction barring the administration from withholding

billions and billions of dollars of critical transportation funding based on these threats alone. and another move i candidly never could've imagined i would say, but it is true the administration secretly tried to legalize machine guns last month. they're planning to distribute thousands of devices known as forest reset trigger switch functionally turn a firearm into a machine gun capable of firing up tonight around eight minutes more powerful than m-16 and fully automatic into our states. despite being illegal, to possess under federal law and extremely dangerous they plan to send us thousands back into our communities they will not even so much as tell us where they're going to go. we are leading lawsuits, challenging these unlawful and reckless actions that threaten public safety and put americans in harm's way. we will not let this administration play political games with the safety of our residents. third and final lateness finally thisadministration showt

disregard for the rule of law. particularly alarmed by the presence attack on law firms targeting lawyers for doing their job and depriving people of the first amendment right to representation will be looked at not so favorably as history involves but i'm proud to stand with the lawyers and firms that have fought back against these executive orders. all this is part of an effort to undermine the rule of law. a concept i understand can seem abstract to many, myself included. stott abstract people calling her office were in their medicaid card be accepted by their dr. and president trump a lawfully frozen to 72 it's not obstructed by the came up in tears after my son's soccer game on her for autistic son services were going to be shut off unlawfully. the brave law enforcement officers wives spoken to services were on sarah's ceremoniously slashed overnight. these harms are real, infecting affectingmillions of residents f

unprecedented ways plain and simple my fellow ag's and i will not waiver in fighting back against the administration when it violates the law and harms her residence. i thank you for the opportunity to be with you today plain and simple the rule of law in the foundational principles of this nation are worth fighting for we are honored to do it and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you general platkin at this point we will wreck icy democratic leader of the senate for opening statement we will start with chairman raskin. >> thank you. thank you senator durbin, or relate chairman of the judiciary committee doing a great job as ranking member and i think jamie as well he has been such a great leader and so many different ways. so thank you both for holding this hearing and i welcome my house colleagues. i spent 18 happy years in the house and reminding what general

platkin we said the past the brady law and assault that i was the sponsor of them. and now they're trying to undo them right in the reconciliation bill they have first one to just a quick background silencers who needs a silencer? not the police they do not like the proposal but not average citizens it's people who do not want to be detected. it's particularly dangerous when they try to do mass shootings and no one is able to hear the bullets. then they add it just the other day they added shotguns and rifles. so what they're doing terms of machine guns are trying to undo 100 years of law we think we have a good chance of winning them. but it is just crazy to all of these laws that have helped save lives that most gun owners support they are trying to undo

because the right wing runs the republican party i went to thank our attorneys general for being here from illinois and massachusetts and new jersey. were holding the spotlight hearings i'm sure dick and jamie mention this here in the senate because they won't have hearings on the subject's the american people care about. they won't have hearings on just about anything. and then when they have their hearings they often limit what witnesses we can bring. so we are having spotlight hearings were going to call the shadow hearings like the shadow cabinet but it sound a little shadowy so instead we called them his spotlight hearings because they put a spotlight on what is going on and they are often a live stream is this a big live streamed? good. deborah would know. i see a lot of people here who i talked to because it senate things in the old days.

but, in any case they hearings are live stream and some have gotten hundreds of thousands of people watching, so that is great. we all know president trump is just continuing to overreach in abuses of power as a president putting our nation at risk. we had a beautiful meeting at one of our caucuses last week. sad because of what happened in minnesota and our two minnesota centers got up and talked about it but at the end i asked reverend warnock who is still a reverend as well as a senator to give a closing prayer he said a light in there i've never repeated across new york and the other states i have visited. here's what he said. he said that evil always overreaches and contains in itself the seeds of its own

destruction. that is what we are doing. that's what we are seeing here that means we have to fight every day to expose that evil and try to stop that evil whenever we can but they always overreaches. and they go too far, which they do. so i would like to thank our two leaders here congressman raskin and senator durbin for doing this. i just want to talk a little bit about litigation in the courts because each one of you has been involved in litigating against the overreaches if you will, much worse than that, of the republican of the trump administration and the republicans in the house and senate as well. one of the great things we are able to do what we had the majority is put 235 new judges on the bench. progressive judges two thirds were women.

you look at the team leading the charge and now because it center driven was a great chairman of the judiciary committee doing that. they are our first line of defense against when the administration quote overreaches. we have 197% of the rulings in the courts. and to show you how important it is they wanted to pass a horrible act called the save act which returned jim wrote to voter registration for they try to pass it in the senate and they knew they could not get the votes because you needed 60. but they went to the courts but i was a lead plaintiff i think you were a plaintiff to do the same thing in the courts threw it out as they should have. because our people are the first line of defense. so now he is using his big beautiful bill as another way to get around in the senate or the courts. he is so angry by the way a

chunk of it comes from judges trump even appointed but they're upholding the law and they knew he was breaking the law and of course that lifetime appointment gives them that retribution trump visits on his opponents, they are immune from it in some ways of the some judges are not and they are attacking the judges. anyway, we won 97% of the court so they boarded the reconciliation bill but i have good news this just happened lace last night they had snuck in a provision that stop the courts from issuing injunctions altogether. he had to pee a huge of bonds but certainly poor people could not pay but even some of the organizations that do this all the time complained to me we got it thrown out. that's three things they tried to do to restrict the courts and reconciliation and were batting three for three. on nationwide injunctions on your pay for play. and these courts got a good ruling on environmental stuff of

the limits of the ports could do there as well. in the process that we had thought we need to have or obviously we don't win anything. you are the people who can see cases and help us keep this horrible overreach from affecting the american people. you each have been leaders in that regard. i work closely with my attorney general i work closely with ours i welcome you, i thank you for being here, welcome to the spotlight hearing and keep fighting. >> think you said her shoe but records are the questions with congressman raskin. >> to give a much senator durbin and senator schumer thank you for joining us.

and for your powerful leadership on behalf of the rule of law in the constitution and new york and all over the country. you are a citation of senator warnock reminds me of something that ben franklin said i have absurd wrong is always a growing more wrong and 10 there is no bearing it any more but that rates, however opposed comes right at last. >> warnock paraphrase franklin pickets are thinking along parallel lines. >> thank you, jamie. >> thank you for joining us i want to recognize my democratic colleagues who have joined us today hank johnson from georgia, ted lieu, deborah ross of north carolina garcia from illinois. and backup from vermont. i just have a couple of questions for you guys. one, i want to say that when pursuant to senator warnock and ben franklin to get to this nightmare and we will. and when we reclaim the

trajectory of american history for democracy and freedom, and we will, all of you will be remembered by future generations for what you did to stand up for us during this time. i do not want you to think anybody does not notice because we do notice what it is you are doing. but, i want to ask you this in addition to the subsidence of defense you are engaging you are also modeling what it means to be an attorney general but we've got an attorney general of the united states who literally things is to be the president's lawyer and to do whatever the president wants her to do. and thanks the department of justice is the law firm for the president and his political party. that is a remarkable deep formation and diversion of american history.

-- >> thank you for that question. i serve as the attorney general for the state of illinois. in illinois, i'm independently elected from the governor. by way of that, i serve the rule of law. i don't serve the governor. i do represent the governor, i represent the agencies within state but i serve the rule of law. and i take that distinction very seriously. and i think that the u.s. attorney general should operate with the same sort of -- she

shouldn't be loyal to the president, she should be loyal to the rule of law. >> is there any one of you who would describe your job as being the governor's lawyer? exclusively. >> i'll just add, i'm accountable to the people. and upholding the rule of law and protecting their rights and protecting the state's economy. i would just stress, and i think the nih case, which we were all a part of, whether it's the first case or the second iteration of that case to protect access to these critical life saving medical research clinical trials, this is billions of dollars that go to every state in the country. we came together not looking at how do we just protect those who are democrats or identify as democrats in this country, we came together recognizing the unlawful actions by this

administration to cut that funding quickly on a friday night and mobilized to show up to court on monday because we knew what was at stake. when you talk about a child having pediatric cancer or a vet dealing with ptsd, we don't look at whether or not they have a d or r by their names, we mobilize to protect the public health. not only for folks in our state, but to protect the public health of everyone across this country, while at the same time upholding the rule of law. i think it's just great example of how we do our work regardless of political affiliation or even demographic. >> one of the things you guys are doing is defending the integrity of federal laws and programs that we've adopted. and because of the very restrictive standing rules that the court has imposed against congress going to court to try to get our laws implemented, in

a weird way, you're standing up for the laws that we've participated in passing. but that's for all of the people. because after all, your representatives in congress voted for them as well. i wonder if you could just reflect a little bit on that role you're playing in terms of making federal law work for everybody in the country as state attorney general. >> chairman laskin, we regard the laws that congress passes as fundamentally the prerogative of the people who pop late this country and send members to congress. and so for an executive to usurp the role in appropriations or establishment of agencies or anything like that, we view as an outrageous overreach that sitly cannot be tolerated. as i noted in my comments, the

things that the president is trying to do, you probably can do if you follow the rules. but you cannot do it using the executive order or edict or proclamation or this is how i feel this morning. there are procedures they can follow. if you want to abolish the department of education, as horrible as an idea that you believe that is, you have to go through congress to do that. he's not only doing things that are harmful to the american people, he's doing them in a way that is harmful to our system of justice and democracy. >> finally, forgive me, i was just gonna note representative raskin that what you said at the start of this is the core of many of the lawsuits that we filed. article i gives this body the broadest powers, particularly when it comes to passing laws

and spending money. and a bulk of the cases that we've talked about and have brought have been the president. we say you can't act like a king, you can't take actions that you have done and put it into law and decide on a whim that he wants to say convert a department of transportation highway program into an immigration enforcement program. that is not what the constitution allows. so our lawsuits have been about standing up, in many ways, for the authority of this body to do the important work that it does. >> thank you. i want to recount an experience i had in chicago last friday. it's not an unusual one. but i went to the immigration court to watch and listen.

the people who were there were all there because they'd received a legal notice to appear on a status call for their claims to stay in the united states legally. they brought their families with them and some of them had attorneys with them. lots of paper and the like. we know what's happening in some of these cases. these people are appearing for hearings and the government, the federal government is saying we're dismissing the charges against this individual, so there's no case to consider. and at that point, detain them and deport them to the country where they once lived. there was that fear in the courtroom, the only difference was the leader of the court there told me that when i announced i was coming to the being, ice agents announced that none of them were gonna be around that day, so i didn't see any. many of these ice agents are

masked and are not identified in any way. these people who are being de-danedd -- detained and deported don't have any indication of formal rank of this individual and they're stuck with it. this is a clear abandonment of basic due process in terms of what's happening to these people. we're not talking about murderers, terrorists, rapists. you'll remember the litany accounted to us by president trump over and over. these are the people who are trying to follow the law of america and get their day in court. and it's an awesome process to follow. i'd like for each of you, if you have any suggestions on what you ought to be doing. >> thank you, senator. as you know, i'm a child of haitian immigrants who went through the immigration process in this country and have contributed greatly to this country, as have millions of

other immigrants who have come to this country, including those who are currently undocumented. the notion that the practices being used in chicago and other municipalities -- have some of those who have been complying with immigration processes and have been responding to notices to appear and them being detained as a result of them complying with the immigration process is unconscionable and is the furthest thing away from what i understand as due process. there's no definition of due process. i know some have tried to indicate the notion of due process is different in an immigration context. there's no way that deceptive practices can be defined in any

way as due process. as you know, i'm defending what we call the trust act within the state of illinois. which makes certain that our law enforcement resources are not misused for immigration enforcement processes. i know the administration has defined their efforts on immigration to be targeted towards criminals, but the evidence with regards to those detained reflect a different story. indeed, each and every one of us here have historically collaborated with our federal law enforcement partners on enforcing criminal laws against citizens and non-citizens and we'll continue to do so. but the notion that these

deceptive immigration practices can align with what the purported purpose of this more aggressive immigration enforcement effort is furthest from the truth. >> i would just say that if you followed the questioning that's been asked by judicial nominees over the last two decades, it has changed dramatically under the trump administration. we're now asking nominees to the department of justice, nominees to the bench whether or not they believe an executive has to follow a court order or whether they can defy a court order. that is so fundamental to due process and rule of law. yet you ought to hear the answers we're receiving. a lawful court order, they'll say. well, who decides if it's lawful? that is at the heart of whether

we're face a constitutional crisis in this country. >> if i could respond to your question, senator. i just wanted to say, for the record, that i have looked for and searched for a law prohibiting ice from wearing masks. and i haven't found one, maybe somebody else is aware of it. but i've looked for it and my research hasn't turned it up. i think that there might be some reasons for a mask in certain situations. there might be health reasons, certainly during the pandemic you might see someone wearing a face mask. or maybe there's some undercover reason. but i think that if this body were to pass a law saying you may not wear a mask to hide your face so that you cannot be identified so you can avoid accountability, i think that would be a good law to pass. there may be exceptions and i don't want to foreclose any, but i think in general, the practice

must be that if you were upholding the law and operating legitimately and constitutionally, you shouldn't be afraid to hide your face. and if we veer from that, we will see highly unaccountable conduct flow therefrom. thank you for allowing me to say that. >> thank you, attorney general. there is legislation to that effect that is moving on our side, any way. i recognize congressman hank johnson from the fourth district -- sub committee chair of our sub committee on the -- >> thank you ranking member raskin and i also thank ranking member durbin for calling this spotlight forum by which we can call forward the democratic ag's in this country, some of them, to explain how you and our congressional allies are

fighting to defend the rights to freedom that the american people expect. democratics attorneys general, thank you for testifying today and thank you for standing up to this lawless administration and defending our democracy. most americans are alarmed by this administration's turn towards autocracy,and i've been telling them that democratic attorneys general and democrats in congress are fighting these unlawful actions in court and winning. in 34 lawsuited filed by democratic state ag's and the four supporting amicus briefs filed by the democratic caucus litigation and rapid response task force, there have been overwhelming success and you have secured court orders brock o blocking the president from carrying out unlawful and unconstitutional actions.

the trump administration is violating the constitution and federal law as it denies people due process, attacks free speech, arrests judges and politicians, unlawfully guts funding that congress has appropriated and federalizes the state national guard. and donald trump has attempted but failed to silence those who oppose his lawless agenda. and of course attorneys general like yourselves who are banding together and fighting for the rule of law. we still need citizens to speak up and speak out in the streets every day. but it is crucial that while they are doing that, you all are

leading these courtroom battles, so thank you. attorney general raúl and illinois' fema, you and other democratic ag's sued to block new department of homeland security conditions that unlawfully tie emergency management and disaster relief funding to state immigration actions. as the leading state in this lawsuit, can you talk about why this case is so important? >> in illinois, as in many midwestern states, we have tornados that have devastaing impacts on illinois. when families are looking for help from their federal and state government to respond to

emergencies, none. just as we've acted in other matters where the administration has acted inconsistent with federal law, with the laws that you all have put in place -- trying to leverage the need communities have when responding to emergency to advance their agenda is unconscionable and it's unlawful. >> thank you. attorney general campbell in massachusetts, the national institute of health. you and other democratic ag's brought a lawsuit challenging president trump's cut to

national institute of health funding which could effect life saving medical research. and the house democratic caucus filed an amicus brief in support of the state. happily, a judge issued a preliminary injunction against those cuts. can you talk about why this case is so important and how helpful it has been to have that amicus brief filed by the democratic caucus. >> thank you, representative, for the question. it's always helpful to have amicus briefs in supporting a matter. judges take them very seriously and give them significant consideration. that's our posture right now when it comes to supporting harvard, right now, for standing up or other higher ed institutions. nih is critical, to say the least. obviously, the sole source of federal funding for bio medical research, clinical trials, making sure that we are not only a leader within our respective

states, but that we're a leader internationally. massachusetts is at the center of all of that in many ways. in massachusetts, it's not just for the care and clinical trials and the services it delivers, public health services it delivers to actual constituents, it is a major driver of our economy, both our healthcare institutions, our higher ed institutions. you think about nih funding being cut, that is undermining our economy in massachusetts. and then you think about the lives, of course, that it is saving. we cannot discount that. it was a 76 page decision. the judge was very thoughtful in really talking about what it means in terms of saving someone's life. i just quickly have to say when we talk about a clinical trial, it is not a matter of missing an appointment and then you can make it up. you miss one part of your clinical trial, it's game over. so i'm proud of the ag's that stepped up not only in nih i but

nih ii. this administration continued to play games, cancelling grant meetings, not being responsive -- we had a victory in both cases. most recently in nih ii where the judge asked this administration to immediately restore that funding -- we'll continue to fight collectively, not just for our states but for over state in this country for folks to have access to this critical research which is not only sustaining us in massachusetts, but actually exercises our leadership internationally and our goals of security which is equally connected. >> thank you and i yield back. >> senator he rar dough? >> thank you very much, i'd

like to thank chair raskin and ranking member durban for calling us all together. it's nice to see my colleagues in the house -- so here we are, we're still plugging away. we have a president who does not think the rule of law applies to him. as we all know, over 200 lawsuits have been filed to prevent this regime and this president from continuing in his lawless endeavors. many of them and dozens brought by our state democratic ag's, including the democratic attorney general of the state of

hawaii. i'm really proud of the fact that you all are fighting back. because the only thing standing between us and the lawlessness of this administration are those of you fighting back through the filing of various lawsuits. and it takes time. we know that the president, as far as i'm concerned, he doesn't give a rip about our constitutional rights and our protections, so thank goodness for you all. i do have a question, there are a number of questions that i have. but one that comes to mind is his executive order trying to end birthright citizenship. attorney general, you are the lead on this. i'm not sure how the supreme court is gonna decide. apparently, they're not gonna get to the merits of whether or not birthright citizenship is a constitutionally protected right or whether the supreme court is simply going to somehow pine

about nationwide injunctions and the appropriateness of a nationwide injunction. can you talk about what might happen with the court's decision, which is coming soon? a lot of people are citizens who are very concerned about what the supreme court could do. >> well, senator, first of all, let me commend your attorney general anne lopez who is an outstanding colleague and part of our coalition. not withstanding the time difference, she's on all of our calls. [laughter] >> you're absolutely right, i was in the courtroom as was general campbell a few weeks ago in the supreme court. i'm very proud he's here today, our solicitor general was arguing on behalf of the states. i think we have to remember how truly remarkable and astonishing it is to hear the united states government first of all not even

concede that they would follow supreme court precedent, which even justice coney barrett was shocked to hear the solicitor of the united states say. but to be arguing to the highest court in the land that a baby born in the united states with citizenship should turn on whether the attorney general of their state joined the lawsuit. that was fundamentally what they were arguing. even they know this is the most unconstitutional order maybe ever signed by a president. but they do think babies in philadelphia should be treated differently than babies in camden. i think we have to remember what that would mean. in new jersey, we're a small, dense state. a lot of mothers choose to cross the border into philadelphia to give birth. is it really the position of the united states government that that child's citizenship turns on whether that mother is at the super market when they go into labor across the river?

we've reached a point of absurdity here that is really dangerous for residents of our country. >> i find it totally absurd that this is a constitutionally protected provision. it is in the u.s. constitution and we have a supreme court that might base their decision depending on what every state's attorney general or whoever might be filing a lawsuit. it makes absolutely no sense. this is not a supreme court we can rely upon, as far as i'm concerned, to protect our rights and privileges. there are so many questions relating to the lawlessness of this regime, as i referred to it. but i do want to ask one more thing about them conditioning funding on immigration enforcement. again, attorney general raúl, you led a challenge last week

against an attempt by the department of homeland security to condition emergency management and disaster relief funding on the state immigration enforcement. what sort of important funding would be at risk from this kind of reckless tying of federal funds to cooperation on deportations? >> thank you for your question, senator. again, i mentioned as an example earlier the tornados that tend to hit illinois. california has had wildfires. there are disasters of various nature that hit different regions of our country. and our ability to respond should not be contingent upon

immigration enforcement. unfortunately, the prioritization of this administration on trying to find every tool possible to try to compel the states to do what is the federal government's job in terms of civil immigration enforcement, they're going to the lowest of the low to go towards restricting funding that would otherwise help families in their greatest time of need when disasters have hit their homes and their communities. >> just one more comment, if the court does not support what you are arguing, this regime could tie any sort of contract

funding, all kinds of things on cooperation with them on their goals to deport 11 million undocumented people. >> i recognize the distinguished gentleman from california for five minutes of questioning. >> thank you for calling this important spotlight hearing. and thank you to the attorneys general from the amazing state you're coming from. a number of you have briefed at the vice chair presentations. i appreciate you doing that and serve with attorney general el son. all of you are welcome to respond. last week, i had the honor of meeting with a number of immigrant rights groups and they were describing horrific incidents where you'd have folks wearing masks, who we assume were law enforcement agents, maybe, maybe not, who were rounding people up, putting them into vans without due process, sometimes using excessive force, sometimes engaging in what

looked like a rush that did not have probable cause or detention that didn't have reasonable -- the standard for arrest for a law enforcement official to arrest a person is probable cause, correct? >> right. >> skin color, race and ethnicity does not constitute probable cause, correct? >> that's absolutely right. if i may say so, we've seen sheriff joe arpaio be convicted because he continued to do racial profiling when it came to immigration enforcement. >> thank you, law enforcement officials can do what's called detaining a person. something less than an arrest. and the standard for that is reasonable suspicion, correct? >> that's right.

>> skin color, race and ethnicity does not constitute a basis or reasonable suspicious, right? >> that's absolutely correct. >> that would be mass racial profiling if someone did that, correct? >> absolutely. >> so what we're seeing are ice raids at home depot's, parks, other public places with no judicial warrant. so essentially, they're just engaging in mass racial profiling. they're basically just going after people based on their skin color, their race and ethnicity. you also end up detaining u.s. citizens, detaining people who have a right to be here. and so i urge state officials to look at that and do anything you can to stop that. sometimes you have people who are bystanders and they film this activity. and i just want to make sure that people who are bystanders can film what ice agents are doing in the public. they have a right to do that, correct? >> right. you cannot obstruct, but you have a first amendment right.

>> and it's because some folks filmed activity that we have this article from ktla, a respected local news organization of los angeles. the title is "masked men in u.s. border patrol vests take santa ana father after repeatedly hitting him." the first sentence of the story is "in a graphic video that's since gone viral on social media, several men wearing u.s. border patrol vests were seen violently detaining a father in santa ana before forcing him into the back of an unmarked car on saturday." that father also happened to be the father of three u.s. marines. and people have the absolute right to film and to send that to the press. the department of homeland security has said there's been an increase on assaults on their agents. let me just first say, that is a crime. if you do that, you're gonna b

prosecuted. at the same time, the department of homeland security wants their agents to be respected, they cannot violate the law. they cannot arrest people without probable cause, they cannot detain people without reasonable suspicion. they cannot use excessive force and they should not act like vigilante folks wearing masks. that's what is happening. and i just want to ask this question to you, if this video is true and in fact the border patrol agents beat up a person without justification, can state authorities charge those officials if the trump department of justice does not do so? >> what i'll say is nobody's allowed to break the law or assault somebody. if you are a member of law enforcement and you assault somebody, you'll be subject to fourth amendment analysis under a case called graham versus

connor. the law enforcement would be able to have the affirmative defense of reasonableness. but there is no immunity to assault people by anyone, including law enforcement. as a matter of fact, everybody is subject to the fourth amendment. there is no blanket permission to use violence against somebody and certainly none to do it on the basis of racial targeting or profiling or anything like that. i'm not familiar with the case that you mentioned, but i can tell you that in order to arrest somebody on a non-judicial -- on a detainer hold or something like that, you have to have objective criteria. it can't simply be race, it can't be national dress, it can't be language. it's got to be stuff like they looked you up and there's no matching immigration database.

it's got to be that there's a removal order for you. it has to be something like you admit that you entered the country unlawfully. there could be an expired visa. but it cannot be some criteria such as race, national origin, language, stuff like that. and of course excessive force is something that the fourth amendment does not permit. >> thank you. i yield back. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you, ranking member. thank you chairman raskin. good to have you here and your colleagues. great to be with all of you attorneys general. i know how busy you are, so i'm grateful that you're here. i spent some time in your shoes, particularly gratifying to have you here and of course i'm very, very fond of and respect pew --

peter who i nominated for u.s. attorney and helped in his run for attorney general and has been an important part of your coalition. let me start with a thank you. you all started ahead of the election, started preparing the ground work in case things we want -- went wrong. when they did, you were ready. i think history will look back at your achievements as really important to the protections of the value of our country. i've spent a lot of time banging away about environmental issues and the fraudulent climate denial operation.

one of the things that interests me is when i look at environmental cases, i see your raga colleagues, your republican attorney general colleagues showing up in force in an armada. what it looks to me is that for not that much money, the fossil fuel industry through exxon, through the koch operation, through the chamber of commerce which very often fronts for the fossil fuel industry to give them a little bit of deny blt, they basically fund raga.deniabd raga. and what they get for that is free taxpayer funded legal

services. provided in the name of a sovereign state so they don't have to be quite as out front. i'm wondering if -- you can take this as a question for the record and get back to me if you'd like. i'm wondering if there are places that you think i should be looking to explore more that fossil fuel to raga free legal services for the polluters connection. because there comes a point when it isn't government any longer. when it looks like government, it has the names of government. but what it really is is an industry masked as government attacking its competition so it can continue to pollute. and that's the frontier that i'm looking at. and if there are thoughts you have now or thoughts you have later that you can get back to me on, i'd really be grateful for that. go ahead, general. >> well senator, thank you and thanks for all that you do.

we all are well aware of the great work that you do and we're grateful for it. let me say that 2025 will probably be hotter than 2024, which was hotter than 2023, which was hotter than 2022. go outside and you will see a june here in dc and in minnesota which is significantly above what historic levels have been. that's one point i just wanted to make. >> it's real. >> it's a real thing. i joked with my friend the other day. i said it's a good thing there's no such thing as climate change or else we'd be in real trouble. it was 101 degrees in minnesota yesterday. in the minnesota state legislature, they've introduced legislation to try to curtail my budget on climate and fossil fuel and environmental

litigation. my opponents in the last election said his first deed would be to dismiss my climate case. we're not suing because of climate change, we're suing because exxonmobil lied about climate change. basically the tobacco model. they knew and they lied any way. so they have been working through the legislature to restrict my ability to get interns, to restrict my ability to -- they're threatening to dismiss our case. and to call our office and make us explain. and this is all the other side working through them to try to handcuff us. my point is, your point is well taken.

and they don't want to fight fair in court. in fact, we do know that the president himself has actually sent out an executive order saying that we think that these ag's who are challenging lies and consumer protection deception of the fossil fuel industry, somehow their cases are trying to manipulate energy policy to the united states. we're not, this is a simple consumer protection lawsuit. even the president has got into it. i'll stop right there. >> he sic'd his maga doj on you. i think my time is up. another question, just for qfr, very interesting that there's now a row among the far right between the koch leonard leo polluter -- that still puts flotillas of phony front group amicus briefs in front of the court that have an astonishing record of success, like 100%.

and the maga trumpster election denier cohort. and they're now fighting with each other over who should own the nomination process and the court. so if anything in that battle pops up that you think would be interesting to us, please don't hesitate to give me a shout. thank you thank you. >> thank you senator whitehouse. attorney general el son, about the weather in washington today, we like to say it's not the heat, it's the stupidity. [laughter] >> we have now for five minutes congresswoman deborah ross from north carolina. oh, i'm sorry, scanlin is next, chairman from pa. >> thank you to ranking members durbin and raskin for this hearing and thank you to all of our attorneys general for being here to discuss the critical work you're doing as advocates for the rights and freedoms for

your constituents and states all across the country. since the day he took office, president trump has been trampling on the rule of law that forms the very foundation of our democracy over and over again with one outrageous attack after the next. the fundamental premise that we are a nation of laws, not men, therefore no one is above the law. it's clear that this white house desperately hopes that the accountability system of checks and balances upon power in our constitution will not hold. and his white house has taken a page right out of the authoritarian play book by targeting the people who defend the law, fight corruption, speak

truth to power and protect the people's rights. but as millions of peaceful protestors showed last weekend and reaffirmed across the country, america has no kings, so we are really grateful to the service of our attorneys general who are working on behalf of all americans to hold this administration accountable and challenge its power grabs in court because you're winning and you're proving every day that our country and constitution are stronger than one man's political whims or petty vengeances. you're all doing really important work in so many different areas, but i wanted to focus for a minute on this administration's illegal and unconstitutional attempts to cut billions of dollars of congressionally authorized funding for critical healthcare research. i represent philadelphia and surrounding counties, so these cuts have had an immediate

negative impact in our region. 1 in 6 doctors in this country spend time training in philadelphia. we've had some of the most transformative bio medical research happening in our area. but in recent weeks, my constituents are reporting a whole range of negative consequences. life saving research such as ovarian cancer trials are being disrupted. accomplished research personnel are being laid off.

universities are cancelling capital projects. sheet metal workers and other construction workers are being laid off because those programs can't go forward. and of course the overall loss of medical knowledge. attorney general campbell, can you talk more about the research you see being endangered and why the cases you're leading are so critical to the health of your constituents in massachusetts, mine in pennsylvania and folks across the country.

it is about jobs, internships. i'm always careful in -- you can't just turn back on a clinical trial. i am hopeful and optimistic

about the response from the courts here, both democratic and republican appointed judges who recognize the unlawful violations and actions of this administration to undermine not just the nih funding in our respective states but the public health infrastructure of our country. this has to do with our global security as well. . it has to do with our economy as a whole. we're very grateful -- we're

gonna keep fighting the fight regardless of what political filluation is by someone's name or what state they're in.a is by someone's name or what f is by someone's name or what state they're in.i is by someone's name or what afil is by someone's name or li is by someone's name or a is by someone's name or is by someone's name or what state they're in.t is by sr what state they're in.i is by s o is by someone's name n is by someone's name or what state they're in. >> this administration's actions are straight out of an authoritarian play book. u.s. senators and others being pushed to the ground or arrested for asking questions. retaliatory attacks against institutions such as harvard university. masked ice agents grabbing students and immigrants off the streets and moved to a prison in louisiana with no charges for a month and a half made against her and others. the intimidation of institutions into silence.

we've crossed a dangerous threshold from which we cannot return unless we call it what it is, authoritarianism, dictatorship. attorney general campbell, i know you've been fighting this climate of fear and abuse of power that is emanating from the trump administration towards the state of massachusetts. so what actions are most concerns to you that you've seen in massachusetts? >> thank you, senator. first, i do think we all are concerned about the birthright case not only because it is about protecting the rule of law, it is also indicative of an administration looking to advance an immigration policy that is targeting babies and unborn babies. in addition to that, i'm reminding folks it's broader than the rule of law and immigration. i can't sit here without the 14th amendment, i can't vote, i can't run for office sitting in

this identity. it's a great case to lift up what's at stake here. we don't have a functioning economy without the rule of law. we don't have your ability to seek out opportunity without the rule of law. we don't have our ability to have a contract with our government to get the best of government delivered to you without the rule of law. the magnitude of that is so important. pick the amendment that you like because they can come after that one, too. that has been most concerning, including in the rhetoric i'm hearing on the ground. the second is everything we're seeing related to ice. what we're seeing in illinois is true in california and other places. this was a student who was here lawfully, as you know, who was just walking down the street, stopped by some strangers.

i don't encourage folks to look at videos, but look at this video. walking down the street, stopped by folks who do not identify themselves, masked, unidentified with no badges to identify who they are or who they represent. immediately in the video, you can see the fear that enters her body. and you can't miss it. and instantly, she thinks he's just walking by in her way and then they grip her and take all of her belongings, put her in handcuffs, throw her in an unmarked car and take her away. i used our authority, our power, our relationships to try to find out where she was for 24 hours and we couldn't. we learned she was moved around and ultimately ended up in louisiana. we were able to support her immigration lawyer, offering whatever resources we could to get her released. she's an amazing human being, i've spoken to her.

just amazing in terms of her resiliency but also her support to help others. what's tragic is she was detained for months. we had a high school student in mill ford in massachusetts, no public safety record whatsoever. just heading to practice. just picked up off the street, teenager. and ice and local authorities would have us believe they were doing it all to promote public safety, which is total nonsense. they were doing it to create fear in our communities and they're continuing to do that. i am absolutely concerned about what is happening on the streets of massachusetts. we're doing everything in our power collectively to hold the administration accountable. not just through our litigation efforts to protect due process, but also putting out guidance. most recently, guidance on what people should expect in terms of their engagement with ice, the authority they have and that they don't.

for bystanders, for those being detained, we're helping people access lawyers in realtime. you name it, we're doing our part. but as we're doing our part to fight this fear and horrific pain it is causing, it is undermining our ability to advance public safety. because we had relationships with these law enforcement agencies doing great work to remove guns and drugs off the street and that work has now slowed down. and now federal agencies are not communicating with us. so when our folks do go out to advance public safety, they'll p met with distrust. so we're doing everything we can. but i do hope folks continue to mobilize in the streets, it makes a difference. we'll continue to work with you in this incredible body on laws that can be changed to hold ice accountable in the same ways we can hold our local law enforcements accountable, which is a bit different because our state laws differ from some of the federal laws that govern

ice. sorry for talking a bit long, but i think that is top of mind for everyone, the rule of law but everything that's happening in our communities. >> she was entitled to due process. she had a first amendment right to free speech, it was just an op-ed in a college newspaper. yet they risked her away. they put the spotlight on her the same way the aclu -- the same thing is true for the .17-year-old young man who's an honor student who was arrested by ice. they thought it was his father. they kept him behind bars for six days without any charges made against him. thank you for being here today.

>> thank you very much. and thank you senator durbin and congressman raskin for organizing this very important hearing on this topic. as we all know, this is a lawless president and a lawless administration. they will keep violating the law until they are told they are not allowed to do it. and thank you for everything you are doing as attorneys general. i'm glad that you've taken our new attorney general in north carolina, jeff jackson, our former colleague, under your wing. he is fighting so hard in these cases and i was thrilled to join him in one of the very first cases challenging the fact that the trump administration was pulling back resources from our non-profits and many of our

ngo's. and i hope that that lawsuit is as successful as this nih lawsuit. i know we talked about the nih lawsuit a lot, but i must talk about it a little bit more because i represent the research triangle area in north carolina. and so many of the research institutions in my area. thank you attorney general campbell for pointing out so many of the other economic engines of the research triangle are reliant on this nih funding. but we can't forget the human face. as i was sitting in this hearing, i heard from a constituent who wanted to know, when's my trial gonna start again? i'm sick. i'm worried. and as we all know, when you guys get these amazing injunctions, you have to show both that the trump administration has violated the

law, likelihood of success on the merits. and you have to show irreparable harm. and the justice who i got a message from here is a demonstration of this irreparable harm. so i want to congratulate you attorney general campbell on getting this far and actually getting a permanent injunction. but what i've heard from many of the folks in the bio medical sphere in my area is they're afraid that the trump administration will slow walk the remedy, much as we saw in brown versus board of education. with all deliberate speed. and then that will mean that these life saving drugs and these trials will be permanently gone. because you can't get people back, you can't get the data back. so could you tell me how you are working to get this particular

order enforced as quickly as possible, what the state of the appeal is. and then when you're finished, for anybody else who wants to talk about how we are going to get this justice as quickly as we can. >> i do invite my colleagues to chime in, particularly on nih and how it's affecting them in their respective states because all have stories of life and death, frankly. hence why we are collective in our efforts to protect all funding related to nih. this victory most recently is a big deal. what we're finding is true for all federal funding cases where we are winning decisions to protect this funding, either to turn it back on or to stop the administration from turning it off, is if we need to, we can go back into court with the judge who issued the very order and have them be the player, the stake holder to push the

administration to do what they're calling to do with respect to that order. many of our funding cases, we are indeed winning because the funding has been turned on or wasn't turned off in the first place because of some of our victories. even in the context of my librarian -- at the same time, trying to also remind the court that there is still a risk. i'm using them not to discount nih, i did have some librarians say they still had to cut certain services because of the chaos and confusion if there is an appeal, for example, they don't know how to re respond to that chaos and confusion, even though we won the pi. so it's our opportunity to continue to go back to the court

to remind judges how they might have to be even more creative in crafting a remedy and response. so far, we have been winning but it will always come with real harm, which is why elections matter. >> i can chime in. i joined in co-leading in nih. like many of these actions, it's a personal one to me. my father is a physician who i lost to prostate cancer. and the practice of medicine has evolved since the time he practiced because of research. and i myself was later diagnosed with the same and i was very public about it and have given advice since to people who were diagnose d -- diagnosed subsequent to me. what i've learned in that process is the science has changed, it's evolved. the science of diagnosis, the science of treatment. my experience from just 9 years ago is a bit different than

somebody who may be diagnosed today. either in diagnosis or in treatment. and that's a good thing. and we should continue to advance in research. and so, when we decided to take action on this, it's a very personal one to me. and as ag campbell said earlier in her initial remarks, this does not just impact us in blue states there are research institutions in the red states that are impacted as well. i beg upon my colleagues who serve as ag's on the other side of the aisle to join us in this fight because their institutions would otherwise suffer as well

senator hoffman are both recovering after each is sufferingeight gunshots, nine tr and they continue to recover. thank you and all the law enforcement to work together to get this madman behind bars. we have seen, as you know attorney general an increase in political violence. judges, local officials, capitol police investigated more than threats against members of congress up about 1900 threats

in 2016 it's a major shift is going to involve more security and the like. but one of things and you not been focused on for a while this what was thought of the platforms this stuff is repeated you when i front had her own experience with this together and then i am in real time dealing with something now related to this assassination. but could you just talk about what is to be done? they don't take down the ones that are maybe not news but are actually fake news. >> i did not think of a first amendment right to lie. i don't think of a first amendment right to threaten and commit crimes against others. you do not have a first amendment right to do any of those things. quite honestly think the platform has to be held accountable for the things they

allow fruit and some posters promote on their platform. >> because of the algorithm? >> the algorithm but more recently the person who owns twitter or x actively engaging in the zone platform false statement and lies regarding the tragedy minnesota. it's one thing to say i am neutral. these platform people can so they want. if you own the platform get on the platform and promote lies your self that is an occasion you are no longer the host of a platform you are a publisher. you are purveying information. i think there's a lot of reason why we need to get a handle on these platforms. >> correct parity all the sinks

but there are ways we can put rules in place. >> i certainly think so. we simply have not seen the majority take these matters seriously but they should though. it's a very candid that i believe statistically it does happen one of the right today but it's not like it doesn't happen on the other side. i start with the congressman every democrat every republican was shocked, appalled, and condemned when the baseball practice was attacked and we had a member who was severely injured not just one. i would not say it is even but i would say it does occur on both sides. we both have an interest in reducing the political violence. if i may add one quick point i don't think that means we don't

passionately advocate for things we care about. but, and means of violence cannot be part of the dialogue. cannot be what we allow. >> okay, thank you. i think have time for one more question. i did want to thank you and some of the other eight jews including our own taking on the tariff case. i think you know from a midwestern state how important that is and how devastating this is to our economy. of the thank you in them talk to ag campbell and the mayo clinic we care about this a lot. so thank you but my very last question about the freezing of some of the law enforcement domestic violence grants and the like, i carry along with senator the reauthorization and have done a lot of work on the domestic area i'm very concerned

for an administration that talks the talk about law enforcement and then is freezing these grants. the impact of that. could you answer that, thanks? >> thank you for your leadership on those issues. i think this is most anti- law enforcement administration in modern american history starting on day one they pardon who killed an officer coach of the state of new jersey. one night i came back from a interfaith defend that valve millions of dollars reducing violent services, gun violence prevention, license plate readers all appropriated to keep us were unceremoniously cut without justification. this is happening to law enforcement across the country it's religion the question you asked my colleague for minnesota. funding cuts, as devastating as they are making a mistake i got

a notice.i don't they realize is an e-mail chain. as devastating as those are, when you combine it for the first time that i am aware of a fundamental breakdown in communication because the federal government does not which according to state and local services. i stop the other way around make no mistake at the federal government decide they do not want to coordinate with state and local law enforcement. what happens question what we do not have the resources to respond to have the communication to make sure seeing threats and responding them in real time. i'll give you one specific read written attempted murder case where the victim the person stabbed in the neck was an undocumented immigrant. guess who we could not call because they wouldn't take our calls? the united states attorney's office. so when that happens to think

more domestic violence victims will call 911 or less? it's having a real impact on the ground in new jersey and across the country. you have all highlighted this is so important to see this law and order administration is anything but her. >> a. >> armor my former job as head of an county attorney would have perpetrators try to go after emigrants because they thought may be then they would not talk. use that as evidence and there were provisions made they could come forward and put the bad guy away. when that goes we will have a bigger increase so thank you. >> thank you et cetera klobuchar i reckons it didn't english ladies from vermont for five minutes per. >> thank you so much thank you et cetera durbin for pulling us together to a special thank you for all of you we appreciate being here today.

i want to focus my remarks a building on what others have said about the trump administration attack on science. facts and science still matter that they matter to americans supporting scientific research has to continue to be a national priority. some things have to exist outside the political partisan debate. in one of those things as ismedical research and scientifc advancement. an area where we have been a world leader. but that's not going to continue to be the case under this administration and that continues to attack the scientific community. consult, as we discussed a little earlier you see this administration attempting to illegally/research grant funding, funding that we appropriate congress appropriate. from what i can tell trump is doing this for two main reasons.

he claims research is to walk what does a cover for he doesn't understand the research either way his administration continues to ignore the experts he fundamentally does not believe in making the necessary investments in our scientific research. this administration continues to nickel and dime scientists. but of course it's put this all in a very dangerous situation. our status as a leading nation in the world for science is being severely threatened. decide to leave our country and go overseas which is a reverse of what happened during world war ii while people came here because this was a safe place to do research. you have a situation but we will not benefit from this. our constituents will not bout

benefit from the world will not benefit from ultimately i do not want republicans in my doctor's office and i really do not want them in the science lab either. we have to continue these public investments in these grants and cuts are irrational. they will conflict with the will of congress. but as you spoke to it's the will of the people it is what americans want us to be doing with our money. your individual and collective work matters. i do not think any of us feel like we are fighting as much in it so great or working as hard as we can. but i want you to know what you are doing it doesn't matter and we see it. it gives us courage to keep fighting. if i could start the attorney general campbell. massachusetts is a center of so much research.

you been on the front lines of pushing back. i would love for you to talk about the strategy the trump administration is using to slow or cancel grant funding. what should we be looking for what could we be doing to fight back as well? >> thank you representative. i have to lift up your colleague who at lift up my mother not still there. >> gees 86 young and fabulous did not know i was going to build to give her a shout out. in all seriousness speaks to your question. what we heard is the first lawsuit we challenge the indirect cost issue which on friday night said they're going to cut costs.

and massachusetts in fiscal year 2024 we got overthrown a billion dollars just in that one fiscal year. once your mind but public what the direct cost means it's that human capital, it's the equipment, you cannot do research without all of that. even though the administration would have people think otherwise. but they attempted to do what manipulate the response from the court and cut grant meetings. they had gone to the scoring process with so many institutions in advance of this process for years. once we got there scoring process for example you have an expectation based on previous conduct by the administration. you have meeting number one or meeting number two guaranteeing of get a certain amount of money.

or suddenly under threat or cancel or they were threatening to cancel the grants. we look back into court and just recently won that. one that. which is significant is not only indicative of what we can do as hg collectively in response to grant funding where they directly cut it off but where they are playing games to threaten that funding is also huge victory. we'll see what continues to happen going forward what we will continue think outside of the box. with how we can respond illegally. then of course the engagement with the lawyers and the d.o.j. in these cases also push them to do their part to maintain it. >> you spoke to a brilliant important point that gets lost in all of this science involves incredible planning. exactly years.

the impact they have on regular people why should americans care so deeply about these cuts to these ratios programs? >> almost lift up what was said before. one, we are tired but life is saving treatments for almost every disease you can think about. if you find yourself in a situation we would die doctors diagnosed with cancer or your child with pediatric cancer, i would hope your medical institutions to do everything they could offer you all the care they could to be able to save you or your child's life. when you have an institution, a trump administration and they are a respected institution seek to intentionally cut this funding overnights, it causes

life-and-death situations on the ground. in addition to that creates jobs. healthcare institutions earlier in massachusetts, healthcare institutions, even tech companies the foundation in many ways of our economy and massachusetts governor cover international standing in the world is now undermined because of these cuts. and lastly what can't we just got is standing about the advancements we make here in this country and massachusetts and beyond to advance clinical research. leading and cutting edge research to solve the most diseases that we hope are gone they are all gone critical. not only what will come but as mentioned earlier the ability to craft new medicine and new responses to some of the same diseases that will save more lives. i will never understand why they

continue to target science, nih the science foundation funding or others. what may have those that are here and those that are not who will stand up and continue to fight. >> think is so much for all your doing. i just want to say we all have to continue to find ways to communicate more clearly to americans about what is happening right now. because i know people are exhausted and checking out because they are so overwhelmed. so you being here it matters to give us another opportunity to highlight the importance. >> thank you so much. >> commitment raskin if i'm not mistaken the next senator was a former member of the house judiciary committee progress very much so it's honored to be here. cook senator schiff of

california. >> thank you chairman durbin and chairman raskin for putting this hearing together. and for all of your leadership on both of these important committees. i wanted to ask you all your thoughts on how the administration is handling the immigration issue. the epicenter of the indiscriminate arrest, detention, family separations of militarization of the guard, the marine corps the deployment of law enforcement or military for law enforcement purposes let me start with one issue that the ethnic profiling of people. they're grabbing people off the street. they're claiming to looking for one person and grabbing whoever they get. they are arresting or detaining courts have ruled they're not allowed to profile and this will

be of citizens and noncitizens alike being arrested because of their appearance yet it goes on and that goes on every day. what can be done to enforce the court orders that have already said you can't just profile someone and arrest someone without probable cause or reasonable suspicion or any other basis apart from their ethnicity? >> we can take action and courts as you know the federal government as a government of limited powers when those federal responsibilities as in the area of immigration. they cannot racially profile. they cannot use national language there's plenty of court cases on this.

on trump one reit fired an amicus went trump trying to terminate for liberian immigrants. ugly remarks about countries. or not without tools at the profiling, the racial profiling and something we meet on a regular basis. we talk about these things on a regular basis is something we certainly need to look out. what powers can aid you spring for racial profiling. to take a close look at. i want to note trump recently said he was concerned some of the big donors but his policy.

what is really saying he might look these donors exploit workers unfairly and maybe not just anti- immigrant thing against this particular set. then a few days later pulled back from that. but the rationality is a way talk about. it is capricious. the federal government is not too allowed in the capricious matter must act rationally based on thought and planning and fairness. so thank you for raising these issues. i said that all of us are deeply concerned about their we will focus our attention on pickwick. >> i appreciate it. but we are seeing only need to combine our forces on is ignoring but we are winning in court and they are just ignoring the court orders.

they want to flood the zone with excrement and other areas they flood the zone and a violation of court orders by the time to go back to court and back to court and back to court they have continued to arrest and detain people on the basis of their appearance. let me turn to a related concern they are making some these arrests and courthouses are. the seams departed the new modus operandi. immigrants are more likely to be witnesses in this court houses than defendants. but, what are you seeing happen? using immigrants not willing to come and testify in criminal cases anymore because they have fear they might get detained? what are attorneys recommending that have immigration appointments? have a horribly heartbreaking case which is one of many of a californian who went in immigration proceeding with his son. showed up though he is supposed to. and is arrested.

and then deported away from his son. then his son is also deported. what do attorneys not recommend to their clients? can it attorneys show up in lieu of their client to make an appearance? or how are people supposed to handle the conflicting obligations to show up for court appearance with the fear that court appearance is going to be abused to arrest and detain and deport them? >> the courts we have most influence on estate courts. we have been urging, raising the issue that witnesses, defendants, the victim simply will not show up to court we have people have tremendous fear about this. some sectors were other ethnic groceries people aren't going there anymore. we have schools that had immigrant children not show up

for school. one of the things were advocating for an estate courts is to have more video hearings so people can have some sense that they can be heard without having fear ice is going to show up and take this action or other. and recently they have. historically there has been this idea that sensitive areas are places were ice should not be there because they can interfere with the administration or justice for the administration of cross that out. we are in a tough situation when it comes to this but i think there are things we can do video hearings are one thing i know we were talking about a minnesota. >> one last question? sure if you can make a quick quick dark congressman will you indulge your old colleague. [laughter] the court of appeals and the ninth circuit recently rendered

the term through the governor superfluous when it comes to nationalizing the guard over the opposition of the governor. the issue of the use of the marine corps to detain and law enforcement's been challenged in court. we suspect the playbook is going to be repeated in your states as well. what preparations are you making for the potential of the act of his asian immobilization of your guards over the opposition of your governor and the opposition of the states? cooks well, obviously i disagree in the ninth circuit.

our respective states. with regards our preparation. unfortunately the trump administration has politicized politicized is of states that were being targeted for aggressive immigration. the enforcement based on party affiliation. not on general immigration policy. if i could touch on your prior question for a moment, there is a limitation on what we can do by way of the court as attorney general after acknowledge that.

i have a young daughter i've asked her to pay attention to the words of jesus chief justice roberts of the scripture georgetown law students and cautioned them the rule of law is under threat. and we need to enhance our civics education. i think with the chief justice was talking about is yes, we have had some successes. we are not going to build cheape everything in the courts of got to educate the public about large eyes to our constitution not make constitutional scholars of them. but understand the basics such that people can speak and resist a president who says he does not know whether or not he is up all the constitution. >> i know we are a little overtime but if i may, senator, if there is one thing that converses society from a free society to an authoritarian

society it is use of the military against the population for dissent. this thing in california has been sleepless quite honestly. and i just want to point out that deference when that executive is not bound by common norms of law and decency is unleashing military rule on society. i have heard in california they are going to raise this issue higher to the next level. we do not know what will happen there but i am telling you there is one thing that will cause a revocable time harm it is the military during against american

citizen all under the rubric of public order when the governor and the mayor of the city are saying we really don't need your help at all that is undisputed l.a. does not need donald trump's help. >> thank you. senator shift? so she's going to say general i totally agree with you. but, it would've been nice if the chief justice thought about that before give the president of the united states and immunity to commit criminal acts while in office. >> i'll not recognize a very distinguished gentleman from the fourth district of illinois mr. garcia who has been such a leader in 70 things were talking about today. >> thank you ranking members raskin and durbin for this very timely convening. of course all of the attorney general that are here today i knew fighting in this

administration's lawlessness including my friend ag kwame raoul from illinois. that he and his lapdogs have done everything to weaponize the federal government to serve their corrupt criminal, cruel and racist agenda. this is not about america first this is about trump first it's openly authoritarian movement but demands obedience to its leader it's hard to quantify in this perilous a moment i am grateful we have a group of attorneys general who are fighting back. not just because a policy disagreement what is on the line and that's constitutional rule. thank you for being here and thank you for everything you do around the country. even though we talked on

explaining the importance of lawsuit over the executive order and why this is personal to you. >> yes. thank you congressman. i think new jersey on their leadership. i was born to a haitian immigrant mother who is not yet naturalized at the time of my birth. i am a birthright citizen. and i know there are many like me who have contributed to this country including more recent birthright citizens. fundamentally the language in the 14th amendment goes beyond the topic of birthright citizenship. the language in the 14th amendment is plain. this is one of our very first lawsuits. and to the extent that the

administration is going to violate a constitutional amendment that is so clear in its language we are very much threatened in every subject matter area. i believe it was mentioned earlier spoke about things ranking member raskin mentioned how any lawyer could come in and present an argument with regards to it. he also said it was a blatantly unconstitutional. the language of the 14th amendment is clear if you are born here you are citizen here. >> thank you. and changing gears can you talk a little bit about that work to prevent the dismantlement of the department of education? and, if that were to occur what's the harm? what's the damage being done to children, and students, and parents, and teachers, and all of the implications of that came

to fruition? >> yes congressman. as you know my former basketball teammate was a former secretary of education we have discussed the damage in particular to some of the most vulnerable students. students with disabilities that services through the department of education go towards helping their students who won't have access to the processing of financial aid such as they can attend schools. there is funding that helps school districts and some of the most vulnerable areas of our state's that will be disadvantage by dismantling department of education. >> thank you in your colleagues for your work on that front. and finally to a former member

of the house from the state of minnesota, last week general allison three colleagues and i went to an isa processing center that has now been turned into a detention center. we stood and a half a son in the morning. people had been in line all right because they had appointments. they were checking in as they requested to do so. we identified ourselves it was hot, almost two hours they would not open the door. when they finally sent someone to talk to us after i yelled through a fence on the side, a gentleman came over masked, nameplate concealed and told us that if we wanted to request access to that facility we had to send an e-mail. i corrected him and told that we had every right to be there was i within with the law states?

and what do you think about that experience for for members who were seeking to interview constituents we had reason to believe are at that center and the denial of our ability to conduct oversight. >> it's outrageous. it is wrong we had the loudly protested with the seek out all remedies available to not let this behavior to occur. something deeply disturbing as it noted a little earlier and i think you heard me. i've done the research there is a mask or note masked requirement for ice agents breed that is not appear to be but there should be write something i hope we can see get past a lot of people both sides of the aisle agree. i hope you will allow me just

that you asked ag kwame raoul they want to attack headstart. they went to attack k-12 education. they want to attack libraries and museums. they want to attack npr and pbs. they are literally trying to dumb down america if you look at it in a comprehensive way why are they attacking every way the public is to know about stuff? just a thought. >> thank you peeled back a bit quick thank you very much. senator blumenthal. thank you ranking member durbin ranking member raskin for bringing us together. great idea to have you here which of you would like to change jobs with me. [laughter] i did your job in connecticut for 20 years.

my youngest child of four once asked newman she was a very little whether i was going to be the internal general. eternal general. i love the job. and i do not need to tell you it is so important now what you are doing. i just want to say thank you. you are the firewall, you are the enforcers that will help save our democracy. that is certainly no exaggeration and there are days when a miss that job but do not tell attorney general. [laughter] but, i want to ask you a question that is spurred by a rally i literally just a tenant for parents who have lost loved ones to suicide or other problems the toxic content that's driven by certain social

media sites. my question is partly about that phenomenon of the kids online safety act championship senator blackburn. a passed senate and the last session by vote of 91 -- three. and then get it to the house. but my question and impact of social media as you see it and empowering that fringe groups fp that have espoused violence and spotting and spreading hate and friction. this is a somewhat vague question and we are taught never ask a question if you don't know the answer is going to be. to be very useful to get your perspective on how social media is much as it's a benefit to all

of us the division, the function frictionsometimes the violence r society. still a legend in our caucus. i think i speak for all of us. outside the context we are trying not suing people to cause harm to our state include the president brown think anyone is causing more harm and after generation of kids in social media companies. it is one of the few things that generates bipartisan agreement. fifty states are on the lawsuits were filed against tiktok and meta- heard just recently i sued this court which is a devastating generation of young kids. this is like tobacco in the 70s and 80s.

this is as equal as a joke camel to the kids. i do worry this administration given their views on how the federal government can use its authority given the change with the supreme court has said they're going to have fewer tools. even if they wanted to use them but i don't think they want to use them. dov tells us what we are talking too as what's been said by political violence can be said about what we have seen with respect to organizing real harms in our states. senator happens on social media. notwithstanding section 2:30 these sites have terms of service. the make promises to the general public harms are going to protect people from and that they do not do it but that's a corporate lawsuit which you know is consumer protection. it is because we care deeply about it and it's a devastating young kids pickwick senator if i may add, the work you also do an

massachusetts is complementing this multistate bipartisan lawsuit against the social media companies. so that testament a state legislature for the study act. a bill that would ban cell phones in school while during the school day. but not just to ban cell phones to ban cell phones because we have been seeing not just social media apps of mental health issues but the uptick in bullying and harassment and egregious cases for the using social media apps we expect teachers or educators to police that quote and the same legislation it can take a really long time. were holding the state legislation as soon as we can. i think there's an appetite in the statehouse because folks want to know what can they do it in the midst of the trump

trumpaccountability to move the needle forward on issues that are just as important in the course that includes social media companies holding them accountable through a state vehicle. senator, if it was not for some of the social meter platforms, the epidemic of auto theft among certain brands probably never would have happened. there are two particular brands of the target of choice for car thieves you know what they are kia and hyundai. i took the social media to teach kids how to hotwire one of them and it's all over the country eight 100% increase in auto theft. because the federal government is not a partner it used to be quite honestly, that is one of the byproducts of all of this.

i believe we used to be able to go to them and say let's team up on this. that could really bring results forward to think of your question. seven if i may, i think you hit on the head. as a g platkin pointed out we have come together. this is one place we can come together focusing on social media harms to youth. the reality as it does not stop at youth. there is information on social media has us where we are today. and unless we, as a country, and i do not know that sets is a legal response but unless we can find a way to wrap our arms around this, i do not know the end of this is. what i want to say i appreciate

your bipartisan litigation. any comparison to big tobacco is unmistakable. both doing harm both having a business model thrives on addiction. both aware of the harm and denying it. with the big tobacco at the big breakthrough for us was discovery. good old-fashioned discovery. documents that showed not only do they know about the harm they were doing they were destroying the evidence. the research they did themselves shows the harm they were doing. big tech companies do have a degree of immunity. but you are showing how you can get around it.

and big tobacco thought they were immune as well. they never settled a case. they never lost a case. the department of justice of the united states did not want to take action against big tobacco. partly because of the political. i thank you for standing up for the consumers, the children and families of america and what you are doing which is in the great tradition of state the great attorney general. thank you pickwick thank you, senator blumenthal. the next is a former chairman of immigration subcommittee are not the ranking member of the senator from california, senator padilla. correct thank you, senator durbin. congressman raskin think if your leadership and your voice and your friendship as well. i think he told the witnesses for taking the time to be here and for your courage to speak

out and to speak out. my republican colleagues expressed serious concerns about states rights, states authority a fundamental construct in our constitution. the needs to stop the federal government from overreaching whole issues. the talk about education they talk about a woman's autonomy and choices of her own body they talk about vaccinations, you name it. but as you sit here today we witness a trump administration and a donald trump that's running roughshod over states that he disagrees with. it has been curiously quiet on the other side of the aisle right now. i wonder to myself where's the outrage over donald trump's

threat to withhold funds from states? based on any particular item of his agenda that a state is statedisagrees with. where's the outrage when the trump administration ignores the law about spending levels that congress on a bipartisan basis authorize and acted upon where's the outrage with the president makes it harder for residents to register to vote? where's the outrage when the president sends armed forces into communities domestically over the objections of the governor of that state. let alone local mayors, and local law enforcement. all in order to stoke tensions that have already been heightened after a series of increasingly aggressive,

performative, cruel immigration raids in places like restaurants, agricultural fields, construction sites. should not have to wait for this to happen in your state, colleagues, before we speak up. you know very well it's happening and mine. in mine. but this is what we are seeing and again silence on the other side. let's speak to california in the state i'm proud to represent california contributes about $83 billion more in a funding to the federal treasury that it receives. we are a donor state more than any other state in the nation. and yet the trump administration threatens to strip funds from my state, along with all of the states represented by the people

around this table. as outrageous as it is on american. i want to hear more about just what that would mean for the country if he follows through with that. attorney general campbell massachusetts his joint california and are going the trump administration cannot strip federal funding based on the immigration -related policies. we knows the job of the federal government to force immigration law not the job of state or local government. but massachusetts, california, others have adopted immigrant friendly policy and in the interest of our community in the interest of our economy and the interest of public health and more. late last week he secured a victory in one of those lawsuits. can you explain that particular case question what can you explain the kinds of funds the trump administration is trying

to withhold and what that withholding of funds would mean for communities? >> thank you, senator. of course we would all want to acknowledge a jeep bond who is a part of this coalition we work closely with him on a regular basis. and i went to ucla law school so i have to give them a shout out. mention this earlier it's almost too full to have the administration intentionally seeking to cut funding unlawfully in the context of public health or public safety grants, you name it just unlawfully cut them. they had this other category where the air-conditioning that monies on something we are doing or not doing. in this case it was in them wanting us to advance certain types of immigration policy within our state and attempting to bully us to implement the cruel in fear mongering immigration policies that we are seeing including ways in which ice is showing up in our

communities and in our respective states or to attach other conditions to the grand gei we've been reminding people de by a policies are lawful there attempting to tell folks were going to take your money away if you are doing those policies are implementing dia policies. i will take your transportation funding or your fema funding away for not doing our immigration enforcement for us. or some other unlawful policy based on some ideology. in this most recent case we won. a judge essentially said you cannot do that. this is a preliminary injunction where they could not condition funding for fema or certain transportation on building the states are advancing immigration policy producing their context to and we went there as well.

>> okay but the victories continue it should not be a question but has become one. up until this administration and this president you would never conceive of the notion of executive branch of the federal government not complying with court orders. but here we are. this is a follow-up to your response to the question you said in your testimony at freezingthese funds is making yr citizens less safe and i understand that's a very passionate response this topic r klobuchar can you speak a little bit more how the administration actions have made it harder for state and local law enforcement to do its job's? or just for small, senator, thank you for your leadership and for your bravery. i would note quickly in response to your question is one former state attorney general in washington once led a coalition

of 26 states up to the supreme court advocate against federal government's ability to course states through spending and her name is pam bondi. i think with respect to your question this administration of tax law and order that i in thee center coalition public safety record with any of the states that are not part of our coalition look at gun violence, rates of domestic violence, human trafficking, drug trafficking, or push law enforcement's work two years with record low numbers of shootings in new jersey have we done that customer close partnerships across federal, state and local governments but we find things like license plate reader technology was the trump administration is cutting with but law enforcement on the street with empower them to focus on the crimes that we want to prevent. this administration is on the opposite that tax law enforcement officers and make

maycoordination across state, county, local and federal government law enforcement weaker than his been any point since 911. the result of that is a people or states are less safe. if we are not coordinating and sharing information effectively people got hurt. we see it in real cases i would import the federal government to do frankly what did in the first trump administration, which is separate politics from law-enforcement. and in many respects and that's not happening right now for the upshot is you're going to see crime potentially go up in the blame should be in the parties that are not actively trying to work with law enforcement to keep our communities safe. >> thank you. looks a couple comments on closing my time is up but two points i think are important for this record. number one, to your last point it is been the situation, the

concern in los angeles these past couple of weeks between the increasingly cruel extreme ice raids and detention but the way the administration is gone about it has raised tension in los angeles objections of local leadership and local law enforcement the federalization of federal guard members and deployment into our communities. the protest had been by and large peaceful but we know people exploit protests and sensitive issues different crowd of folks that cause vandalism, looting, et cetera even as that was dissipating the administration further escalates by sending in the marines. when i from local law enforcement is it makes the job of local law enforcement harder because there's no communication, no coordination. not only is it unnecessary, it's

frankly counterproductive in putting the general public and law enforcement officials in danger. number one. number two a moment to clarify for the record what sanctuary policy is and what century policy isn't. it was covered in the hearing already but i think there is a big misunderstanding unintentionally of what century policy represents it's what's holding at the state of california and so many others. all sentry means is a state or local jurisdiction were not commit their state or local resources for the enforcement of federal immigration laws but the job of the federal government to enforce federal laws not state and local should you that work does it mean it can't come into a state? of course not. for the job local law enforcement is public safety.

it is, based on my experience and if and if you disagree hurtful to public safety if somebody depending on the immigration status legal, or otherwise chooses not to come forward and report a crime. because of that concern or for witnesses or have information to a crime that would not comport with that information because of their fear. i see heads nodding in the affirmative. so i do not see any disagreement it's important for the purposes of this hearing, for the purposes of the deliberation to lay that out and i will end with this. and just happens to be los angeles. happens to be california have us be a conversation at immigrant rights and due process right now.

but this administration, clean the secretary of homeland security is not been shy about what they perceive as their quote mission. to liberate los angeles from the governor and from the mayor. as a dangerous notion when they believe it's their job for the the jobof the military to detere which duly elected governors and mayors can lead their constituents. that is part of what we are speaking up against but the reflection of the tone this administration chooses to create. so again thank you for being here for quick senator padilla? >> congressman raskin had to leave for another meeting and i did too. i want to thank the panel on leaving on the best hands of all senator van hollen from the state of maryland. he is going to wrap up the

hearing after asking a few questions particularly senator. >> me start by thanking senator durbin and congressman raskin for bringing us together. i think all of you i know it covered a lot of territory they been keeping me informed. i don't diss at the outset a big thank you, not just for being here today but being on the front lines of trying to protect your state in our country from an obsolete lawless president. i've never seen anything at thie scale and scope and magnitude i think we are up to over three to cases filed in federal courts to try to protect individuals and states and the country as was mentioned a whole mountain and eliminate injections that's a testament to your good work and andi would to thank you. we were discussing a little but the version of attentional resources away from fighting

violent criminals toward in many cases under this administration going after immigrants who have not committed any kind of violent offenses. president trump tries to mislead the country this is all about going after violent members of the immigration community. but we know many of the people being disappeared from our communities have no history of violence whatsoever. they have been contributing to their local communities.

to know how the u.s. department

of justice pulling out of the enforcement of consent decrees that cities in the federal government had arrived at based on years of investigation, is that going to improve relationships between police and communities. i mean, i represent the city where george floyd was killed. we took two years of investigation to come to an investigation and then come to an agreement between the city and the federal government which she has now abandoned. how do we instill trust between community and police when community cannot even trust that the federal government will stay at the table. >> thank you. >> attorney general bondi is the named defendant or the department of justice for the arms dealer. very simply they have not explained to the american public outputting 12,000 dorms or

machine guns more powerful than m-16s making us in any way more safer and whose interest doesn't serve in that gun lobby. thank you i saw that case that you filed. i think that that is a great question. i appreciate this. just in closing, attorney general, we obviously had the situation in new jersey where a member of congress was indicted. senator, experiencing what he did, where you had federal agents involved. this is to you because if anybody has any ideas, what is the role of state for local law enforcement. when you have people at the direction of a lawless administration. taking actions that had direct impact spirit on people like

congresswoman macgyver. >> i am very familiar with the charges against the congresswoman that we are dismissed 12 days after filing in the interest of moving forward which is not a standard i ever dismissed a case under. this should alarm us. if you politicize law enforcement, there is not much left. it does not just undermine the action. faith in the action of those particular actions in the state of 42,000. officers doing hard work every day. it makes their job harder. regardless of the facts of any specific, if you charge a public official as i have done with a crime, you better damn well have good evidence of clear conduct and intent. you do not hold a higher standard but you also don't have

a lower standard. the politicization the functioning of the justice department, conducting criminal investigations on cable news network's hearing evidence, those are meant to embarrass people and target people. it is not what i am supposed to do. it is legitimate. the people that enforce it are therefore legitimate. whether you are friends with the president or not. you will foster disobedience to law. you have undermined the inherent

credibility that associates with democratic law. and, so, this is a recipe for lawlessness and chaos. a recipe for people to say the president doesn't, why should i. it is setting us down a path that i don't think anyone wants to go down. i hope that we can wake these folks up to see the error of the waste before it's too late. >> i think that that is a very important point to and on. i want to thank all of you. i wish that the committees were holding the hearings and hear the good points that you are making. all of you and said, this is not about a

c-span.org. ♪