How did federal income taxes get this way?

Paying income taxes is a civic responsibility... but it hasn't always been. Where did it start, and where is it now?

We haven't always had a federal income tax, and in the beginning, it only applied to the very richest Americans. So how did we end up with the permanent income tax we have today, with all its complicated rules about everything from pre-tax income to deductions and credits? And what does it actually pay for?  

Listen:

---

This transcript is computer-generated, and may contain errors.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:00] Hi, this is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:02] And I'm Nick Capodice. And I guess we're just jumping in. No warm up, no archival, just going right into this.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:09] Well, I do have a question for you, but it sounds a lot like a question we might ask at the beginning of an ad, which this is not. This is a real show. We are not trying to sell you on anything, but we are going to talk about something that you're probably hearing a lot of ads about right now, and that is taxes.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:32] Oh dear.

Archival Sound: [00:00:33] They say everybody's got different problems. Well, maybe so, but I've got a song about one problem that every one of us have and that's taxes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:44] So I solemnly swear I'm not about to sell you a tax service. But I do want to ask to any of these questions sound familiar to you? How many kids do you have? Do you work from home? Did you save for retirement? Did you pay tuition? How about student loans? Did you get money from an inheritance? Did you buy an electric vehicle? Did you donate to a charity? Did you buy a house? Sell a house? How big is your office?

Nick Capodice: [00:01:04] Yeah, I'm familiar with all those questions, Hannah, because I answer them when I file my taxes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:09] And, Nick, if you don't mind me asking, how did you do your taxes last year?

Nick Capodice: [00:01:15] Well, after I put them off, I used an accountant.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:19] Right. Like you, most Americans need help figuring out how much money we owe the government. Each year, about 90% of people use technology like TurboTax or hire a human tax preparer to do their tax return. Tax season requires an enormous amount of time, money, and resources, not only from the government, but from us, the taxpayers.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:41] It is pretty confounding, Hannah, that we live in a country where you basically need a degree in accounting, or the money to pay for someone with a degree or computer software just to comply with the law. It's hard to understand how that's a good thing.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:56] You raise a good point. So I want to introduce you to someone named Beverly Moran. She's a professor of law and sociology at Vanderbilt University, where she focuses on federal income taxation. She's testified before Congress and written extensively about the complexity of our income tax system.

Beverly Moran: [00:02:12] I mean, what people talk about being able to have a tax return on a postcard, that was basically the amount of information you had to put on a return for most people. But the problem is, as the tax started to filter to the whole country, there was another sort of movement going on which caused the return to become much more frightening. And what that was was that we started to bud a lot of things into the tax system. There really weren't about taxes in preparation for, um, talking to you. I reached out to several friends of mine who had, like, you know, decades of experience, you know, were tax preparers, right? They know the taxpayer side and they know the government side. They were all saying to me, like, how can you say any of it is good? How could you come up with a story like and I'm saying, well, I want to say this and that. And they were like, well, good for you that you can come up with this story because it's not good. It's horrible.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:26] So today on Civics 101, we're going to talk about why our income tax system is the way it is full of complexity, difficult to navigate and extremely personal, where circumstances like who you work for, what kind of resources you have and how you spend your money are directly connected to how much you owe the government each year and what the government provides for you in return.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:52] Just to clarify, you said federal income taxes, so we're leaving states out of it. We're not talking about state local sales tax, anything like that. Right.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:01] Because that's a whole other subject entirely. Every state and many municipalities have their own tax system, and they vary widely. We're focused today on federal income taxes, specifically those taxes that individuals like you and me pay every year out of the money we earn. And to start, I think we should get a better sense of how much income taxes matter.

Eric Toder: [00:04:27] So the federal income tax is our largest single source of revenue for the federal government. It raises roughly 50% of of federal receipts.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:37] This is Eric Toder. He's an institute fellow at the Urban-brookings Tax Policy Center. He worked in tax policy for the Treasury Department, at the IRS and in the Congressional Budget Office. He also worked as a consultant for the New Zealand Treasury.

Eric Toder: [00:04:52] But there are other big taxes. The second biggest tax is the payroll tax, which people may feel is similar to an income tax because it also comes out of their paycheck. And for most people in this country, the payroll tax is a bigger tax than the income tax. The income tax is a very progressive tax. It rises steeply as a rate of tax with your income, whereas the payroll tax is a flat rate tax.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:19] The payroll tax is a flat tax set at 15.3%. Your employer pays half and you pay half, right.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:27] But Eric said that income tax is a progressive tax. So can you clarify for me the difference between a flat rate tax and a progressive tax?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:35] A flat rate tax is one that applies to everyone in the same amount, regardless of how much money they make, like Social Security. If you made anywhere from $0 to $160,000, you pay 6.2% of your income to Social Security, and your employer also pays 6.2%. If you're self-employed, you pay the full 12.4%. What makes our income tax progressive is that the more income you earn, the higher the tax rate is on that income.

Eric Toder: [00:06:07] The third biggest source, which is significantly smaller, is the corporate income tax. But that's an important part of our tax system because without a tax on corporate income, people could avoid the income tax by accumulating income within corporations. So the corporation income tax, even though it raises only about 10% of federal revenues, is an important part of our our tax system. There are other taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes, customs duties. They're they're smaller.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:38] Where does that revenue go? What kind of things does it pay for?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:42] It pays for the cost of running the government. It pays for all kinds of government programs, with social services being the biggest chunk, followed by defense and things like education, scientific research, infrastructure and natural resources.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:56] So I want to go back to how we got to this place. Did the framers mention this at all in the Constitution? Like, have we always had an income tax?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:04] We have not. The Constitution says that Congress can set taxes to, quote, pay for the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. But the framers favored indirect taxes like sales taxes and tariffs more than direct taxes on income.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:24] So indirect meaning like a tax on something that you're paying for and theoretically could choose to pay for rather than tax, that automatically comes out of your paycheck.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:33] Correct.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:34] All right. So what changed? When did we finally get a permanent income tax?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:39] That happened in 1913 when we ratified the 16th amendment. This amendment says the federal government has the right to impose income taxes, and, more importantly, that the federal government does not have to distribute or apportion that revenue to states based on population size.

Joe Thorndike: [00:07:57] Now, in the beginning, the tax is really narrow, only applies to a relative handful of Americans. And that's true, you know, up until the World War one. And then it gets broader and bigger. And then but it's still it's pretty minor tax. It's a rich man's burden basically. Right.

Beverly Moran: [00:08:11] Originally, and even now to some extent it's a fantasy.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:15] Again, this is Beverly Moran.

Beverly Moran: [00:08:17] And the fantasy that it was selling between 1913 and the 1940s was that this was a way of having some sort of income redistribution.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:30] But the income tax wasn't just added to the already existing taxes. The government also lowered tariffs, which are taxes on imported and exported goods. Tariffs had been a main source of revenue after the Civil War and the rise of industrialization. But with that industrialization came business owners and investors who accumulated vast sums of wealth. People who used that wealth to exploit workers, monopolize industries, raise prices, and manipulate the markets for their own gain. So in an effort to lower tariffs and redistribute wealth without making big cuts to the government's budget, Congress shifted more of the tax burden directly onto the wealthiest Americans.

Beverly Moran: [00:09:15] The taps that were only like 3% of the population even had to file. Only about 1% of the population had to pay.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:24] But even so, the stock market crashed in 1929, which led.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:28] To the Great Depression.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:29] It did indeed.

Archival Sound: [00:09:30] Prosperity is just around the corner, say the hopeful headlines. But around the corners wind, the lengthening bread lines and a whole new class of citizens appears in American society the new poor.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:46] Businesses failed, industries crashed. And when President Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1933, he wasn't shy about using income tax to pay for economic recovery.

Archival Sound: [00:09:57] My friends, I still believe in ideals. I am not for a return to that definition of liberty, under which for many years a free people were being gradually regimented into the service of the privileged few.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:18] For example, Roosevelt introduced the Revenue Act of 1935, which was targeted specifically at the wealthiest Americans with tax rates that were as high as 75%. Wow. This helped fund the relatively new Social Security Administration, one of the New Deal welfare programs Roosevelt created after the Great Depression.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:38] And I am just trying to imagine something like a 75% income tax happening today. And I just cannot.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:44] By the way, at one point, the highest tax bracket only had one person, John D Rockefeller. But at the same time that the federal government was heavily taxing the wealthy, it was also creating exceptions, asterisks, things that allowed people to get out of paying taxes on their entire income. Here's Joe Thorndike.

Joe Thorndike: [00:11:07] There was one moment where where FDR says to his Treasury secretary, I'd like a list of the top 50 taxpayers in, you know, 1942. I can't remember which year it was, but roughly around then no names, of course. And then they give them a they give them a memo, which includes all the names. Roosevelt was famous for a lot of sort of anti loophole anti-tax avoidance crackdowns. And in 1937, I mean he had the Treasury write him this memo. Again. There were two versions, one that had the names and one that didn't, but they made sure that those names made their way into the public sphere and that these guys were called out for using, you know, special little loopholes to try to avoid their taxes.

Eric Toder: [00:11:48] Well, we've always had certain exceptions in the income tax system.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:53] This is Eric Toder again.

Eric Toder: [00:11:54] Modern federal income tax started in 1913. We had a capital gains preference in introduced in 1921. We had um, mortgage interest deductions. From the beginning, that wasn't very important because not very many people paid income tax and not very many people owned homes. The federal income tax started, but it became important later.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:18] It became more important when our income taxes went from something that only affected a small group of people to something that applied to nearly everyone.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:27] I'm going to go with the episode trend so far, Hannah and guests that a war had something to do with this.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:33] It did indeed. Once again, war.

Archival Sound: [00:12:35] No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:54] Specifically World War Two, and the need to pay for it led to a major shift in our tax policy.

Eric Toder: [00:13:02] Big government really dates from the Second World War, and that was when we introduced a mass income tax that applied to the majority of Americans.

Beverly Moran: [00:13:13] And again, the income tax becomes a way of communicating certain ideas like this is like a victory garden or this is like not wearing nylons, you know, we're all in it for the war effort.

Archival Sound: [00:13:27] I paid my income tax today. I'm only one of millions more whose income never was taxed before. Art tax. I'm very glad to pay Victory Gardens.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:41] Like. That's where the government encouraged people to grow their own food to help reduce the demand needed to feed soldiers.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:47] Yeah, taxes were pitched in the same way. The propaganda around income taxes, like the song by Irving Berlin that you're hearing right now, were all about showing your support for the war effort by paying taxes.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:00] I got to say, it's a pretty jaunty little tune.

Joe Thorndike: [00:14:03] When the number of taxpayers increases, like sevenfold in a few years, millions of new people start paying the tax. They. The saying is that it went from being a class tax to a mass tax, and that's when the Bureau of Internal Revenue became a fact of life for regular Americans, for middle class Americans in particular.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:25] Like the previous income tax, the expanded mass income tax was a progressive graduated tax. The higher your income, the higher your income tax rate.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:36] All right. So how did the Bureau handle this huge new tax base? Well, it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:40] Got help from the Social Security Administration which introduced Social Security numbers. So the Bureau of Internal Revenue could keep track of people's identities and income. And Congress also made it possible for the Bureau of Internal Revenue to collect those taxes from someone's check before payday.

Beverly Moran: [00:14:59] I think every kid has this experience, right. You get a job, you're told you're going to get paid $100. You get the check. The check is $80. Like, where did that $20 go? But it's withholding. So, you know, when you think about it, when all this is going on, there are no computers. There's, um, you know, there's no internet, right? They're barely like telephones. So withholding serves a lot of purposes. One of which, from the government point of view, is fewer people to deal with. If I can deal with Smith's Grocery. That represents 20 people. That's much easier for me than dealing with all the 20 people who work in Smith's Grocery. And so the whole thing was pretty easy to do. All right, so.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:47] This sounds pretty basic. Most people paid an income tax, but a lot of times it just came right out of their paycheck. So how do we go from that to what we have now, where a tax return has all of these components in it?

Archival Sound: [00:16:01] The total amount of income is not taxed. However, as each person is allowed certain deductions, you can deduct portions of medical and dental expenses.

Eric Toder: [00:16:10] One reason it's complicated and isn't as complicated in some other other countries is we've tried to use the tax system for many different things other than raising revenue.

Archival Sound: [00:16:20] Charitable contributions, interest payments, certain taxes, and so on.

Eric Toder: [00:16:24] The federal government has decided it wants to encourage certain activities, wants to help people save for retirement. It wants to encourage them to give money to charities. Some of these programs could have been done by appropriations, but instead they're done through forgiving tax.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:42] What does he mean by that? Can you give me like an example?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:44] Let's start with World War Two. In 1942, Congress gave President Roosevelt the power to freeze wages, and he introduced a maximum wage of $25,000.

Archival Sound: [00:16:57] Taxation is the only practical way of preventing the incomes and profits of individuals and corporations from getting too high.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:05] Essentially, any income you made over $25,000 was taxed at nearly 100%.

Archival Sound: [00:17:13] The nation must have more money to run the war. People must stop spending for luxuries. Our country needs a far greater share of our income.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:27] But and here's where things get interesting. That wage cap applied to pay salary commissions, bonuses, but it did not apply to other kinds of compensation like insurance and pension benefits.

Eric Toder: [00:17:44] When wages were capped, employers, in order to compensate their employees, started introducing health benefits. Retirement benefits. The federal government wanted to encourage these things, so the amount of income you get in the form of employer contributions to health insurance is exempt from federal income tax.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:07] Especially because the employer also did not have to pay taxes on any income they spent on those kinds of programs.

Eric Toder: [00:18:16] Which encourages employers to provide health insurance to their employees.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:22] Is this unique to the United States? I mean, employer provided health care is one of those things that's now kind of the norm and the backbone of our health care system. And saving for retirement through work is, for most people, the only way they're able to retire. But I know that's not the case elsewhere. So what's different about our tax policy than other countries?

Eric Toder: [00:18:44] Okay, so there are some very big differences. One is we don't have a national sales tax at the federal level. And we generally even including states, we rely a lot less on consumption taxes than than other countries. That means our tax system probably overall is a little bit more progressive than the tax systems in Europe.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:08] One way to think of this as more progressive is if there is a high sales tax on something, no matter how much money you earn, you pay that sales tax. Whereas theoretically the burden of the income tax is higher if you make more money.

Eric Toder: [00:19:24] But oddly enough, our fiscal system is less progressive. The reason I say this is they have these value added taxes, but they have much more generous social benefits, health benefits and so forth. So in a sense, we rely more on taxes for redistribution. They rely more on spending programs.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:45] So even though other countries may charge greater taxes on consumption, they also often spend more on programs that save people money or reduce their expenses. For example, the cost of health care.

Eric Toder: [00:19:58] All the systems use some tax expenditures. I think, you know, our exemption of employer premiums is probably unique to our system because in other other systems, they have more public funding of health care. So you don't need to have this encouragement of the employer system.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:19] So it's hard to compare income taxes across countries. But people in Denmark pay almost half of their income in taxes. And Denmark also has some of the highest consumption taxes, taxes that you pay when you buy something or go out to eat, which the United States has kept relatively low. High consumption taxes are also the norm in countries like Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway.

Beverly Moran: [00:20:42] So how can it be that you have people who aren't making very much money, are paying a very high tax rate and are paying taxes that, um, in the United States, we say are taxes that hurt the poor. Well, the reason is that they are actually providing tremendous benefits to their people outside of the tax system. Anybody who's a resident of Germany can go to college for free in, um, Scandinavia. You can get you are on health care for free. You're able to have a maternity leave you I mean all sorts of things that in the United States it's all like it's on you, right? Your retirement is on you. Are you saving for it or are you not saving for it? You know, your maternity leave is between you and your employer. It's all fragmented. And in those countries they can do their taxes in less than two hours. Some of them don't do it at all, right? They just get like a letter from the government. This is what you owe. This is what you paid. Here's a check for the difference. Thank you very much. The reason why it's so complicated in the United States is because certain people are advantaged by the fact that it's complicated.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:11] We'll be right back after this break.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:14] But real quick, if you like our show, or even if you don't do Hannah and I a favor and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to your podcasts, it helps make our show better. It helps other people see our show and see what it's about. And we read every single one, truly. Every single one. So do it. It means a lot to us and thank you.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:33] And if you want to learn more about the IRS and how to successfully file your taxes for all of those procrastinators out there, check out that podcast feed because we have got a whole podcast on it. We dropped it the same day as this little guy.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:48] So we've been talking about why our income taxes here in the US are so complicated. And so far we have heard about how the government started using the tax code to shift behavior without passing laws like incentivizing employers to provide health insurance and retirement plans. So what are some of the other carrots that the federal government has added to the tax code?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:09] Hannah, there are two main kinds of incentives deductions and credits. We're going to talk about deductions. First, here's Eric Toder.

Eric Toder: [00:23:19] Deductions reduce the amount of income on which you pay tax. So if I have 50,000 of income and then I get 10,000 of deductions, that reduces the amount of income I have to report to 40,000. So there are certain items that, for example, uh, home mortgage interest or state and local income taxes or charitable contributions, which are the biggest, which you can claim as a deduction or subtract that from the income which is subject to tax.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:51] So every year you have to figure out which deductions you might qualify for, and then find out how much of a deduction it would be and send all of that information to the IRS.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:02] If you go the itemized deduction route. Yes. But there is another option.

Eric Toder: [00:24:08] However, you can also claim a standard deduction. So depending on your marital status you can deduct a certain amount in lieu of taking itemized deductions. So what you want to do is figure out whether your itemized deductions total up to more than the standard deduction. And if they do, you itemize. And if you don't, you take the standard deduction.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:30] Sometimes that itemized deduction is going to be more than a standard deduction, especially if you say own multiple properties or give to multiple charities. Or if you have set up a charitable foundation in your name.

Eric Toder: [00:24:45] Most people take the standard deduction. Most high income people use itemized deductions.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:53] Unlike deductions, which lower your taxable income credits lower your tax bill. That's the amount you have to pay after deductions are factored in.

Eric Toder: [00:25:01] If I were paying $500 of tax and I get a tax credit of $150, that would reduce my tax to 350. So it just comes right off of the tax.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:13] And many times that credit ends up showing up as a refund after you file your taxes. Basically, the government says you overpaid this year. Here's some money back.

Nick Capodice: [00:25:22] Is it possible to earn more in tax credits than you paid in taxes?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:26] Okay, this is where tax credits get a little sticky. The answer is sometimes some credits are refundable, meaning that if the value of the tax credit is more than you owe in taxes, you have a negative tax bill.

Nick Capodice: [00:25:40] In other words, you get money instead of paying money.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:42] That's it. So if your tax bill was $500 and you had $600 in refundable tax credits, you would not owe any taxes and you would get $100. One of the main tax credits that is refundable is the earned income Tax Credit, which is specifically for people with lower incomes. But you have to have actually earned an income to qualify.

Nick Capodice: [00:26:03] But not all credits are refundable, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:05] Many of them are not.

Nick Capodice: [00:26:23] I think I've got it. So how did these tax credits even end up in our tax policy? They seem complicated, like with that earned income tax credit, why not just lower the tax rate for people who make under a certain amount?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:52] The answer is simple politics.

Eric Toder: [00:26:55] So we all have different views of what public benefits uh, the government should supply. We all have different views of how big the government should be. Your purchase of public goods through taxes is mandatory. So this is the one place where the government is taking something from you, as well as supplying you with something. So naturally, the question is who should it take from? How should that burden be shared upon those? Those are basically political questions.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:26] And with that earned income tax credit and other tax credits designed to help people with lower incomes, in particular, the politics have shifted a lot in the last couple of decades.

Nick Capodice: [00:27:37] How so?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:38] Well, remember how we talked about the New Deal ushering in all of these government programs to help support people while the country recovered from the Great Depression? Yeah.

Archival Sound: [00:27:48] The remaining costs of government may be considered under general welfare. Social security programs provide retirement income for the elderly, financial support for widows, children, and others who've lost their means of support, as well as aid to the disabled and unemployed.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:04] In the last 30 years or so, a lot of these programs have transitioned from government expenditures to tax incentives instead. The 1980s were the era of Reaganomics, when the Reagan administration proposed streamlining the tax system by removing a lot of incentives while also cutting taxes across the board.

Archival Sound: [00:28:26] When I signed this bill into law. America will have the lowest marginal tax rates and the most modern tax code among major industrialized nations.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:36] But especially for businesses and the wealthiest Americans.

Archival Sound: [00:28:40] One that encourages risk taking innovation and that old American spirit of enterprise.

Nick Capodice: [00:28:46] All right. So this is the so-called trickle down economics.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:49] Yep. This was also called supply side economics. And the theory was that if you cut taxes for businesses and for people with wealth to invest, they would invest that money back into the US economy rather than pocketing it. And after a lot of this reform and these massive tax cuts, as we're coming out of the 80s, the political debate about how big the government should be and what it should pay for was centered on the value and logistics of welfare programs.

Archival Sound: [00:29:18] More must be done to reduce poverty and dependency. And believe me, nothing is more important than welfare reform.

Speaker7: [00:29:24] One is the whole issue of welfare reform, and more broadly, how we help people to lift themselves out of poverty and dependance. It's time to.

Speaker8: [00:29:31] Make welfare what it should be a second chance, not a way of life.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:36] President Bill Clinton ran on a policy of welfare reform when he was elected in 1992.

Eric Toder: [00:29:41] The incentives for retirement saving were greatly expanded. The earned income credit was introduced and then greatly expanded. The child credit was introduced. That was at the same time where aid for families with dependent children was repealed, and welfare reform in 1996. So our system really moved more toward using the tax system for spending like programs.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:07] And Eric worked in the Clinton administration on some of the new policies that focused on taxes.

Eric Toder: [00:30:13] When I was in the Clinton administration, and we decided for political reasons, we had to have a middle class tax cut. Well, I think the main view was essentially government spending has a bad name, and politicians wanted to keep what the public perceived to be the size of of the government low and to provide more tax cuts, middle class tax cuts, other kinds of tax cuts. And so the way you could do this while still providing government social benefits was to provide, uh, credits and so forth through the tax system. So if we lowered rates a little bit, it just cost too much money. You couldn't you couldn't lower rates across the board. So that said, we had to give some kind of credits or some benefits. So people had talked about a child credit. And the number that Republicans had race was $500. So we said, well, we have to have $500. It can't be less than $500.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:31:19] He's talking about the Balanced Budget Act of 1993. The way that worked is that families could get a $500 tax credit for every child they had under the age of 17. So when you filled out your taxes, if you had a kid under age 17, you'd have 500 bucks taken off your tax bill.

Eric Toder: [00:31:36] Well, how do we save money if it's $500? Well, we have to phase it out. If people's income is above a certain amount and maybe we want to limit it instead of with personal exemptions, which was 18, maybe we ought to limit it to people under 17. And you get the picture. You go through one contortion after another to hit these various targets for how you're changing the system. And those things just stay in there.

Nick Capodice: [00:32:11] I'm beginning to see how we ended up with such a complicated system. Hanna.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:32:15] And this changed the experience of people who used these programs, in part because for both deductions and tax credits, there's a responsibility on you, the taxpayer, to make sure you fill out the right paperwork and get those incentives.

Beverly Moran: [00:32:29] When the Clinton administration decided that it was going to kill welfare as we know it, right, that was one of the phrases to get rid of welfare as we know it.

Archival Sound: [00:32:40] I have a plan to end welfare as we know it, to break the cycle of welfare dependency.

Beverly Moran: [00:32:44] So you don't really have welfare offices anymore. People don't really use the word welfare. That all seems to have disappeared. But the money is still flowing to people. But now it's flowing to people through the tax system. If you hide it in the tax system, what you're doing is you're replacing social workers with H&R block.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:33:11] Like Eric said before, many of the things treated as apportionment, that is, the government sets up programs and funds them directly were now offered as relief from your tax bill instead. And all of these things just keep being added to the tax code to make it work.

Eric Toder: [00:33:28] The system is much more complicated than it needs to be and could use an overhaul. Uh, I mean, there are, you know, when you look at something like retirement plans, there are multiple different ways you can contribute. And for the average person to figure out how to navigate through these systems, even the the programs for low income people like the education credits, many people just don't use them because they can't figure out how to navigate them in order to fine tune things. We make things way more complicated than it needs to be.

Beverly Moran: [00:34:02] For a lot of people. It's terrifying. You know, they they don't have the time. They don't have access to the things that they would need, even if they have access to the things that they would need, the things that they would need are crazy complicated. The IRS produces all these, um, instruction booklets, right? That could take their like, war and peace. They use all sorts of of language that makes sense to tax insiders, but doesn't necessarily make sense to anyone else. And so either you're going to like, engage in that system and get the money that the government wants you to have. Right. Or you're going to, like, not engage with that system and maybe end up in prison.

Nick Capodice: [00:35:02] Well, that's enough.

Nick Capodice: [00:35:03] Death and taxes today. This episode was written and produced by Christina Phillips with me, Nick Capodice and Hannah McCarthy. Our staff includes Jackie Fulton and Rebecca LaVoy is our executive producer. Music. In this episode by the guy who wrote God Bless America, Irving Berlin, Jesse Gallagher, Raymond Gross, Gridded Blue Dot sessions, César Lee, Rosevere Lobo, loco Nicodum, pictures of a Floating World, Proleter, Scott McCloud, Cooper Canal, Balla and the Tax Free Musical Stylings of Chris Zabriskie. Civics 101 is produced by that station, who I hope is kicking in there. 6.2%, NPR, New Hampshire Public Radio. I'm just kidding. Of course they are.

What is the 25th Amendment?

Sometimes, news happens in the real world, and suddenly a political or civics topic becomes very top of mind for members of the public. And when that happens, we at Civics 101 often say, hey…we have an episode about that.

One of those conversations happened this week, after a tweet from President Trump related to the war in Iran had some conservative, traditionally pro-Trump voices evoking a specific part of the Constitution - the 25th Amendment.

Back in 2022, we made an episode breaking down the 25th Amendment, and it’s pretty thorough about its history and what it means. So, given that it’s on folks’ minds right now, we’ve decided to drop that episode again.
When a monarch dies, power stays in the family. But what about a president? It was a tricky question that the founders left mostly to Congress to figure out later. Lana Ulrich, of the National Constitution Center, and Linda Monk, constitutional scholar and author of The Bill of Rights: A User's Guide, explain the informal rules that long governed the transition of presidential power, and the 25th Amendment, which currently outlines what should happen if a sitting president dies, resigns, or becomes unable to carry out their duties. 

Click here for more charts of Civics 101 episodes by Periodic Presidents!

---

TRANSCRIPT

Nick Capodice: [00:00:00] Hannah we have made a lot of episodes of Civics 101 since the show started in 2017. And at any one time we've got a list of 20 to 30 different topics that were either already working on or want to do soon. And yet there are few topics we keep coming back to over and over.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:21] Yeah, I mean, elections and voting, those are two I can think of. Yeah, we could probably fill a dozen episodes with things about the election process, the politics of voting, of representation.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:33] Yeah, there's one topic we've talked about multiple times on the show because it keeps coming up in the news during the presidencies of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

News Clip: [00:00:41] Have you emailed any members.With the investigative.Branch about.The President's health or the president's decline?Do you believe he's capacitated? Well, I think that we have got to be very careful. He needs to start.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:54] It has to do with presidential power and checks on that power.

News Clip: [00:00:58] The fish stinks from the head. Plain and simple. And so I believe the president is dangerous and should not hold office one day longer.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:09] But it's not impeachment. It has to do with the responsibility of the president, the vice president, and the cabinet to ensure we have a leader who is able to do their job.

News Clip: [00:01:20] I'm not saying he's not a danger. I do believe that there's grave risk there. But we've got 13 days.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:27] We're talking about the 25th Amendment.

News Clip: [00:01:30] People inside the.Administration, people in the cabinet were whispering about invoking the 25th Amendment. It's staggering. We're not at a 25th Amendment level yet.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:47] This is Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:49] I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:50] And today we are going to break down the 25th Amendment. This is the amendment that lays out what happens when, for whatever reason, the president cannot perform the duties of that office. And there are four parts to this amendment. The first part deals with the line of succession. The second is about replacing the vice president. The third is about when the president declares their own inability. And the fourth, the most debated, is about the vice president and cabinet's power to declare presidential inability. So today, we're going to explore what this 25th Amendment thing is all about anyway, and why Part four especially, is not as straightforward as it seems.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:28] And to do that, we need to go back to the beginning, to the creation of the Constitution, because there was a lot of time between then and when the 25th Amendment was actually ratified in 1967, the year was 1787, a bunch of men and Whigs were crowded in a room in Philadelphia debating how our government should work. And as it is often said, it was hot. Very odd. We're talking about the Constitutional Convention. And one subject of debate was what do we do if something happens to the president?

Lana Ulrich: [00:03:11] Well, they were debating exactly how they should frame the language addressing presidential succession in the Constitution. And they went back and forth as to how to say, you know, what happens when the president becomes disabled? Should there be an election? Should there not be an election?

Nick Capodice: [00:03:27] This is Lana Ulrich. She's the vice president of content and senior counsel at the National Constitution Center.

Lana Ulrich: [00:03:34] So they finally settled on the language that is included in the original Constitution and Article two, Section one, clause six, which says in case of the removal of the president from office or of his death, resignation or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the set office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and the Vice President declaring what officer shall then act as president and such office shall act accordingly until the disability be removed or a president shall be elected. And that seemed to clarify a bit as to what would happen, but it didn't answer all of the questions. And there was one delegate in particular, Dickinson, who was taking notes during the debate and sort of wrote to himself, what is the extent of the term disability and who is to be judge of it?

Nick Capodice: [00:04:29] John Dickinson, who represented Delaware at the Constitutional Convention, was a supporter of the Great Compromise. This is what gave smaller states equal representation to larger ones in the Senate and proportional representation in the House. And that word disability is very, very complicated. Throughout U.S. history, there have been deeply ingrained societal prejudices and discrimination towards people who have disabilities or require accommodations. So that word carries a lot of weight.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:00] So basically, the only real things the Constitution said at the time were that if something happened to the president, the vice president would take over the president's duties and that Congress was in charge of figuring everything else out, correct? Yeah.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:17] The Constitution left Congress to iron out many of the logistics of presidential succession, but it also failed to answer the question what does it mean for the president to be unable to carry out their duties? And perhaps even more importantly, who determines that the first piece of legislation that Congress passed that clarified the logistics of succession was the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, which basically laid out what would happen if both the president and vice president were unable to carry out the duties of the presidency.

Lana Ulrich: [00:05:50] And so something that is debated to this day. Now, what laws did Congress pass to help build on what was laid out in the Constitution?

Nick Capodice: [00:06:02] The first thing Congress did pertaining to that was to pass the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, which basically laid out what would happen if both the president and vice president were unable to carry out the duties of the presidency.

Lana Ulrich: [00:06:16] Under the first Presidential Succession Act. It was the president pro tempore of the Senate and then followed by the Speaker of the House.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:23] But at the time, the law still stated that whomever replaced the president would serve as, quote, acting president until the next election.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:32] What is the difference between acting president and just president?

Nick Capodice: [00:06:37] That's the thing. The word acting suggested that there was some distinction between the two, but those distinctions weren't actually written out. And then John Tyler came along. And as so often happens, when you put a rule into practice for the first time, you realize that your interpretation is not the only interpretation.

Lana Ulrich: [00:06:57] Right. So William Henry Harrison was the first president to die in office, and he died on April 4th, 1841. His vice president, John Tyler, basically just insisted that he became president of the United States and was not merely acting president.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:12] Right off the bat, John Tyler seemed pretty eager to move into the White House and disregard the cabinet that his predecessor had appointed. And he told the cabinet, quote, I shall be pleased to avail myself of your counsel and advice, but I can never consent to being dictated to as to what I shall or shall not do. I, as President, will be responsible for my administration. And then he basically said that if they didn't agree with that, they were welcome to resign. And some people felt that this was a misinterpretation of what it means to be an acting president.

Lana Ulrich: [00:07:46] This became known as the quote unquote, Tyler precedent. And it was pretty controversial. And not everyone agreed that the vice president automatically became president, even if the president died in office. Even former President John Quincy Adams wrote to himself, I paid a visit this morning to Mr. Tyler, who styled himself president of the United States and not vice president, acting as president, which should be the correct style.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:10] Former President Harrison's cabinet had understood that the president would only do things if the majority of his cabinet approved of them, and they expected Tyler to follow the same rule as acting president, that he would consult them, trust their judgment, and wouldn't make decisions unless they approved.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:26] But this wasn't Tyler's cabinet, right? These were people appointed by Harrison.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:31] Yeah, they weren't his people. And to be frank, there was no love lost there.

Lana Ulrich: [00:08:35] Yeah. I mean, I think there were some that may have agreed with his interpretation, but as you know, John Quincy Adams did not. But Tyler basically took the oath of office. He gave an inaugural speech and he moved into the White House. And so there just to quell any doubts that he was, in fact, president, they were they were silenced at that time.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:55] And this is how we end up with the Tyler precedent, where the line between president and acting president is pretty much nonexistent.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:05] What about those times when the president is not obviously permanently out of office either because they've died or resigned? What if the president gets sick or has an ongoing medical issue?

Lana Ulrich: [00:09:19] There were sort of unspoken norms about what would happen if, at the same time if a president became disabled. And throughout history there were many presidents who were quietly incapacitated and due to many reasons, including the fact that there was no constitutional mechanism in place, they just kind of worked quietly behind the scenes to keep his illness under wraps until the next election. I mean, this happened with Woodrow Wilson, had a severe stroke and for a long period of time toward the end of his term, he was essentially not acting as president. But basically his wife and his cabinet were just kind of acting in his stead. Yeah.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:53] And this informal behind closed doors method of the vice president, the cabinet, even the president's spouse was working well enough, even though Congress wasn't really privy to it and didn't have much power over it. There wasn't enough urgency in Congress to rally behind something like a constitutional amendment until the threat of nuclear war came along.

Lana Ulrich: [00:10:17] Right around the time of President Eisenhower, who was also ill.

News Clip: [00:10:21] Stricken with ileitis, an inflammation of the lower intestine. The 65 year old chief executive was taken from the White House.

Lana Ulrich: [00:10:27]  Which coincided with the Cold War.

News Clip: [00:10:29] Soviet Unionn Has informed us That over recent years It has devoted extensive resources to atomic weapons.

Lana Ulrich: [00:10:38] It became clear that we needed something that was a bit more formalized.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:42] Nothing really happened immediately, though. There was a proposed amendment in 1963 that would give Congress the power to determine if the president was unable to discharge their duties. But many argue that it gave Congress too much power, especially considering that Congress already had the power of impeachment.

Lana Ulrich: [00:10:59] And I think the crucial moment in time was after President John F Kennedy was assassinated.

News Clip: [00:11:05] From Dallas, Texas. The flash apparently official. President Kennedy died at 1 p.m. Central Standard Time, 2:00 Eastern Standard Time, some 38 minutes ago. Vice President Lyndon Johnson has left the hospital in Dallas, but we do not know to where he has proceeded. Presumably, he will be taking the oath of office shortly and become the 36th president of the United States.

Linda Monk: [00:11:41] And then Lyndon Johnson was in office without a vice president and he had a history of heart attacks.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:48] This is Linda Monk, constitutional scholar and dear friend of the podcast and author of The Bill of Rights A User's Guide. We have finally reached the 25th Amendment, which gives clearer rules about what to do if the president cannot carry out their duties.

Linda Monk: [00:12:03] So that's when Congress in 65 finally passed it through Congress, and then it was ratified, I believe, in 67.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:11] So this amendment does not come up until after we have had several presidents die or have major illnesses while in office.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:20] Yeah, And John F Kennedy's death, which made Lyndon Johnson president, put the issue of succession at the top of people's minds. The amendment was ratified in 1967. Here is Lana Ulrich again.

Lana Ulrich: [00:12:33] And so when President Nixon resigned in 1974, Vice President Ford became president under Section one.

News Clip: [00:12:40] To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication. Would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the president and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home. Therefore, I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as president at that hour in this office.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:19] But what if the vice president vacates the job? Because in that example, Gerald Ford was not Nixon's original vice president. He became vice president after Spiro Agnew resigned.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:42] Well, that's part two of the 25th Amendment.

Lana Ulrich: [00:13:44] So this requires the president to nominate a vice president when the office is vacant, subject to the confirmation by a majority of the House and the Senate.

News Clip: [00:13:55] Mr. Nixon has asked the Republican hierarchy to propose possible successors by tomorrow evening. His choice and many names are being mentioned tonight, will have to be approved by majority vote of each House of Congress.

Lana Ulrich: [00:14:08] So in 1973, Gerald Ford became vice president through Section two. After Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned. And then when Ford took over the presidency the next year, he invoked Section two and nominated Nelson Rockefeller to fill his vice presidential vacancy.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:26] And now we're going to get into those circumstances where the president hasn't died, but for some other reason, they are unable to do the job, either temporarily or permanently. And this is section three. Section three is about the president's responsibility to decide and disclose when they need to give their duties to the vice president. This is known as a voluntary transfer of power.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:49] So if the president needed a colonoscopy, for example.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:52] Exactly. Actually, most examples of this happening have to do with colonoscopies, specifically. For example, President George W Bush invoked Section three when he had to undergo colonoscopy, putting Vice President Dick Cheney temporarily in charge.

Lana Ulrich: [00:15:07] In 1985, President Ronald Reagan was also about to undergo colon cancer surgery. And so he designated Vice President George H.W. Bush to be acting president.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:18] And recently, President Biden discharged his duties to Vice President Kamala Harris.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:22] Because of a colonoscopy.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:24] Because of a colonoscopy.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:29] And this is the responsibility of the president, right? They have to be the one who says, okay, I'm going to transfer power right now.

Lana Ulrich: [00:15:35] You one would assume so. Yes. Since it's since it requires a written declaration to both transfer the power and then to resume power after the president's disability is removed. Yes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:46] Isn't that interesting the way that Lana says one would assume so. I think the implication there being, as with so many wishy washy interpretations of the Constitution or.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:59] Flat out disregard of it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:00] Disregard for the Constitution, the idea is, you know, this is how it has happened and might happen in the future, but anything can be done differently. And sometimes we do things differently and that can cause a constitutional crisis. So this is all voluntary.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:18] Yeah. And this is called a declaration of inability, where the president submits a notice to Congress saying presidential power is being discharged to this person, either permanently or until such and such a time. And if the president submits that, they then submit a follow up declaration when they are able to retake their duties. And this has been used, as we said, several times by different presidents.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:42] What about an involuntary transfer of power? Is it possible for a sitting president to be removed involuntarily without an impeachment?

Nick Capodice: [00:16:51] This brings us to the quite complicated part four of the 25th Amendment, and we're going to talk about that right after this break.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:00] But before we go, I have a feeling you're listening to this podcast because you want to know more about American democracy, but we don't tell you everything on the podcast. We sure don't. A lot of it gets cut in actual fact, sometimes the very best parts. But we have a place to put that. It's called Extra Credit. It's our newsletter and you could subscribe to it at our website, civics101podcast.org.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:26] We're back. This is civics one on one. And we are talking about what happens when the president dies, resigns, or decides they need to temporarily hand over their presidential duties to the vice president for a medical procedure or something like that. But those processes are not the reason why. About two years ago, in the beginning of 2021, everyone was suddenly talking about the 25th Amendment in terms of the vice president or the president's own cabinet taking away the president's power. Specifically, I'm talking about a lot of people wondering whether former President Donald Trump's vice president and cabinet might declare that he was incapable of doing his job, which of course, did not happen.

News Clip: [00:18:08] But in the immediate aftermath of January 6th, members of the president's family, White House staff and others tried to step in to stabilize the situation, quote, to land the plane before the presidential transition on January 20th. You will hear about members of the Trump cabinet discussing the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment and replacing the president of the United States.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:36] So what does the 25th Amendment say about those situations where the removal of power might not be voluntary?

Lana Ulrich: [00:18:48] Yeah. So section three is the voluntary transfer of power. But Section four details what happens when there may need to be an involuntary transfer of power when the president, for it's assumed medical reasons, is unable to make that conscious decision, whether he's in a coma or whether he has maybe a very severe mental impairment progressed dementia. In that situation, it allows for the vice president to be the crucial decider, essentially, and working with either the heads of the cabinets, the heads of the departments and or a disability review body that Congress may establish to determine that the president is no longer able to fulfill his duties and therefore trigger Section four and the mechanisms by which to involuntarily take power away from the president.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:40] That is Lana Ulrich, again, of the National Constitution Center. And this is Linda Monk, again, constitutional scholar and author of the Bill of Rights A User's Guide.

Linda Monk: [00:19:48] We talk about disability as though it's physical disability, but I think what the controversy about President Trump is raising is whether or not the president is capable of caring. Now, maybe that's not a physical disability, maybe that's other kinds of capabilities.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:09] So who gets to make that call?

Lana Ulrich: [00:20:10] Yeah, under Section four, the vice president is really the the one who starts the process to determine that the president is is disabled. And then if the president has the opportunity to contest that, but then the vice president and the department heads can go back to Congress and contest the president's contesting essentially as well. And so and if they're successful, then the vice president becomes acting president.

Linda Monk: [00:20:35] The language is, is that a majority of the cabinet and the vice president have to be involved. If it starts within the executive branch, if the president doesn't go along, it goes to Congress anyway. And it has to be a two thirds vote. That's a pretty big vote.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:56] So this is not something the vice president or the cabinet can do without the approval of Congress.

Lana Ulrich: [00:21:02] You know, we have impeachment, and that's a political process for removing the president. And I think that the 25th Amendment contemplates some kind of of disability other than, you know, the president is, you know, maybe did something illegal, is is just not performing well. There's got to be something else there. But it's it's not ultimately up to, say, the White House doctor to make that decision. I think the vice president may certainly consult with the president's doctors and ask for an opinion. But ultimately, I think it does boil down to a political decision to actually take that step, to say, okay, we're going to invoke Section four of the 25th Amendment.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:42] Has that ever happened?

Lana Ulrich: [00:21:43] No, it hasn't. And it's controversial for many reasons. One being that it takes power away from a duly elected president, essentially, but the other is that it's never been invoked. So we don't really know how the procedure and the practice will play out. And there are a number of gaps that are still left open. So there's a lot of open questions under this mechanism.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:04] For example, during Ronald Reagan's presidency, some of his aides suspected he had developed symptoms of Alzheimer's that were compromising his ability to do the job.

Lana Ulrich: [00:22:14] Some of his aides had discussed that among themselves, I think especially after Iran-Contra happened.

News Clip: [00:22:20] Good evening. I know you've been reading, seeing and hearing a lot of stories the past several days attributed to Danish sailors, unnamed observers at Italian ports and Spanish harbors and especially unnamed government officials of my administration. Well, now you're going to hear the facts from a White House source and you know my name.

Lana Ulrich: [00:22:40] And they briefly discussed it. And then I think they decided to do a case study and they went the next day and spoke with with the president and sort of interviewed him. And then they decided, well, he was acting completely normal. And so they felt that it wasn't appropriate at that time to invoke Section four. But they but they had kicked the idea around.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:59] Why would members of the executive branch, like the vice president or the Cabinet, choose to invoke the 25th Amendment instead of handing over things to Congress for impeachment?

Lana Ulrich: [00:23:10] You know, we have impeachment. And that's a political process for removing the president. And I think that the 25th Amendment contemplates some kind of of disability other than, you know, the president is, you know, maybe did something illegal, is is just not performing well. There's got to be something else there.

Linda Monk: [00:23:28] You know, our framers were very good at putting stumbling blocks to the exercise of power. And the reason you'd want to start with any kind of removal from office, from within the executive branch is because those people are supposed to be at least by constitutional duty, most. Oil to the president. This must be a blow to the Constitution and the country first. But they wouldn't have gotten there without the president. So you think those would be the people who would be most capable of making that determination without political motivation?

Nick Capodice: [00:24:03] For example, in 2021, some members of Congress and the public called on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment because of President Donald Trump's potential responsibility in and handling of the January 6th riot on the Capitol during the certification of the election.

News Clip: [00:24:21] He may have only 13 days left as president, but yesterday demonstrated that each and every one of those days is a threat to democracy. So long as he is in power. The quickest and most effective way to remove this president from office would be for the vice president to immediately invoke the 25th Amendment.

Linda Monk: [00:24:46] Either way, it's going to come back to Congress. It's going to come back to the leadership in Congress and the vice president.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:54] But at the end of the day, that question that John Dickinson scrawled in his notes back in 1776 at the Constitutional Convention, what is the extent of disability and who is to be the judge of it is still up for debate.

Lana Ulrich: [00:25:10] Yes, it's definitely still an open question. And I think it's going to depend on maybe, you know, obviously a future situation that would call for the application of the amendment to see how it kind of plays out in real life.

Linda Monk: [00:25:23] Again, this is where I think Alexis de Tocqueville said it never ceases to amaze him how wonderful the Americans were at ignoring and avoiding the contradictions of their constitution. So oftentimes in our constitutional interpretation, it's what the political actors choose to do. And that that is part of the Constitution. It's not just supposed to be automatic words on paper. It's people exercising their judgment.

---

Can American elections be "nationalized"? What does that mean?

In this country, the states run elections. Congress is empowered to step in; the president is not. So what does it mean for the president to call on a political party to "take over." Is that allowed? What would that mean? And why is this happening now?

We talk with Sarah Cooper from the Carter Center to understand who is in charge and whether anyone else can take charge.

---

Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:00] You know, Nick, once upon a time, there were election day riots and party bosses buying votes. Sometimes with two bucks, sometimes [00:00:10] with booze or sandwich and people voting and then voting again. But in disguise. And there was fraud and corruption and intimidation and [00:00:20] it sounds like it was a real mess, right?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:23] It does indeed, hannah. The 19th century, if you remember it. You weren't there.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:31] I'm [00:00:30] Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:32] I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:33] And this is Civics 101. There are some really juicy stories about the supposed sham. [00:00:40] That was the 19th century election system. You ever hear the one about Edgar Allan Poe being kidnaped, drugged, and forced to vote by a bunch of pole hustlers in an 1849 congressional [00:00:50] election, and then dying a few days later?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:52] Wait, is that true?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:54] Maybe. Does it matter?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:56] I feel like it probably does. Yes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:58] Well, my point there, Nick, is [00:01:00] that a juicy story is a useful story. And there were for sure some gnarly things going on in that era of American elections. And election reformers did their [00:01:10] best to put a stop to that. There was the rise of the secret ballot, for one thing.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:15] Aka the Australian ballot, aka people don't know who you're voting for, [00:01:20] and that makes it a lot harder to mess with you. And it's basically useless to try and buy your vote.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:26] That was the idea, right? That and a bunch of other reforms were [00:01:30] passed to clean that system up and voter turnout went down.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:35] Because all that vote buying and fraud disappeared.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:38] Well, that's one way to look at [00:01:40] it. And that is the way that a lot of people have looked at it. But it's kind of hard to know what was actually going on because for one thing, a lot of the [00:01:50] people who were crying corruption had skin in the game. I'm talking about opposing parties, perhaps casting some doubt on elections. An anti-party reformers [00:02:00] who wanted to shake the whole system up. Now vote buying was happening, right? That's not great. So were other shenanigans, for sure. But [00:02:10] a lot of what we know about it comes from people with a clear motive.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:16] So it was happening, but we don't know how bad it really [00:02:20] was.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:20] What we do know, again, is that this age of voter reform, predicated on the claims that bribery, intimidation and corruption were running amok in the election [00:02:30] system. It resulted in fewer people voting. There were new voter registration requirements, poll taxes, [00:02:40] literacy tests. Never mind the fact that the secret ballot was itself a literacy test of sorts. You had to be able to read it in order [00:02:50] to use it. So this reform resulted in certain eligible voter populations becoming disenfranchized. [00:03:00] Non-english speakers, illiterate people, immigrant men, impoverished men, black men.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:08] Are. And if you [00:03:10] can disenfranchize whole demographics, you can gain a whole lot of political control.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:15] That's right.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:16] The Arkansas Democratic Party even had a campaign song about that in [00:03:20] 1892. Do you want to hear the lyrics?

Nick Capodice: [00:03:22] I really don't, but go ahead.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:24] The Australian ballot works a charm. It makes them think and scratch. And [00:03:30] when a Negro gets a ballot, he certainly has got his match. They go into the booth alone. Their ticket to prepare. And as [00:03:40] soon as the five minutes are out. They got to get from there.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:44] All right. Well, that was just about as disgusting as I expected.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:48] Sure is. And it also points [00:03:50] to a clear awareness on the part of political parties that this voting reform would result in people not being able to vote and [00:04:00] stopping people from voting, specifically by targeting certain groups. That is a really effective way to get what you want out of an election. And Nick, I am [00:04:10] not saying that the secret ballot is full stop, a bad thing, especially now, of course. In fact, protecting a voter's right to secrecy was part of the reasoning behind a democratic defeat [00:04:20] of a recent voter ID amendment in the Senate. The secret ballot has become a foundation of the American election system. I'm bringing up this little bit of history [00:04:30] to point out that there are good reasons to protect elections and protect voters, and good things can come out of reform. But you also have to look at the reality [00:04:40] of the voting landscape in which reform is passed. And you should ask why the reform is being proposed. Is the problem really what people say it [00:04:50] is, and what will the proposed solution due to elections and to voters. So let's ask some questions.

Sarah Cooper: [00:05:06] This [00:05:00] seems to lean into some of these repeated false statements about [00:05:10] widespread corruption and fraud in US elections seems to, again, be an effort to sow doubt in the credibility of our election processes. It [00:05:20] also really doesn't seem to be grounded in reality.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:23] This is Sarah Cooper.

Sarah Cooper: [00:05:24] I'm Sarah Cooper. I'm the associate director for democracy at the Carter Center. I've been in that role [00:05:30] for a little bit less than two years, and I sit on top of all of our work to provide Nonpartizan oversight and commentary of elections [00:05:40] in the United States.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:41] All right. We've talked with the Carter Center before.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:44] We have Jason Carter helped us understand the non-problem of non-citizens voting. I recommend listening to the [00:05:50] episode called Fixing a problem that doesn't exist. To understand that whole situation, as well as the details of the Save act.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:57] And the Carter Center is the one that observes [00:06:00] elections, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:01] Right. But observing elections in the United States is a new thing for the Carter Center. It used to be that they observed elections in other countries. [00:06:10] Only recently, they decided that the United States may need a little bit of help as well.

Sarah Cooper: [00:06:15] So as we pivoted to observing elections in the United States, we take a bit of a full cycle [00:06:20] approach to how that observation is done. Um, we'll have individuals watching the process, starting with the testing of election equipment, things that are often happening weeks or months [00:06:30] before Election Day and all the way through to any post-election audit processes and the certification of results. Um, it really is kind of a full cycle that's [00:06:40] important to watch and not just election day.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:48] And Sarah was super clear. [00:06:50] It is not like the Carter Center is going in convinced there are bad actors in the election system. It's that as with almost anything when [00:07:00] it comes to elections, there is always room for improvement.

Sarah Cooper: [00:07:03] We talk about democracy as a constant work in progress, not a fixed point. And so by having observers make recommendations [00:07:10] for ways that the process can improve and come back the next time to check and see where those recommendations implemented, it can contribute to better election administration [00:07:20] over time as well.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:21] But the thing that needs to be improved in the United States is not, despite the reasoning behind the Save act, voter fraud. [00:07:30]

Sarah Cooper: [00:07:30] So the justification behind the proposed act really comes from claims about there being a need to tighten. Hoisin [00:07:40] is not allowed to vote in the United States, and so it does rest fairly heavily on claims of noncitizen voting.

Archival: [00:07:48] To stop illegal aliens [00:07:50] and others who are unpermitted persons from voting in our sacred American elections. That cheating is rampant in [00:08:00] our elections. It's rampant. It's very simple.

Sarah Cooper: [00:08:04] So there have been over the years, a number of attempts by states and by national [00:08:10] organizations, including groups like the Brennan Center and the left and the Heritage Foundation on the right, to look at whether noncitizen voting is actually [00:08:20] a real concern in the United States. And what we found is this is a pretty insignificant problem. It is a very rare occurrence. And when it does occur, mostly seems to be [00:08:30] individuals who are unaware of the law were accidentally allowed to register. But just to give you a couple of examples, in March of last year, the Iowa Secretary of State's [00:08:40] office did a pretty comprehensive look at their voter rolls. They identified 277 potential non-citizen registered voters. That's roughly [00:08:50] 100th of 1% of all of the registered voters in the state. And among these, they found that 35 cast ballots that were counted in the 2024 general election. [00:09:00] They referred all of these individuals to the state attorney general for further investigation.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:08] And honestly, if you're a Civics [00:09:10] 101 listener or if you just read any fact based news on this, you probably already know that non-citizen voting is not the problem, not [00:09:20] even close to the problem. So, Hannah, what is the reason for needing election observers in the United States?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:28] It's the same reason the Carter Center has [00:09:30] been observing elections in other countries for decades.

Sarah Cooper: [00:09:33] Part of the reason why election observers have been able to play such a really, really valuable role is that that's been a little [00:09:40] bit part of the game. Um, that when political parties and their candidates do well, parties and candidates come forth and say, this is the best election ever. And when parties and [00:09:50] candidates do poorly, they come forth and say that there was widespread fraud and we can't trust the results.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:56] This is an important point here, and I want to make sure we don't miss it. [00:10:00] The Carter Center has observed situations wherein when a party does well, they say the election is great. And when a party does poorly, they say the election [00:10:10] was fraudulent and illegitimate. And this is something that has been associated with and observed in other countries, countries where perhaps corruption and despotism [00:10:20] have to be overcome in order for a democratic system to survive and thrive. But this isn't just the problem of other countries anymore. It's [00:10:30] something that's going on here as well.

Sarah Cooper: [00:10:32] So even though this isn't kind of new globally, it is a bit of a novelty in the US context to see [00:10:40] these kind of claims of fraud that have been so widely debunked, really repeated at the highest levels for so long. And it is concerning for the future health of our democracy. [00:10:50]

Nick Capodice: [00:10:52] Hannah, you are familiar with the Heritage Foundation, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:56] Very familiar. A right wing think tank in Washington, DC that very much [00:11:00] supports the claims of voter fraud in the United States.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:03] So it's interesting that you started this episode by talking about election corruption in the 19th century, because [00:11:10] that is exactly how the Heritage Foundation sets up its voter fraud claims as well. They say it has been a problem for U.S. elections in the United [00:11:20] States since the very beginning.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:22] Right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:23] And as I mentioned, there was fraud in the 19th century, and it was pretty wacky. It was also not nearly as widespread [00:11:30] as people said it was then. Though to be fair, those juicy stories still tend to win out today over the facts and the numbers when it comes to fraud and corruption [00:11:40] in the 19th century election system. And either way, the problem with the Heritage Foundation's claim is that it kind of ignores the 20th century. Is [00:11:50] it possible to find instances of voter fraud throughout our history? Absolutely. Does it make any sense to compare today's election system to this [00:12:00] system that included Election Day riots, deaths and the long arm of Tammany Hall? And by the way, if you don't know what Tammany Hall is, look it up or call Nick. And no, [00:12:10] it does not make sense.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:14] Well, it does make sense. If you want people to doubt election results and the [00:12:20] system itself.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:22] Good point. And if you want to make big changes, potentially unconstitutional changes, we'll get to that after a quick break. [00:12:30]

Nick Capodice: [00:12:33] We're back. We are talking to Sarah Cooper from the Carter Center, a nonpartisan organization that, among other things, [00:12:40] observes elections around the world in order to uphold democracy. And now they are trying to do it in the United States as well. And just before the break, Hanna, [00:12:50] you said something about big changes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:53] All right. Well, I buried the lead a little bit on this episode. My initial reason for speaking with Sara was to try to [00:13:00] understand this phrase that has been everywhere lately, but doesn't seem to have a clear explanation.

Archival: [00:13:06] President Trump is now openly calling for the federal government to take over elections [00:13:10] in more than a dozen states.

Archival: [00:13:11] The Republicans should say, we want to take over. We should take over the voting, the voting, and at least many 15 [00:13:20] places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.

Archival: [00:13:23] Trump says Republicans should nationalize voting in the US.

Archival: [00:13:26] You heard him say Republicans should take over the elections in [00:13:30] 15 places without giving specific details or naming those locations.

Sarah Cooper: [00:13:39] And so it's a little [00:13:40] bit unclear what's what's meant by that.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:42] Sarah Cooper again, there, as you just heard, Donald Trump called on Republicans to, quote, nationalize elections. This [00:13:50] is one of those rare times, Nick, wherein I had to call on Merriam-Webster. The dictionary defines nationalization as to invest, control or [00:14:00] ownership of in the national government.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:03] The dictionary needs a dictionary sometimes, you know. Hannah Y put it that way. Basically, nationalization [00:14:10] means give the federal government control.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:13] Yeah. So right off the bat there, Nick, why might this raise some flags in these United States of America?

Nick Capodice: [00:14:19] Because of the Constitution. [00:14:20]

Sarah Cooper: [00:14:21] The Constitution vests authority for administering federal elections with states and with local authorities subject to congressional legislation [00:14:30] regulating the manner of elections.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:32] This one I do know. Article one, section four, clause one.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:36] The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives [00:14:40] shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.

Sarah Cooper: [00:14:44] The US is actually a little bit of an outlier in terms of democracies. We have a very decentralized election system. [00:14:50] We have more than 9000 unique election jurisdictions, and that's actually one of the real strengths of this system. Each jurisdiction follows policies and procedures [00:15:00] that are adapted to the local context, adapted to the local needs, and they do that within the bounds of national and state law. And that was very much by design. And having [00:15:10] this constitutional division of power between states and the federal government has been a very important, long standing check on Partisan influence in the election administration [00:15:20] process. We can also think of it as a little bit of a safeguard against malign influence and cyber security threats. It would be hard to mount an attack at [00:15:30] scale on our election systems, because each jurisdiction is is doing things a little bit differently within the bounds again, of national and state law.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:39] Now, [00:15:40] like Sarah said, the Constitution does give Congress, like the federal Congress, the ability to pass a law to make or change election regulation.

Sarah Cooper: [00:15:50] There [00:15:50] are three main grants of power to Congress that are relevant to elections in our Constitution. Congress has the power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. [00:16:00] Congress has the power to enforce the ban on racial discrimination in the 15th amendment. Article one, section four of the Election Clause grants Congress [00:16:10] power to regulate congressional. Although not state and local elections. Um, and there have been a small but kind of noticeable number of times when [00:16:20] federal election legislation has gone through and has made significant changes to our election process.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:26] So in addition to the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments, [00:16:30] Congress has passed the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. We won't go into the details of those here, but suffice it to say they did not [00:16:40] directly restrict voting in America. They were not explicitly designed to make it harder. And neither those constitutional amendments nor those laws constitute [00:16:50] taking over or nationalizing elections. As President Trump called on Republicans to do.

Sarah Cooper: [00:16:57] One thing that does kind of immediately give me pause is [00:17:00] kind of that exact framing that Republicans ought to nationalize the voting. As we talked about up top, going back to the founding of the United [00:17:10] States and the drafting of our Constitution, our founders were very careful to put kind of checks and balances into the system to ensure that there couldn't be partizan influence over [00:17:20] federal elections. And so any kind of talk, whether it would be Democrats, should nationalize elections, Republicans should nationalize elections automatically. Gives me [00:17:30] a little bit of pause. To me, that implies having the federal government exercise more direct control over how elections would be administered and would kind [00:17:40] of fly in the face of of hundreds of years of, of US election law and precedent. So it's a little bit of a question mark, but I think a question mark that gives some cause for concern.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:54] Okay. [00:17:50] Now, after Trump made this statement, white House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt said that what he [00:18:00] meant was that Congress should pass the Save act.

Archival: [00:18:03] What does President Trump mean when he says Republicans ought to naturalize voting? What does that look like in [00:18:10] practice?

Archival: [00:18:10] But the president was referring to is the Save act, which is a huge common sense piece of legislation that Republicans have supported, that President Trump is committed [00:18:20] to signing into law during his term. And he spoke with the speaker directly about that yesterday, about the need to get that bill on the floor.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:27] Did Leavitt address the quote? We should take over [00:18:30] the voting in at least many 15 places, end quote.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:33] She did not. The Save act does not specifically target any individual places, nor is it clear [00:18:40] how the Save act constitutes taking over or nationalization, which, if we're just going to go with the dictionary definition, does mean giving the federal government [00:18:50] control.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:51] All right. I need to ask about another thing here, Hanna. Last year, Trump issued an executive order saying that ballots had to be cast [00:19:00] and received on Election Day, and documentary proof of citizenship was required to vote. And the lawsuits followed, and [00:19:10] the courts blocked this order for the most part, and said that the president cannot bypass Congress and do this. But I have heard there is another [00:19:20] potential executive order in the works.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:23] Yeah. Several activists drafted an executive order that would declare a national emergency and ban [00:19:30] mail in voting and voting machines. Now, reports say it's circulating around the white House, but Trump says he's not planning on doing this.

Archival: [00:19:39] Are you saying a national [00:19:40] emergency around the midterm election?

Archival: [00:19:43] Who told you this?

Archival: [00:19:44] There's been reporting that there's an executive order proposed executive order about this. Are you looking at that or are you [00:19:50] considering that? What's your voter ID?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:54] On March 18th, Jerome Chorus, the conservative commentator and conspiracy theorist known in part [00:20:00] for promoting the lie that former President Barack Obama was not a U.S. citizen, claimed that the emergency declaration is, quote, being prepared.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:08] So big [00:20:10] Ole grain of salt on that one. But I just have to ask, can Donald Trump do that? Can he declare a national [00:20:20] emergency and just radically change elections?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:24] Let's start with one basic principle here.

Sarah Cooper: [00:20:27] To put it very simply, the president has no [00:20:30] significant power over election administration in the United States. And that [00:20:40] is by design. And that's a really important check in the system to ensure that we don't see kind of high, high profile partizan influence over our election process.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:50] Which [00:20:50] is not to say that there have not been presidential actions related to voting in the past.

Sarah Cooper: [00:20:54] So there have been other presidents that have issued executive orders related to election administration, [00:21:00] and that includes President Trump during his first term. But these orders have been very limited, and they've been reflective, again, of that extremely limited role [00:21:10] that the executive branch can play in administering elections. Um, so for example, in 2013, President Obama signed an executive order to establish [00:21:20] a presidential commission of election administration. President Trump in 2017 signed an executive order similarly to establish a Presidential Advisory [00:21:30] Commission on Election Integrity and then terminated that commission through executive order in 2018. So, generally speaking, the executive branch has authority to commission [00:21:40] executive agencies to draft reports. They can prioritize particular activities or ask executive agencies to prioritize particular activities. But [00:21:50] the short answer to your question is no. The executive branch does not have authority to propose substantive changes to the voting process that would require state or federal legislation. [00:22:00]

Nick Capodice: [00:22:00] All right, I hear that. But we also know that Trump has declared national emergencies to bypass Congress when it comes to border control [00:22:10] and tariffs. Even in the energy industry, national emergencies are a completely different ballgame. Could he use one of those to control elections?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:20] Sarah [00:22:20] thinks it's pretty unlikely and that if Trump were to try this, it would likely be contested in court. And just to be clear, the justification [00:22:30] behind this potential declaration of a national emergency to control elections, it's rooted in something that at this point feels like it happened six lifetimes [00:22:40] ago. China's interference in the 2020 election, and that justification has a fundamental flaw to it.

Sarah Cooper: [00:22:47] There was this 2021 intelligence review [00:22:50] that took place and concluded that China did not go through with efforts to influence the 2020 election.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:56] So, Hannah, this really brings me back to what Sarah was saying earlier, [00:23:00] that these false claims at the highest level erode trust in the system. And recently, Trump said that the only way Democrats [00:23:10] could win in an upcoming election is if they cheat.

Archival: [00:23:14] They want to cheat. They have cheated, and their policy is so bad that the only way they can get elected [00:23:20] is to cheat.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:23] I mean, imagine if a teacher said, look, I know that half of this class cannot pass the test without stealing the answers. [00:23:30] So if anyone in this half of the class gets an A, you know, they cheated, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:34] Well, that teacher would probably be fired because that is patently absurd. But we are not talking about a [00:23:40] teacher. We are talking about the president of the United States of America, who says that the election system, one of the fundamental bedrocks of a functioning American democracy, the thing [00:23:50] that allows us to hire and fire the people who are in charge doesn't work, and the people in charge need to take it over, even though the Constitution [00:24:00] says the states, not the people in Washington, are the ones who are by and large in charge.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:06] Aka the citizens are in charge.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:09] So what [00:24:10] do the citizens do? It doesn't really make sense to ignore the people who you hired, right? You did hire them. You should definitely pay attention [00:24:20] to them. And then you, the person who hired them, should check their work. If the chicken says the sky is falling, well, that is a really [00:24:30] big deal. You should absolutely go outside, look up and see if it's true. And the Carter Center has a proposal when it comes to what citizens [00:24:40] can and perhaps should do when they have concerns.

Sarah Cooper: [00:24:44] When the Carter Center observes elections or when we talk about domestic election observers or nonpartisan election [00:24:50] observation, it really is an individual who's looking out for all voters. They are providing oversight of whether elections are conducted [00:25:00] in accordance with the rule of law, in accordance with internationally established standards, to ensure that elections are transparent, to ensure [00:25:10] that they have these mechanisms for effective redress, like we talked about, so that if something does go wrong in the process, there's a way to address that and correct that, making [00:25:20] sure that elections are competitive, and they provide regular public commentary about the quality of the process to really help shape public perspective of [00:25:30] how the elections are run.

Nick Capodice: [00:25:31] Is that the same thing as being a poll worker?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:34] No, election observers are a special thing. I should say poll workers. The people who sign up to, as [00:25:40] the name suggests, work the polls on Election Day. Their job often includes making sure that everyone is following the law at the polls. But an election observer is [00:25:50] monitoring the whole process.

Sarah Cooper: [00:25:52] They're kind of off in the corner, not attracting attention. You know, it's a little bit like watching paint dry, they said in a tabulation [00:26:00] center, or they sit in the facility where machines are being tested, or they sit in a voting location and use a structured checklist [00:26:10] that they've received. And that's being used kind of all across the jurisdiction where we're observing. To tick off the things that they see. And that way we have a sense of how the election is [00:26:20] being conducted at scope and scale.

Nick Capodice: [00:26:22] It's kind of like a health inspector for the election process.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:26] And like Sarah said, not all states have a process for this, [00:26:30] but in some of those states that do. The Carter Center is rolling these programs out. And because we do have a decentralized election system, observers need different [00:26:40] training depending on the state.

Sarah Cooper: [00:26:42] So before the Carter Center mobilizes observers or works with partners to mobilize observers, they're required to go through a pretty detailed [00:26:50] training about the stage of the election process that they're supposed to watch. That can be anywhere from 4 to 8 hours. Again, for them to be familiar with all the different types [00:27:00] of election equipment, they might see the different types of election workers they might encounter, what those safeguards that they should expect to see in the process are. And then one [00:27:10] of the ways that we ensure, and that I see is kind of a real value add to this methodology. We're asking observers not just to report [00:27:20] when they see problems, but again, to kind of tick off. And it's a very long laundry list of questions, typically about 60 to 100 different things that they're looking at depending [00:27:30] on the stage of the process. And so by taking that very rigorous, structured approach, asking observers to report positive things as well as negative things, that really [00:27:40] does give us kind of the database to validate when elections are well administered.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:44] And, you know, Sara explained that that is what these observers [00:27:50] are seeing in this country.

Sarah Cooper: [00:27:52] From states where we had these pilot projects on in 2024 and again for local elections in 2025. Overall, [00:28:00] that's what the observers saw, that there may have been kind of isolated instances of human error, but at scope and scale and across the wide range of procedures [00:28:10] that they were watching, election administrators were really doing their jobs well, and we could have a lot of trust in the election process.

Nick Capodice: [00:28:18] So now I guess the question [00:28:20] is what we decide to do. Do we trust the people in charge who are saying it's all messed up, [00:28:30] or do we trust each other? The regular people who are doing this and saying, it's okay.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:37] I think there's an additional option too. You [00:28:40] don't actually have to take anyone's word for it. If you're feeling unsure about our election system, you can take action. You can do something about it. This [00:28:50] is a democracy and you are allowed to play a role.

Sarah Cooper: [00:28:55] I think the major thought I would want to leave listeners with is that [00:29:00] whatever your kind of questions, concerns, fear around the election process, there is a role for you. It's really important, kind of vitally important for you to get involved. We [00:29:10] do have a lot of safeguards in our process. States rights are really kind of important backstop this election cycle. States do have ultimate authority under [00:29:20] the Constitution for how elections are run. And I would just encourage folks, again, to take advantage of some of those great ways that they can get involved. It'll be a really rewarding experience. [00:29:30]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:35] That does it for this episode. It was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice, and Marina [00:29:40] Henke, who is our producer. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. Music in this episode is from Epidemic Sound. Lots of stuff came up in this episode that we did not get into the details of, [00:29:50] but fortunately, we have a ton of details on our website in the form of hundreds of episodes of Civics 101, and that website is civics101podcast.org. Civics [00:30:00] 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Why are we paying more for gas right now?

Four years ago we made an episode about how the president has very limited powers when it comes to lowering the price of gas. Turns out, we hadn't considered every possibility.

Today, we talk about how a president can make gasoline more expensive, by waging conflict in the middle east. Our guest is Robert Rapier, chemical engineer, investment writer, and energy sector expert. He came back on the show to tell us about the logistics of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, and whether there are any ways out of this.

⁠Click here⁠ for our other episode on the price of gas, and read Robert's article ⁠here⁠.

---

Transcript

Speaker 1: We're down lower than we've been in seven years. And gasoline prices and oil prices, not just the three states that I talk about with 199 a gallon. How would you like to have 199 in.

Speaker 2: The U.S. and Israel have launched strikes and a major military operation targeting Iran.

Speaker 3: Good evening. We begin tonight with the escalating battle over one of the world's most vital shipping channels.

Speaker 4: Not everybody's planning to vote for Republicans in the midterms who supported Trump. Let's take a listen [00:00:30] to one more woman who we spoke with. And you voted for him. How many times?

Speaker 5: Three times. That was my bad. Apparently, I'm an idiot.

Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice. I'm Hannah McCarthy, and today we have a correction. Maybe more like an update. Four years ago, I made an episode where I implied that the president has little to no effect on the price of gas. Turns out I was wrong. Stick [00:01:00] around.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, Nick, tell me how you were wrong about the president and gas prices.

Nick Capodice: Well, it's less of a wrong. More of a yes. And Hanna, there is, by the way, a link to our episode, the president and the price of gasoline down there in the show notes. But it's not inaccurate. That episode's good. It stands. It's legit. I just didn't consider every possibility. One possibility in particular. But to start, I want [00:01:30] to just quickly remind everyone what a president can do to affect the price we pay at the pump.

Robert Rapier: So a president has relatively few handles in the short term to deal with gasoline prices.

Hannah McCarthy: Wait, is that the same guy you had on in the episode The President and the Price of Gas?

Nick Capodice: It is. And he's saying pretty much the same thing. In fact, Hanna, I have the tape of what he said four years ago.

Robert Rapier: There are very few handles that a president has to influence gas prices in the short term.

Hannah McCarthy: So, so far nothing's [00:02:00] changed so far.

Nick Capodice: But I wanted to come back to this topic, Hannah, because I filled my tank this week and it was a lot more money than it was the week before. And of course, I'd been reading about what's going on in Iran. And I said to myself, can we really not blame the president for the price of gas prices? Really? So I called him up and had a little chat. This is, by the way, Robert Rapier.

Robert Rapier: My name is Robert Rapier. I'm a chemical engineer. I've spent a career in the energy industry and [00:02:30] I write and cover the energy industry.

Nick Capodice: So quickest recap ever. Here are the things that a president can do to reduce the price of gasoline.

Robert Rapier: One of those is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So when oil prices are spiking, we have a large strategic petroleum reserve that presidents can use to release oil and help put more supply on the market and bring prices down. That's one of the handles the president has. Um, the other is, you know, they could hypothetically waive [00:03:00] taxes in the short period to reduce prices.

Nick Capodice: A word more on those taxes. Federal taxes make up about $0.18 per gallon of gas that you buy, and state taxes vary. They vary a lot from $0.09 a gallon in Alaska to $0.70 a gallon in California.

Hannah McCarthy: And I remember that the main contributor to gas prices is the price of crude oil per barrel.

Nick Capodice: That's right. As we are saying these words. Hannah March 19th, 2026. The price of oil is $97 [00:03:30] a barrel, up from $57 a barrel at the beginning of 2026. And you got to be careful, Hannah, because when you start your day opening up a tab with the crude oil price tracker, it can become a bit of a habit.

Hannah McCarthy: And how close exactly are those two things tied the price of crude oil and the price of gasoline.

Robert Rapier: It's generally correlated above 90%. So generally oil prices rise. Gas prices rise. Now there is a refining system between oil [00:04:00] and gasoline, and sometimes that refining system can impact things in a way that oil prices are steady, but gas prices are rising or vice versa. Um, just depends on what's going in the refinery. Um, you know, longer term, it's very difficult, um, for president have a big impact, but you know, pro oil policies can help. Um, you know, taxation, there are a lot, lot more handles in the long run, but short term, you know, the options are pretty limited. There [00:04:30] is one thing a president could do to make prices skyrocket and that is conflict in the Middle East.

Speaker 10: Good afternoon everyone. We are interrupting the game for just a moment here because there is major breaking news at this hour. Abc news has just learned that Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is believed to have been killed in the attack in Iran. President Trump just moments ago confirming the news in a social media post killed in that attack led by U.S. and Israeli.

Hannah McCarthy: How much of the world's oil comes [00:05:00] out of the Middle East?

Nick Capodice: That is a tricky question. It's about 30%. North America is the number one region producing 31%. And I say it's tricky because oil from different places is different oil. It costs more or less to extract, to refine, etc..

Hannah McCarthy: And when did we start? Depending on oil production in the Middle East?

Nick Capodice: That started in a big way in the 1950s. And by the 1970s, the world market was completely dependent on oil [00:05:30] from the Middle East, which is why conflict in the Middle East has an immediate effect on the price of crude and therefore the price of gas.

Robert Rapier: You know, when we talk about tensions in the Middle East, we're talking about a few scenarios that could unfold that could dramatically increase the price of oil. And I call these the nuclear scenarios.

Hannah McCarthy: The nuclear scenarios.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Doesn't mince words that Robert Rapier. So here they are.

Robert Rapier: One [00:06:00] nuclear scenario is that Saudi Arabia, the region's largest producer, gets dragged into a full blown war and their oil producing facilities are exporting. Facilities are damaged. That's a nuclear scenario. Um, nuclear scenario is 2 or 3 of the large producers in the area get dragged into a conflict. But the other nuclear scenario is the one that has just happened, and that is Iran closes down the Strait of Hormuz.

Speaker 11: Iran flexing its muscle, launching projectiles and planting mines there, exerting control over this key [00:06:30] route, targeting ships that have passed through the narrow waterway. Iran vows to strike any ship linked to the U.S., Israel or their allies that passes through here.

Robert Rapier: That's actually worse than the others, because 20 million barrels a day and another 2 million barrel oil equivalent of of liquid natural gas pass through that strait every day under normal circumstances. That's 20% of the world's oil supply.

Nick Capodice: On February 28th, 2026, the United States and [00:07:00] Israel conducted a surprise attack on Iran. Iran's Health Ministry reports that so far, about 1500 Iranian civilians have been killed, including 165 at a strike on a school and 18,500 people have been wounded. Now, I do not have an accurate number of Iranian military killed in battle. The United States and Israel says it's about 6000 Iranian soldiers. And the United States has reported the loss of 13 [00:07:30] US service members in the conflict so far.

Hannah McCarthy: And what is the stated reason for this attack?

Speaker 12: If you had to explain in 10s, why did we go to war now?

Speaker 13: It's a very good question. And the truth is, we don't know the answer, right? They have given us multiple versions of that story all week.

Nick Capodice: So collecting Donald Trump's Truth Social posts, along with statements by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US ambassador [00:08:00] to the UN Mike waltz, in the first week of the war. I read nine different, sometimes conflicting, explanations from preventing nuclear weapons to inciting a regime change, to preempting Iran, attacking us, to destroying Iran's missile capabilities, to securing resources. As GOP Senator Lindsey Graham said when he went on Fox News.

Speaker 14: When this regime goes down, we're going to have a new Mideast. We're going to make a ton [00:08:30] of money.

Hannah McCarthy: So Robert said that 20 million barrels of oil go through the Strait of Hormuz. And this isn't a large body of water, right? It's relatively small.

Nick Capodice: It's not big. There's no way to sneak through it. It's, you know, it's 100 miles long, 20 miles wide. Iran can lay mines. They can fire on any tankers they see with ease.

Hannah McCarthy: Is there no other route these ships can take?

Robert Rapier: No. So if you [00:09:00] if you look at the Strait of Hormuz to the north, I mean, it's it's a dead end. You know, it goes up to Kuwait and it's able to pick up oil and natural gas from Qatar and different places. But there's no other way out. There are you know, Saudi Arabia has a pipeline that goes across. There's a pipeline that goes to the north, but those are all very limited. I mean, 20 million barrels a day is a staggering amount of oil to move. Um, you know, no pipeline is moving that amount. So those ships constant traffic. And if you, if [00:09:30] you look, you know, there's a site out there, Marine Traffic.com if you go look, you can see there is absolutely no ship traffic going through the Strait of Hormuz and it's normally just constant. Um, if you use that site and you pop over to the Red sea, you can just see red, red lines of ships going all up and down that, going up to the Suez Canal and going through, but going through the Strait of Hormuz. There's absolutely nothing going on right now. And it's usually very, very busy traffic through there. People talk about it being one of the most important choke [00:10:00] points. It is the most important choke point for energy in the world.

Hannah McCarthy: Did you go to Marine Traffic.com?

Nick Capodice: I did and added yet another daily tab that I can't stop checking. But again, no way out, no way around. It is entirely in Iran's hands.

Robert Rapier: No other country ever in history has had the ability to control that much of the world's oil supply ever. So Iran with, you know, I mean, this is why this is why presidents have been hesitant to attack Iran. [00:10:30]

Speaker 15: I did criticize the president because of our undercutting of what was a stalwart ally, the Shah of Iran.

Speaker 16: We want better relations with Iran. I remember when we had good relations. We like the Iranian people.

Speaker 17: Well, I could have been reelected if I had taken military action against Iran, it would have shown that I was strong and resolute and manly and so forth. But I think if I could have wiped ran off the map with the weapons that we had. But in the process, a lot of innocent people would have been killed, probably [00:11:00] including our hostages.

Robert Rapier: Because while it is a nuclear option for them, it is an option. And it's going to. I mean, everybody's going to suffer, not just the United States. Everybody in the world who uses, uh, fuel is going to suffer because, uh, we just took offline 20% of the world's supplies. And so now we are scrambling to fill those gaps.

Nick Capodice: And it is not just oil. Hannah. As important as oil is, it's not the be all end all here. Other ships [00:11:30] carrying a lot of other stuff go through there as well.

Robert Rapier: And it's also, you know, critical supply route for fertilizer. Um, for, you know, trade in general, a lot of container ships go through there. And when you think about what's being disrupted, those ships are all scheduled, you know, they're supposed to be somewhere else. Now you've got a lot of ships that are trapped inside, uh, you know, to the north, and they can't get out. They're stuck. Um, so there's going to be a disruption of trade here. That's going to [00:12:00] be, I think, reminiscent of Covid when we saw, you know, supplies get disrupted, supply chains get disrupted. I think we're going to see that right now. We're going to see, you know, some some problems. I think we've just scratched the surface of what we could see. I mean, it largely depends on Iran and how much they want to dig in here, but they could bring the global economy to its knees.

Hannah McCarthy: That is a grim picture. Does Robert have any ideas in terms of what we can do, or rather what America [00:12:30] can do?

Nick Capodice: He's got a couple and we're going to get to that right after a quick break. We're back. This is Civics 101. Today we are talking about the way a president can affect the price of gas, namely by attacking Iran.

Hannah McCarthy: So we have a gap right now 20% of the world's oil is stuck in the Persian Gulf, not to mention myriad other container ships. What can the world do [00:13:00] to make up for all of that missing oil?

Robert Rapier: And the math says you could maybe best case, short term, fill about half that gap. Um, you could you could maybe come up with 10 million barrels. And that's draining strategic petroleum reserves from Europe and from, you know, G7 countries and from the United States. So that only gives you a boost for, you know, a month or six weeks, and then you're back to, you know, if the strait is still closed, then you're then you're in some real pain. Um, then that supply [00:13:30] goes off. You know, there are some other options. Saudi has an underutilized crude oil line going west to the to the Red sea. And they have proposed to to push more crude in that direction. Iran has let some ships go through that are going to China. So so that helps a little bit. And the US has, uh, offered a waiver to Russia to allow them to sell oil to India, which ironically helps Russia continue to fight against, um, against [00:14:00] Ukraine. It gives them cash that they need. So, you know, it's a win win for Russia. When you talk about who wins out of this. I mean, Russia comes out of this as one of the biggest winners. They undoubtedly would like to see this go on as long as possible and see oil prices hundred $150. I mean that's that's just gold for Russia.

Hannah McCarthy: What is the highest oil barrel prices have ever been?

Nick Capodice: There was a spike in 2008 that led oil to be $147 a barrel, but that really was a spike. By the end [00:14:30] of the year, it was back down to $40 a barrel.

Hannah McCarthy: Has anyone suggested how high it could go as a result of this conflict?

Nick Capodice: Lots of folks have speculated. Last week, a market analyst on NBC said, quote, I wouldn't be surprised if oil went to 200 bucks or even 250, because commodity prices go parabolic when there's a shortage of supply.

Hannah McCarthy: So what can we do.

Nick Capodice: In the short term? I don't know if there's anything we can do because this was a complete surprise and nobody [00:15:00] had planned for it.

Robert Rapier: In the long term. If you said, you know, over the next five years, we're going to be missing 20 million barrels of oil a day, there are things that producers would do. They'd go out and they'd make investments and so forth. We don't really know how high oil prices could go, because the question I ask people is, how much would you pay for gasoline before you stop buying gasoline? And most people go, well, I don't have a choice. I have to drive back and forth to work. Um, right. So if if you're paying $4 now [00:15:30] and gasoline is $10, would you stop driving? And people go, well, I couldn't, I mean, I couldn't afford that, but I also couldn't stop driving.

Nick Capodice: But after a long time of $10 a gallon for gas, people are gonna change. People will use public transit. They'll use carpools. Eventually consumption will lessen.

Robert Rapier: But, you know, until a lot of consumption falls off. If Iran digs in their heels here, we're in for a [00:16:00] very rough time. And I would expect us to go into recession if if oil prices go above $100 and stay there, which right now, from my view, they they should be above $100, given that Iran is looks like they're digging in and, you know, there's just there's just not enough supply right now. I mean, the world is vastly underproducing what, what the world is demanding right now because it's just not moving through there. It's, uh, this is huge. Yeah, I, I, [00:16:30] I got up and I said, I, I think this is a huge, huge miscalculation. And, um, you know, we'll, we'll see how it goes.

Hannah McCarthy: That leaves me thinking about the very last thing a president can do to affect gas prices. And look, I know the Constitution says Congress declares war, not the president. We have not declared war since World War Two. By the way, but could this lead to a larger war?

Nick Capodice: Robert says that is definitely a possibility. [00:17:00]

Robert Rapier: We'll look back. I think this will be one for the history books. We'll look back and we'll go, this was a crisis that, uh, you know, this is why people in the past have been very, very hesitant. As much as people view Iran as a problem to be to be dealt with. The reason people haven't dealt with them is what we're experiencing right now, because they can shut down that Strait of Hormuz. And why is that? Because it cuts deeply into their territory right there at a very [00:17:30] narrow point. And they can surround it on three sides. And they they they can. I mean, you have to come very close to Iran getting a ship through there. And they can they can just stop traffic, they can bombard things coming through there. And that's going to put immense pressure, I think, on President Trump to put ground troops in there. I think if if you ask me what's going to happen, I would predict that we're going to have to put ground troops in there. Um, if if Iran refuses to open it up, I think that's going to be where the pressure is. Not that I [00:18:00] want to see that. I absolutely don't want to see it, but I think that's the pressure that's going to going to come.

Nick Capodice: Well that's the president and the price of gas part two not a replay, a redux. Rebecca was like, don't let people think it's the same episode because it sure isn't isn't the same anything. This episode was made by me Nick Capodice with Hannah McCarthy. As always, thank you Hannah, our producers, Marina Henke and our executive producer, the aforementioned Rebecca [00:18:30] LaVoy. Music in this episode from blue Dot sessions, Epidemic Sound and the beautiful Chris Zabriskie Civics 101 is a production of NPR New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Someone oughta open up a window

Today we take a field trip to Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania where Nick explains why he's like this via an obsession with 1776, the movie based on the musical based on the true events that launched a nation. Our nation. Also, Nick and Hannah get real using Dido as inspiration.

---

Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:07] Here I am, sitting on a stoop. Stoop. [00:00:10] Kid's afraid to leave her stoop. Everyone, [00:00:20] today you are invited on a field trip. If there is any one historic location that Nick Capodice has seen more than any other, it is probably this [00:00:30] one. Except he had never been there before. Now, if you've ever spoken to Nick about the Revolutionary War era, or about movies, or about [00:00:40] William Daniels, or really for any length of time, or if you've listened to more than just a few episodes of Civics 101, you have probably heard him mention this one film.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:49] If I had a [00:00:50] switch, Hannah, that could turn off my love for the musical 1776, I'd flip it, but I don't have that switch, do I?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:57] Anyways, Nick and I were in Philadelphia for a conference [00:01:00] and we had spent days and days talking about American democracy, about the origin story of this nation. So Nick and I get to the last [00:01:10] afternoon of that conference and I said, hey, what if we visited the very place where everything ended and everything began? And [00:01:20] what if you explained that story via your favorite movie of all time? Nick. It was not a hard sell. So [00:01:30] here we are. Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where many of the delegates of the Second Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence on August [00:01:40] 2nd, 1776. You are also invited into the mind of Nick Capodice. How this movie and this story took hold of him and what it means to [00:01:50] him right now. This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice is beside himself.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:02] This [00:02:00] is the most excited I've been... I've never been here before.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:06] You've never been?

Nick Capodice: [00:02:06] I've never been here. Never been. I went to the Mutter Museum [00:02:10] of Medical Oddities. But I didn't go here. You know, and it feels like. Have you been here before?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:16] Never.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:16] Oh my God. Okay. What? [00:02:20] What movie did you watch more than any other in your whole life?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:26] Princess Bride.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:27] Okay, that's a good one. Yeah, I had that too. So [00:02:30] I, you know, when I was about ten years old, I was living in New Hampshire. My dad, ever since some rough behavior about me not getting to watch the Monkees episode. I wanted to watch. I [00:02:40] used to love the.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:41] M o n k e e s.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:42] That's right. The TV show The Monkees. So anyway, my dad was like, no more TV. That's it. And from that point [00:02:50] until I left home, I didn't we didn't watch TV, we didn't get any channels. We did have a VCR.

Speaker 4: [00:02:58] You did what? [00:03:00] What? What do you mean? What did you do? What did you do when you weren't allowed to watch an episode of The [00:03:10] Monkeys?

Nick Capodice: [00:03:10] I flipped out when I was told I couldn't watch the monkeys. And that was the end of it. It was in stages. First it was. We can only watch [00:03:20] The Cosby Show and Family Ties. So then what would happen is. But then those got banned and then it was everything's banned. But I went to this [00:03:30] friend's house, Christine, dear friend of our family, and she had a tape that said 1776. And I was like, oh, what's this? She said, it's a musical about the Declaration of Independence. [00:03:40]

Speaker 5: [00:03:41] When a king becomes a tyrant, he thereby breaks the contract, binding his subjects to him.

Speaker 6: [00:03:47] How so?

Nick Capodice: [00:03:48] And I borrowed that tape from her [00:03:50] every night for like a year. And then for Christmas, she gave me my own tape of it. And there were some years I just watched it every day. I loved it's [00:04:00] a musical. I thought it was funny. I thought it was great. And I love the acting and I love the music. And I have watched it more than any other film in my [00:04:10] life. And this is where it was filmed. Independence Hall, but it's also where the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:17] Which is famously the site of the filming of [00:04:20] 1776 and some other thing that happened.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:22] So the opening scene of the movie is John Adams is in that tower right there, that bell tower that we can see sort of staring [00:04:30] forlornly. And McNair, congressional custodian, is calling up like, Mr. Adams, you got to get down. We got to vote in this Congress. And, you know, we have a very important issue. And it's like, I can just [00:04:40] imagine, you know, what burning issue are we voting on today? And the big issue, it's not independence on whether or not the militia is required to wear matching uniforms. [00:04:50] And he storms downstairs. Burst into the Independence [00:05:00] Hall and start saying how useless things are in Philadelphia. This nation will never... I've come to the conclusion.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:06] It's never going to happen. And then he says, the one thing we have to do is vote [00:05:10] yes for independency to dissolve our allegiance to the British crown. And the whole movie is about that struggle to get the Declaration of Independence [00:05:20] written, ratified, written and ratified. This famous song is called Sit Down, John.

1776: [00:05:30] Vote [00:05:30] for independence.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:33] William Daniels, who's a lot of folks might know, is what's the teacher's name in Boy Meets World?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:37] Mr. Feeny.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:39] I didn't watch TV? [00:05:40] Hannah. Okay, well, that was after the Monkees.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:43] Okay. Boy Meets world is how I learned the Monkees existed. So everything comes full circle. There's an episode [00:05:50] where the Monkees show up.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:52] Oh my God. Well, they they needed work after their show was canceled. Yeah. [00:06:00] William Daniels plays the irascible, stubborn [00:06:10] John Adams, who is obnoxious and disliked, and the whole movie is them lurching towards this bizarre [00:06:20] concept of independence.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:22] Independency, as they.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:24] Call independency.

1776: [00:06:26] Will someone shut that man up.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:29] Never [00:06:30] the the villain in the movie. So the protagonist, the hero is John Adams, missing his beloved wife Abigail, who he writes letters to and, [00:06:40] you know, says how much he loves her.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:41] And where's Abigail?

Nick Capodice: [00:06:43] She's in Quincy, Massachusetts.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:46] Where Abigail is at the farm and Braintree. Braintree, [00:06:50] Massachusetts, where Hannah McCarthy grew up. And now Quincy's the city of presidents.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:56] I didn't know that Quincy was the home of the Adams is because in the [00:07:00] movie, she says, the farm here in Braintree is failing. The chickens and the geese have all died.

1776: [00:07:04] It appears the farm here in Braintree is failing. John, the chickens and the [00:07:10] geese have all died. The apples never survived the late fall.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:15] So John Adams wants independency. Congress [00:07:20] says no or the Congress is useless. They can't. They can't even. There's a big debate about whether they should have the windows open or closed, and if it's because it's so hot in Philadelphia and that [00:07:30] that that that summer. And they can't agree on to open them because if they open the windows, the flies will all come in. And if they close it, it'll be hot, but it'll keep the flies out. And [00:07:40] the point is how inefficacious a Congress is. The line is John Adams storms in and says, I've come to the conclusion that one [00:07:50] useless man is called a disgrace.

1776: [00:07:53] That two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress. [00:08:00]

Nick Capodice: [00:08:01] And by God, I have had this Congress for ten years. King George and his Parliament have Gulled Khalid and diddled these colonies with their illegal [00:08:10] taxes. Stamp acts, Townshend acts, sugar acts TX. I'm almost done. And when we've dared stand up like men. They've stopped our trade, seized our ships, blockaded [00:08:20] our ports, burnt our towns and spilled our blood. And still this Congress refuses to grant any of my proposals an independency, even [00:08:30] so much as the courtesy of open debate. The president of the Second Continental Congress was John Hancock. You [00:08:40] know him, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:41] Got a big Ole name.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:42] Big. So Fat George in London can read it without his glasses. John Hancock was like a. In the real world [00:08:50] he was a tea smuggler, like his whole family was a bunch of tea smugglers from Boston. But anyway, John Hancock was the president of the Continental Congress. Adams and his crew [00:09:00] is trying to get independency passed and they can't do it. And, uh, this the villain of the movie is John Dickinson from Pennsylvania, who's a loyalist who's [00:09:10] like, have you no love for the country that bore you for like Mother England?

1776: [00:09:15] Is that all the pride and affection you can muster for the nation that bore you [00:09:20] for the noblest, most civilized nation on the face of this planet?

Nick Capodice: [00:09:24] There's only 13 colonies. They only need seven votes to declare independency. And they can't do it [00:09:30] because John Adams is obnoxious and disliked. And John Dickinson is leading the opposition saying, no, we shouldn't declare independency. There's [00:09:40] only 11 represented colonies at the Congress.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:44] Why is that?

Nick Capodice: [00:09:45] Georgia hasn't shown up and new Jersey hasn't shown up when this movie opens. [00:09:50] So they just need what what's the majority of 11 six? Yeah, six votes to become. But they can't do it. Uh, and then Georgia shows [00:10:00] up and Georgia is not sure where it wants to stand.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:04] Who is.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:05] That? Doctor Lyman Hall of Georgia. Doctor Lyman Hall of Georgia. He [00:10:10] shows up and he doesn't know where to go. Doesn't know where to stand. And, uh, Ben Franklin shows up from Pennsylvania.

1776: [00:10:16] Now, then attend as friend to friend. Our declaration [00:10:20] committee for us. I see immortality in Philadelphia City.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:29] There's [00:10:30] three delegates from Pennsylvania in the movie. John Dickinson, who's anti-independence. Uh, Ben Franklin, who is very. For independence. Ben Franklin [00:10:40] is the second biggest character in the musical played by Howard da Silva. He's he's like the best. He's a very good. Franklin. I told my dad when I grew up, my dream was to [00:10:50] be an actor who played Franklin.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:52] And it's not too late. Nick.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:53] But he was like, what about, uh, John Adams? And I was like, nope. And he kept noting that all the roles [00:11:00] I wanted to play were rather plump old men. He was like, don't you want to be like Jesus in Jesus Christ? I was like, no, I'll be Herod. That's who I want to. That's who I want [00:11:10] to be. But they come upon a plan which is let someone else in Congress propose because no one likes John Adams. And they get Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. Richard Henry Lee makes [00:11:20] the proposal, and then it's shall we vote yay or nay on the proposal for independence? And at this time, New York never votes yes or no. [00:11:30] They abstain courteously.

1776: [00:11:31] New York abstains courteously. Mr. Morris, why does New York constantly abstain?

Nick Capodice: [00:11:38] So you've got a tied vote. Six [00:11:40] for independence, six against independence. John Hancock, he's from Massachusetts. He's pro-independence. If they vote, they can get it to pass as a maneuver. That's this is actually [00:11:50] the part of the movie that I really care about. Um, John Dickinson of Pennsylvania says any vote for independence has to be unanimous. All 13 colonies have to say we want to [00:12:00] be independent and then it gets to the president, yes or no. And the president says it has to be unanimous. And why? Why should the vote for independence be unanimous?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:09] Because they [00:12:10] envision a future in which these individual colonies will be of one nation. Yeah.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:18] And even more painful, [00:12:20] Hancock says, when John Adams is like, what are you doing? You sunk us. He says, can't you see that any colony that doesn't want to be independent will be forced to fight on the side of England. We'll [00:12:30] be setting ourselves, brother against brother that our new nation carries on itself the mark of Cain. So then they're like, well, if it's got to be unanimous, it's never going to happen. So [00:12:40] then John Adams comes up with a stall. Total stall. How can we declare independence without having some sort of written declaration? For our purposes, [00:12:50] goals, ditto, ditto, etc., etc.. He's totally stalling and he says, well, we need to get the approval of France or Spain and such a document [00:13:00] would remain consistent with European delicacy. So they agree to write a declaration. Now who's going to write it? So the committee of ISC Livingston, Roger Sherman, Ben [00:13:10] Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, so the Committee of five Jefferson's writes it, and then the declaration is brought here to be debated. And [00:13:20] then, uh, the big the big swing in the musical is that there is a grievance in the declaration which was cut out. If anybody who's listened to any [00:13:30] of our episodes on the declaration knows it was cut out and it was about opposing the slave trade that King George has done, that the South says [00:13:40] if you don't get rid of that grievance, we're not going to sign your little piece of paper. And independence is gone forever.

1776: [00:13:47] We have no choice, John. The [00:13:50] slavery clause has got to go.

1776: [00:13:55] Franklin, what are you saying?

Nick Capodice: [00:13:58] John Adams is convinced to tell [00:14:00] Jefferson to scratch it out. And then there's one more little hurdle. Everybody's finally convinced to become independent except [00:14:10] Pennsylvania, run by John Dickinson. And also, keep in mind, this whole time, Britain is smashing the hell out of us in battles, just [00:14:20] destroying General Washington. Every other scene. George Washington's like messenger comes in and brings a missive of terrible news.

1776: [00:14:29] I beseech [00:14:30] the Congress to dispatch the War Committee to this place in the hope of restoring some of the order and discipline we need to survive. Your obedient G. [00:14:40] Washington.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:41] But here's the here's another favorite part of mine is when Adams is just complaining about the South, who's, you know, and Dickinson and all these people. And [00:14:50] Ben Franklin says, these men, no matter what we think of them, are not ribbon clerks to be ordered about. [00:15:00] Their elected representatives to Congress. They are like the cream of their colonies, and whether you like it or not, they are to be part of this new nation [00:15:10] you hope to create. So learn how to live with them or pack up and go home.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:22] We're [00:15:20] going to take a quick break when we come back. That was then. This is now. So what do [00:15:30] we do? So [00:16:00] it is March of 2026.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:06] Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:07] And we are coming up on the [00:16:10] 250th birthday of America. And we're actually in Philadelphia because it's the kickoff [00:16:20] to Civic Learning Week, right?

Nick Capodice: [00:16:21] Yeah, it's the National Forum for Civic Learning Week.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:25] And we've heard a lot of people talk about the loss of [00:16:30] and need for the ability for people who fundamentally disagree to talk to each other specifically in [00:16:40] America's democracy. And what you are describing is an insistence that the democracy would never even come [00:16:50] about. Not that they necessarily knew what the government was exactly going to look like, and they certainly made a couple of mistakes along the way. But in [00:17:00] order to even get to the point where they could start to think about what the government here would be, people who disagreed had to [00:17:10] agree on one thing. Mhm.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:13] Yeah. It's to me, [00:17:20] it seems bonkers that it happened because this required unanimity among a group of men who couldn't agree on anything. But they [00:17:30] argued about it, and they talked about it and they fought about it. There are all these stories of fights in these halls, walking sticks and stuff, but that they [00:17:40] actually got together for this one thing, this really scary thing, this thing that was signing their own death warrant, [00:17:50] their own trip to the gallows for treason. We say it over and over, but it is true. Like our the reason we're here is because people are able to talk about something [00:18:00] and disagree immensely, but then actually get somewhere.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:05] And because despite there being some [00:18:10] people who didn't necessarily want to talk or who wanted to leave other people out of the conversation, there were other people [00:18:20] who said, no, look, we got to do this together. You have to talk to that guy. You have to. There were voices of reason [00:18:30] and of power and influence who used their power and influence toward communication, [00:18:40] even within fundamental disagreements.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:48] There's even a part doctor Hall [00:18:50] of Georgia is wrestling with whether or not to vote for independence. And initially he's like, I can't decide. The people are against it and I'm for. It is what he says. And he's like, until I can figure out why I'm [00:19:00] here and what that means. Uh, I'm going to lean a little on their side. And then penultimate scene of the movie, he comes in the middle of the night and says, I couldn't [00:19:10] sleep. I was thinking about something I'd read was that I'm going to get the quote wrong. But like when a man represents people, he doesn't just give them his industry, [00:19:20] he gives them his judgment and he betrays them. If he does something thinking about what they want, it's his job as a representative. [00:19:30]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:31] To be paternalistic.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:32] And then he says, that was written by Edmund Burke, member of the British Parliament, and he slides the [00:19:40] vote over from nay to yea. I [00:19:50] grew up star spangled. Mostly because of this movie, I love America. [00:20:00] I really I love the people. I love these teachers we just talked to. I love the idea of America. I love the foundations of the declaration. I love [00:20:10] that all men are created equal even though they weren't. I am not loving it so much right now. I think what I'm feeling right [00:20:20] now is because I'm looking. I'm sitting outside of this hall, and I'm not feeling a swell in my stomach and a knot in my heart. Right now it [00:20:30] feels like I maybe don't love America, but I know that's not true. I love so much of it, and I love these ideals, [00:20:40] which maybe weren't held to for, what, 100 until the 1960s, basically. But I'm, I'm feeling [00:20:50] very hurt. I'm feeling hurt by America and I'm like spurning it. It's like someone who hurt me. And I'm like, well, if you're going to be that way, [00:21:00] you don't get my love. That makes me really sad. Do [00:21:10] you feel like ever? Like, is it worth is it worth fighting for?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:18] I know that it is. [00:21:20] And. Uh, so I guess my father had never heard White Flag by Dido before. [00:21:30]

Nick Capodice: [00:21:30] I had never heard white flag.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:32] That's true, that's true. And, uh, the other day he said he heard this song with these lyrics. I will go down with this [00:21:40] ship. I won't put my hands up and surrender. There will be no white flag above my door. I'm in love and always will be. And I was like, dad, that is Dido. [00:21:50] You've never heard that before. And. That's how I feel. You [00:22:00] know, I think that you don't turn your back on it. You [00:22:10] just keep going. Keep. Saying out loud what is at the core [00:22:20] of all of this? And. And if everyone stops believing in it, I'll be the madman in [00:22:30] town. But I'm willing to be.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:33] You're going to be the madman in the town who's saying I hold these truths to be self-evident? Don't forget, don't [00:22:40] forget. This is the Constitution. These are how. This is how things actually operate. And people are just saying to you, yeah, but that's not how it really works, [00:22:50] right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:51] I actually, when I look at this building and I am reminded of the people who wrote the words upon [00:23:00] which American democracy was based. I. I feel a call to action. You know, I [00:23:10] feel voices from 250 years ago, or even more so, I feel like I can feel their eyes on me. Look [00:23:20] what we gave you, doofus. You know.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:24] The longest constitutional. The longest running constitutional republic in the world. Look [00:23:30] what we gave you. Ding dong. Figure it out, dummy. As soon as you started singing Dido. Hannah. [00:23:40] Really, though, I kind of regretted what I said earlier. Like, of course it's worth fighting for.

1776: [00:23:52] As [00:23:50] I write these words, the enemy is plainly in sight beyond the river. How it will [00:24:00] end. Only Providence can direct. But, dear God, what brave men! I [00:24:10] shall lose. Before this business. Ends. [00:24:20] Your obedient. G. [00:24:30] Washington.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:48] You [00:24:40] might have heard that we are approaching America's [00:24:50] 250th birthday, which will be celebrated on July 4th, 2026. Now Civics 101 stans will of course, know that the Second Continental Congress unanimously [00:25:00] voted for independence from Great Britain on July 2nd, edited the declaration for two days, approved the edits, sent it to John Dunlap to print it on July 8th. Colonel John Nixon [00:25:10] of Pennsylvania read it out loud. An independent square. A bunch of delegates signed it on August 8th, and the last signature happened sometime in early 1777. And [00:25:20] you'll probably know that John Adams thought July 2nd would long be celebrated. Quote, I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary [00:25:30] festival. Well, sorry, John, it's the fourth. Maybe one day we'll put you on standard issue currency. Anyway, in anticipation of making it through [00:25:40] a full 250 years, Civics 101 will spend the next months sharing stories that explore where we came from, how we got here, what that [00:25:50] means, and why it matters. Stay tuned for our series celebrating America's 250th birthday. We do love it. It is [00:26:00] worth fighting for. This episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Marina [00:26:10] Henke is our producer. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. Music in this episode comes from Epidemic Sound and the Streets of Philadelphia. You can find many, many stories and [00:26:20] lessons about this nation of ours at our website civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public [00:26:30] Radio.

---

Are you really mad? What can you do about that?

As hosts of a civics podcast, we are not allowed to advocate for policy. But you can. Here are three things you can do to get your elected officials to listen when you're mad about something.

By way of example, Nick reveals his pettiest, most apolitical gripe; and methods he would hypothetically use to address it. We talk lobbying, contacting your electeds, and getting (possibly famous) people together to advocate for change.

This episode features Emily Gallagher, serving District 50 in the New York State Assembly, and Eric Schwartz, of the National Film Preservation Foundation.

Here is Eric's piece on the National Film Preservation Act of 1988.

Here is our episode on Who REALLY Writes Bills.

Here is a video of Tom Cruise and Christopher McQuarrie complaining about the soap opera effect.

---

Transcript

C101_Soap opera.mp3

Nick Capodice: And it's not going to succeed. But I'm talking to a policymaker tomorrow and you're calling on Congress to. I'm I want to call on Congress on the soap opera effect. Well, it's the time. It's the time. You and Al Pacino, me and Al Pacino, he's going to get up there. It doesn't look anything like. Like I thought I knew.

Dan Barrick: It was you, Fredo.

Movie archival: I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window.

Movie archival: You want the moon? Just say the word, and I'll throw a lasso [00:00:30] around it and pull it down.

Movie archival: And like any good liberal, I should question. Everything. Right. So I should question this. For instance. When did I last make a stand?

Movie archival: I don't care whether I'm alone or not. It's my right. What do you want? I say he's guilty.

Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice. In today's episode, I kind of have an existential crisis about my job. I'm going to talk about what you can [00:01:00] do when you get mad. Stick around. Hey out there, listener. Are any of you out there mad? Are you frustrated at the government? You just want to do something.

Movie archival: I don't have to tell you. Things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth.

Nick Capodice: That's [00:01:30] Peter Finch, and in the Movie Network, it's one of my favorite movies ever made. He plays a news anchor who's unjustly fired, and he has a breakdown on the air where he speaks his heart about the problems in the world.

Movie archival: We know things are bad, worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy. So we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house and slowly the world we're living in is getting smaller. And all we say is, please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV [00:02:00] and my steel belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.

Nick Capodice: Oh, but he doesn't want to leave you alone. He wants you to get mad.

Movie archival: I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad.

Nick Capodice: So, look, I get mad. I get mad a lot. I get mad at big things, and I get mad at little things. So what can I do about it? And what does this have to do with Civics 101? Well, let me give you a [00:02:30] tiny bit of background. The first episode of Civics 101 was in January 2017. Donald Trump had just been elected for the first time, and people frankly had a lot of questions about what would happen. And the podcast team at Nhpr, which didn't include me yet. Hannah was there, but I wasn't. They were sitting around. They were talking about Trump's potential pick for chief of staff and somebody quite bravely. And I really mean this Bravely said, what is the chief of staff? [00:03:00] And this person received blank faces all around the room, and in a moment which we at Civics 101 consider akin to sainthood. Then producer Logan Shannon Logan, I miss you, she wrote on a post-it note. Schoolhouse Rock for adults. Question mark. And the show was born. The podcast refresher course on the basics of how our democracy works.

Nick Capodice: But there's just one small problem.

Movie archival: Just one [00:03:30] small problem. Sell their houses. To who? Ben?

Nick Capodice: Who in their right mind wants to listen to a show about rules and systems? If those rules and systems are manipulated to serve whomever is in power at any given point, or if those rules and systems are just flat out ignored. And let me give you an example. We spent tons of time meticulously breaking down the Fourth Amendment's protections against unlawful search and seizure in the fascinating [00:04:00] Supreme Court decision in Mapp v Ohio. And yet, this month, Ice agents were instructed to forcibly enter someone's home without a judicial warrant.

Archival: Mr. speaker, you're a constitutional lawyer. Can you detail the Fourth Amendment protections and rights someone has? If an Ice agent approaches their home with an administrative warrant?

Archival: Um.

Archival: Yeah.

Archival: Right.

Nick Capodice: What's the point of it all? And while we're here, while we're airing the grievances, [00:04:30] the word civics. Civics is a word that I and Hannah and Rebecca and Marina wrestle with all the time. Because people hear the word civics and they think just schoolhouse Rock. How a bill becomes a law. Separation of powers, checks and balances. All that stuff which I love, I love more than the average bear. And maybe you do too. Which is why you're listening to our show. But civics isn't just that, gosh darn it, civics is navigating how we exist in a [00:05:00] society. The rules about what we do to others and what others can do to us. And in times when the rules about what we do to others and what they do to us don't seem to matter. What the heck can you do? That's what today's about. And you, gentle listener, can do a heck of a lot more than I can. You can do things that I can't because I am a journalist. There is wonderfully, though sometimes frustratingly, a [00:05:30] check on my power.

Nick Capodice: Could you tell everybody.

Nick Capodice: Your name and your title?

Dan Barrick: My name is Dan Barrick. I'm the news director here at NPR. You've checked your.

Nick Capodice: Phone three times.

Nick Capodice: Since I turned on the. That's not even true. No. One time. No. Okay. That wasn't your phone. No.

Nick Capodice: Okay. So I, I asked you in here today. We have sort of different jobs, but we work at the same radio station. Can you explain to me just basically. I know you don't work in HR, but basically what are [00:06:00] the rules when it comes to journalists advocating for what they want in terms of like, you know, calling their congressmen or writing their senator or something like that?

Dan Barrick: Generally speaking, we try and recognize that people are journalists, which has a very distinct code of ethics and expectations, but they're also humans who have personal lives, personal identities, uh, personal needs. Uh, I don't think it's reasonable to ask people to check all that at the door and become [00:06:30] kind of reporting robots when they step into the newsroom. But our credibility hinges on the fact that the public believes and can trust that the people reporting the news and telling them what's going on are not, uh, operating with any hidden agendas or, um, or other goals that, you know, that would get in the way of that.

Nick Capodice: All this to say that I, as a member of the media, cannot write my elected member of Congress. I cannot call them. I cannot call my representative. [00:07:00] I cannot publicly advocate for policy. Even if, hypothetically, that policy was more money for civics education, I can't say I want it to happen. This also means that I can't go to a protest. I mean, I could go to one to cover it, but I can't hold up a sign. So I asked Dan, is there anything out there so small, so personal that I, as a member of the press, would be allowed to advocate for it? Like the tried and true example, putting [00:07:30] up a stop sign at the end of my block.

Dan Barrick: I've never had a reporter ask me if they can advocate for a stop sign, and I would want to. I would want to think about that a little bit before I would answer, but I would say, yeah, that would be included because you're reaching out. You're asking a public official to do something personally, whether it's something as big as, you know, voting on a major piece of legislation or to change the trash pickup day.

Nick Capodice: This is why several members of the press don't even vote. [00:08:00] They believe it is unethical and I respect that. I vote Hanna votes, but a lot of folks don't. Now, the second reason members of the press don't advocate for policy is because it is a gross abuse of power. If I went to my local New Hampshire state legislator and said, hey, I work for a civics podcast, I want you to support this bill for civics education. And if you do, I'll talk about it on the show. Whew. No no no no no, that would be a disgusting overreach of power. [00:08:30] But you there. Hey, you. I want to tell you how you can do it. Not necessarily how you can ask for something that might benefit me in my work, but something you can actually do to make a change that would benefit you. So I needed a subject to demonstrate how to actually make change. And I wanted to find something so small, so apolitical, so innocuous. But it's also something I care a lot about. [00:09:00] And I wanted to explore how I could make a dent. Two things about which I am passionate leapt to mind immediately, and the first was AI.

Nick Capodice: I despise AI. I feel it's destroying our brains and our hearts. I hate that it feels like it's being shoved down my throat when I'm just trying to write an email to someone, or read an email from someone. Maybe get one robot to rewrite the email in the other robot to read the email. We can just go hide under the bed. [00:09:30] Most of all, I hate it when I'm tricked into thinking I'm talking with a real person. Like you hear somebody be like, oh, hey, Nick, just one second. Let me get that for you. You're clicking and clacking of the keyboard and people buzzing and chatting by the water cooler, and then I'm like, can I ask, are you a real person? And it says something like, chuckles, I'm an automated assistant. It actually said that to me. It said chuckles. Chuckles. But anything that touches AI can be seen as political. [00:10:00] So I couldn't do it. So my second peeve it's a big one for me and you've probably never heard of it. The soap opera effect.

Movie archival: Kristen Yes, that's right. Ladies and gentlemen, Kristen DiMera is back.

Nick Capodice: There are like five of you out there who just, like, leapt out of your chairs, but the rest probably don't know about it. I asked Dan if he [00:10:30] knew about it. Uh, so, listen, are you familiar with something called the soap opera effect? Uh oh. You don't know this?

Dan Barrick: Uh uh.

Nick Capodice: Dan leveled me with a blank stare. He had never heard of the soap opera effect. And he loves old movies. Most people I talk to don't really know about it or care about it, but I care about it. And so too does Tom cruise.

Tom Cruise: Hi, I'm Tom Cruise, obviously.

Chris McQuarrie: And I'm Chris McQuarrie, obviously. And we're talking to you from the set of Top Gun Maverick. We're [00:11:00] very proud to present Mission Impossible Fallout, and we want you to enjoy it to the fullest possible effect, just as you would in a theater.

Tom Cruise: To that end, we'd like a moment of your time to talk to you about video interpolation.

Chris McQuarrie: Video interpolation or motion smoothing, is a digital effect on most high definition televisions, and is intended to reduce motion blur in sporting events and other high definition programing.

Tom Cruise: The unfortunate side effect is that it makes most movies look like they were shot on high speed video rather than film. This is sometimes referred to as the soap opera effect.

Nick Capodice: This is from a PSA [00:11:30] that Tom cruise did with Chris McQuarrie. He's the director of Top Gun Maverick and a lot of Tom cruise movies. I wrote to McQuarrie to see if he wanted to be in this episode, and he never wrote back. Didn't write to Tom cruise because I was a little scared. I hope I can leave it at that. So I love movies a lot, especially old movies. I could talk about old movies for hours. I do a pretty good Michael Caine singing kiss from a Rose by seal. Maybe I'll put that in the credits. So the soap [00:12:00] opera effect is when a newer model of television uses something called motion smoothing. And what it does is it greatly improves big massive air quotes here improves the definition of a picture by increasing the frame rate. And what do I mean by that? Film traditionally is shot at 24 frames per second. Television is shot at 60 frames per second. Soap operas are television and they are [00:12:30] shot at 60 frames per second. This is why you can just look at a TV somewhere and be like, oh, that's the news, or that's a soap opera, or that's a movie because they look different. Motion smoothing does make an image look clearer. It's useful if you watch a lot of sports, but to me and to Tom cruise and millions of other people out there, it makes movies look like soap operas. Now I have gotten into fights with my friends about this. [00:13:00] One of my best friends didn't notice he had it on his TV and I had to leave his house. I couldn't watch the movie he was watching. To me, it's the equivalent of putting a three Michelin star meal in a blender and saying, hey, it's the same food, you can just drink it through a straw now. For your convenience, to me it is like my favorite movie ever made. The lion in Winter looks like days of our lives.

Movie archival: Not history's forces, nor the times, nor justice. Nor the lack of it, nor causes, nor religions, nor ideas, nor kinds of government, nor [00:13:30] any other thing. We are the killers. We breed wars.

Movie archival: Like sands through the hourglass. So are the days of our lives.

Nick Capodice: Last quick anecdote here. I think I'm past the statute of limitations on this. I don't think I'm going to get in trouble. I'm gonna make a little confession. About a year or so ago, I was in a hotel and my girlfriend and I were watching Godfather Part two, and the hotel TV had motion smoothing on by default. [00:14:00] They usually do. But unlike if I was at home or a friend's house where I could just press the Filmmaker Mode button to turn off motion smoothing, you can't do that in a hotel. They don't let you mess with the settings. So I made a little bit of a boo boo. I went on Reddit to find out how to adjust the settings on a hotel TV by pressing a bunch of buttons in a certain order. And long story short, the TV stopped working entirely, and about an hour later there was a guy in the room sweating it out with [00:14:30] a drill. Uninstalling the TV and putting in a new one. I am so, so sorry. All this to say, I want change, right? I want motion smoothing to be turned off as the preset in hotels, and if I'm dreaming, I want it to be turned off as the preset on all TVs. And if you want change in the long run, you need policy to be enacted. You need a law, and [00:15:00] your elected representatives are the ones who make those laws. So how on earth do you get them to listen to you? Today I am going to go over three different methods to get your elected officials to pay attention to your wants and needs. Number one, hire a lobbyist. Number two, reach out to your elected official directly. And number three, my personal favorite. Get a lot of people together. Parentheses, [00:15:30] some of whom might be famous, who care about the same thing. And now that I have gone on long enough by myself, I'm going to bring Hannah in here right after this quick break. Yeah. Bob, would you get a Scandinavian swimmer?

Nick Capodice: This show is brought to you by Scandinavian swimmers.

Nick Capodice: The delicious way to start your day. Greg, do you want to introduce yourself?

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, I'm Hannah McCarthy, co-host of Civics 101.

Nick Capodice: So I've given Hannah kind of the lowdown [00:16:00] on what this episode is about. But this first chunk here is about hiring a lobbyist.

Hannah McCarthy: And, Nick, we do need a full episode on lobbying, but to be clear, this is not that episode, correct?

Nick Capodice: No, it is not. It is just a touch. Would you just be able to give us the sort of base layer of paint on what lobbying is, exactly?

Hannah McCarthy: Uh, sure. Lobbying is when an interested party, be it an individual or a corporation or an interest group, [00:16:30] hires people to advocate for policy like law. Lobbyists are often lawyers, and successful lobbyists are often well connected and lobbyists are paid to influence members of Congress to get them to write or vote for legislation.

Nick Capodice: Wonderful. That is about the size of it.

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, how many lobbyists are there in the US do you know?

Nick Capodice: Yeah, there are about 12,000 just in Washington, D.C. that is about 22 lobbyists for each member of the [00:17:00] House and Senate. But lobbying happens at the state and local level as well.

Hannah McCarthy: And how do they do it exactly?

Nick Capodice: How do they do it? Lobbyists just talk to people. Their job is to get face time with elected officials and say, hey, so here's why this bill should be passed. Or as is more often the case. Look, we have all the information on this topic. We got a ton of lawyers who can write legislation for you using that information, and it'll benefit you and your constituents. It's a [00:17:30] win win. For a full breakdown on this, by the way, please listen to our episode on who really writes bills, which I have linked below in the show notes.

Hannah McCarthy: And I do know that a great many of these lobbyists are former politicians themselves, or the aides of politicians. They have good relationships with members of Congress, and they know how the system works.

Nick Capodice: Exactly.

Hannah McCarthy: And in terms of the interested party that we're talking about here, can that be one person? Can one person [00:18:00] hire a lobbyist?

Nick Capodice: Well, a single person can hire a lobbyist if you got the money, they got the time.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. But how much money?

Nick Capodice: Well, of course it is a spectrum, Hanna. A wide spectrum. But if we are talking about a federal issue.

Hannah McCarthy: And you are talking about a federal issue. Right? Banning the soap opera effect.

Nick Capodice: Yes. Well, I know I can't ban it, Hanna, because people want fancy technology on their TVs, and that's not going to change. But if I narrow my focus, I [00:18:30] could say I want legislation that bans it from being the default setting for hotels. So if I wanted to hire a lobbyist for this specific task, I would need to hire the services of a lobbying firm. A small firm would require a retainer of about 15 grand a month. But if I wanted a firm that has former politicians, senior seasoned staff, etc., that's going to run me about 100 to $200,000 a month.

Hannah McCarthy: And with this particular [00:19:00] case, you would want to hire lobbyists who I assume had maybe worked with hotel companies before.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. And one of the biggest hotel chains in the country is Hilton. Hilton worldwide. In 2025, they spent just over $1 million on lobbyists from a few firms and $2 million on two of their own in-house lobbyists. Now, I don't work for Hilton. I don't think I could hire them, but I would want to hire their biggest outside lobbying company. So I'd call [00:19:30] up Avoq.

Hannah McCarthy: What is Avoq?

Nick Capodice: Avoq. Ava.

Nick Capodice: Avoq is a, quote, insights driven firm that helps companies, organizations, and industries shape narratives, manage reputations, influence debates, and engage audiences.

Hannah McCarthy: Synergy influence debates. That is a real standout there.

Nick Capodice: It is. The subhead of that is, quote, policy expertise and relationship building. End quote. Avork [00:20:00] was hired by 97 clients last year, making them $18 million. Avork claims, quote, we don't just help clients understand policy, we help them move the needle.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. So we're talking a lot of money.

Nick Capodice: A lot of money. Hiring lobbyists is very expensive.

Hannah McCarthy: But I do know that hiring a lobbyist has a famously profitable return on investment. I listened to that piece from Planet Money a few years back that said that a high yield savings account will get you a 5% [00:20:30] return on your investment, but hiring a lobbyist can do a whole lot better than that?

Nick Capodice: Sure can in 2018. The top ten fortune 100 companies in the United States spent $325 million on lobbying, which was directly tied to them, getting $338 billion with a B in federal contracts and grants. That is a 1,000% return on your investment.

Hannah McCarthy: And aside from the fact that you simply cannot lobby, I'm [00:21:00] gonna guess you don't have 20 grand just lying around to throw at a lobbyist.

Nick Capodice: Well, you never know, Hannah.

Nick Capodice: You never know.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, can we get into the other method of getting your elected official to listen to you? Reaching out to them directly?

Nick Capodice: Yes. Let us do that. I wanted to talk to someone who understands the system and understands that not everyone has the money to hire a lobbyist.

Emily Gallagher: I can talk about the regular system because I hate the regular system and it's impacted [00:21:30] everything.

Nick Capodice: This is Emily Gallagher.

Emily Gallagher: I'm Emily Gallagher and I am the state Assembly member for district 50, which is Williamsburg and Greenpoint in Brooklyn.

Nick Capodice: Full disclosure Emily Gallagher is an elected official, but she's not my elected official. She is first and foremost my friend. We go a long way back. Eagle and I, we worked together in New York in the 20 tens, after which I went to go work on a civics podcast, and she went and ran for office in her assembly.

Hannah McCarthy: And [00:22:00] New York is one of those states that refers to their House of elected Representatives as a state assembly versus a state legislature.

Nick Capodice: Exactly. And Emily is one of the 150 reps. In New York's assembly.

Hannah McCarthy: So she is one of those people who lobbyists meet with to try to get certain outcomes.

Nick Capodice: Not necessarily.

Emily Gallagher: I mean, I interact differently because I'm a democratic socialist, as you well know.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Democratic socialist. I'm sure some people [00:22:30] out there have heard this term. Uh, did Emily explain what exactly that means in terms of her politics?

Emily Gallagher: So I can talk about that? Because what that means is that I don't work with, like, lobbyists and wealthy people I work with. I work with nonprofit lobbyists and stuff like that. But I really I don't prioritize the normal system.

Hannah McCarthy: So the whole lobbying angle we talked about that would work with a lot of officials, [00:23:00] but not with Emily.

Nick Capodice: No, unless you're a nonprofit lobbying group or an activist group, in which case it would. Emily is one of about 250 members of the DSA in office right now. Most of them are in state legislatures around the country, but there are three in the US House of Representatives Greg Casar, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And you might be thinking out there, oh, well, lobbyists probably focus the most on big national issues, but there is [00:23:30] a lot of lobbying at the state level.

Emily Gallagher: So I was quite surprised when I went to Albany. How much people are hanging out with these lobbyists for the oil companies, for the gas companies, and for the real estate board? I would say that those are the top three lobbyists that are hanging out in the state government. You know, what you end up finding out is you have to really learn what [00:24:00] their talking points are. If you're not working with them, if they're going against you. Um, because people will adopt them as their perspective. And one of the the most disturbing things that I've witnessed is the way lobbyists will rename themselves so that they look like they are grassroots organizations, but they're actually astroturf organizations.

Hannah McCarthy: What does Emily mean by astroturf here?

Nick Capodice: That they are hiding their true intentions. They [00:24:30] look and sound like a group of concerned scientists or economists or whatever, but they are actually working for corporations and industries to pass legislation to benefit them specifically.

Emily Gallagher: So, for example, the American Association of Concerned Chemists, who do you think they are, like the plastics industry? So they have scientists that they hire to come and tell people why we shouldn't be doing [00:25:00] this bill that we are trying to pass, that would make corporations responsible for the cost of recycling the chemicals that they're creating. So it's very easy to get duped. As an elected official into following and supporting initiatives that are actually just the very wealthy hiding behind like a costume of concern.

Hannah McCarthy: All [00:25:30] right. And getting back to your original question, Nick, if you have got a problem and you want your official to do something about it, what does Emily recommend you do?

Nick Capodice: Well, first off, make sure you're reaching out to the right person.

Emily Gallagher: Well, if you have a.

Emily Gallagher: Local issue that is causing you a problem, you do want to write to your city or state legislator, but not your congressperson. This is one of the things that really mixes people up [00:26:00] is like, we all have a different wheelhouse that overlaps, right? So for example, city handles, parks, trash parking, all this stuff that really gets people up in arms that, you know, it's the little angry minutia of daily life. State is like housing law, uh, MTA, utilities and unemployment. So every office has two wings. The legislative wing and the constituent service [00:26:30] wing. And in my office I have two people on each side of the wing, and then I go in between.

Hannah McCarthy: Do people just walk into her office and say, hey, help me with this thing? Yes.

Emily Gallagher: It happens every single day. And actually, I really recommend that people, if they're having any kind of issue with an agency or a service or even with a company that they come because like I also am in charge of the liquor. I'm not in charge of the liquor authority, but I, I communicate with [00:27:00] the liquor authority. So if there's a bar where they're like selling drugs and there's people getting really sick, you know, I can connect with the state Liquor Authority to get that shut down or something like that. And the other thing that happens is sometimes people come with a problem, and then you look into it and you find out that what they're complaining about is actually legal. So then you want to take that and turn it into a bill that will make that illegal.

Hannah McCarthy: Did Emily have any advice [00:27:30] about stopping the soap opera effect?

Nick Capodice: Well, she did admit that it's not the sort of legislation that actually happens. It's extremely specific. It's not something her constituents are really interested in or care about. But she did encourage me to follow the money.

Emily Gallagher: Who's benefiting from that being a preset, you know, and then I end up sounding like I'm a conspiracy theorist all the time, but it's real. Who's making the money from this? It's probably like the NFL, you know, has some kind [00:28:00] of connection to the television companies so that it preferences their format. The only way that we can really get anything through is by figuring out what is the root of somebody's opposition. It's always that they're going to make less money, but it's like, who is going to make less money? And then, you know, like maybe with this motion blurring thing, they want you to watch it at home. They don't want you to go to a bar. The cable companies [00:28:30] are getting more money. So maybe there's something with the cable company there, you know?

Hannah McCarthy: Did you follow the money, Nick?

Nick Capodice: I did a little bit. Hannah. And I've read a lot of theories on why the soap opera effect is enabled automatically on TVs. And until I get more evidence, I'm going to go all outcome here and hypothesize that the simplest answer is the correct answer. I think that TV companies want to sell TVs. I can actually say, I know that. I know TV companies [00:29:00] want to sell TVs. They sell a lot of them at stores. When you're showing off a TV in a store, you want it to look as bright and clear as possible. And when the customer gets home and they plug it in, they want it to look like it did in the store. So it is the default setting.

Hannah McCarthy: So here's where we are. You are forbidden from hiring a lobbyist because of a job. You are also, as it turns out, too broke to hire a lobbyist and an elected official is not likely to touch this because it's [00:29:30] understandably not at top of mind for a lot of their constituents.

Nick Capodice: That is about the shape of it, Hannah. But I got one more stone in my sling, and this very stone was used 30 odd years ago to slay a very similar Goliath. We'll be right back. Okay, Hannah, my third and final method to get elected officials to care about your problems, even if they're super [00:30:00] small problems like Robert Shaw. Looks like he's in the soap opera General Hospital when he's stealing a subway train in The Taking of Pelham 123. You know, that's still one of my all time favorite movie soundtracks.

Nick Capodice: It's so good.

Speaker 20: Bum bum bum.

Movie archival: What do you want?

Movie archival: I'm taking your train.

Movie archival: You're taking my train.

Nick Capodice: Anyways, I wanted to talk to someone who cares a lot about film and I [00:30:30] mean a lot, and someone who also knows about all the laws surrounding creative artists and how to convince Congress to care about those laws.

Eric Schwartz: But what happened? Just the short story, and it's not relevant for your podcast, but it's my story. I arrive at the Copyright Office April of 88. April 1st, 88. And the other lawyer who arrives with me are assigned the task of doing this moral rights [00:31:00] study on colorization of motion pictures.

Nick Capodice: This is Eric Schwartz.

Eric Schwartz: I'm Eric Schwartz. I've been a member of the National Film Preservation Board since its founding in 1988, and I'm also a member of the National Film Preservation Foundation.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, cool. Wait, what was that part about moral rights and colorization?

Nick Capodice: I am going to get to that in a sec. Hannah. But in this study, Eric read that a lot of films [00:31:30] made before 1950 were gone.

Hannah McCarthy: Gone. Like disappeared. Gone.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Irretrievably gone. Nobody had copies. Nothing had been digitized. Just. And it wasn't big Hollywood movies that were gone. It was films that the chair of the film board, Faye Cannon, referred to as the, quote unquote orphans.

Hannah McCarthy: The orphans.

Eric Schwartz: The orphans. No commercial benefactors. Independent avant garde films by and about women and and people of color. [00:32:00] Uh, newsreel footage. Right. All of that stuff that is historically valuable, culturally valuable, but didn't necessarily have commercial value. And and from that, we created the National Film Preservation Foundation. I did the articles of incorporation on that. And then we started in the first meeting was eight people sitting around a table looking at me. Um, Scorsese threw his archivist wanted to be on the board, and he showed up, and he's sitting at [00:32:30] the table, and I said, look, I'm an associate in a law firm. I know I did the articles of incorporation, but I don't have money for pen and paper. And within a week I got a check from him. I always joke that, you know, you should have put a little post-it note that said, here, kid, buy some pen and paper.

Hannah McCarthy: Martin Scorsese.

Nick Capodice: Oh yes.

Nick Capodice: Eric described it as a truly serendipitous creation. He was working with Laurence Fishburne, Leonard Maltin, Roger Mayer, everybody's favorite, AIP, Roddy McDowall, [00:33:00] you name it.

Hannah McCarthy: What does the National Film Preservation Board do?

Nick Capodice: Well, among other things, each year it selects 25 films to be added to the National Film Registry for preservation in the Library of Congress.

Eric Schwartz: We've always said that these titles stand in for the thousands of others in need of preservation. So we're not the Academy Awards. It's not the best films ever made. Some of them, you know, are controversial, but the point is that you preserve material. And [00:33:30] the criteria is it's got to be more than ten years old, and it has to be culturally, historically or esthetically significant.

Nick Capodice: Just last month, they announced this year's additions, which include six silent films from before 1926, four documentaries, but also also films like The Staple of My Youth, The Karate Kid.

Movie archival: Take Off the Glasses.

Movie archival: Why?

Movie archival: Because I Asked You.

Nick Capodice: And clueless.

Hannah McCarthy: The staple of My youth.

Movie archival: You mean to tell me that you [00:34:00] argued your way from a c-plus to an A minus?

Movie archival: Totally based on my powers of persuasion.

Nick Capodice: You do love that movie.

Hannah McCarthy: I love that movie.

Nick Capodice: Isn't it based on.

Hannah McCarthy: It's Emma, it's Emma. Yeah.

Nick Capodice: Okay, so back to my thing. I hate the soap opera effect a lot. I hate it because it is, with few exceptions, not what the makers of the movie intended. A director directs a film. They and their cinematographer spend a lot of time and thought to make sure it looks how they [00:34:30] want it to look, right?

Hannah McCarthy: Right.

Nick Capodice: So the idea of an audience seeing something other than what the director intended has happened before, and in the 1980s, it rose all the way to Congress. And this story all begins in the 1960s, when movies start to be shown on television.

Eric Schwartz: And so you have some changes that begin to be made at that point. That, by the way, uh, are irritants, to say the least, or the creative [00:35:00] artists, because you got to change the aspect ratio changes. That is screen size, width and height. Uh, and so changes have to be made like panning and scanning. So you and I are both on the screen together. But if it was a widescreen and we're off, the camera's got to go right to get your voice and go left to do mine. And that was usually done without the creative artists participation, right? So the cinematographer, the director sets up a shot, and yet now there's [00:35:30] this mechanical process going left. Going right. Yeah. In addition, you have the so-called time compression, in which for broadcast television, they somewhat imperceptibly, to most of the audience speed up the film. But clearly the director, the cinematographers, the actors all noticed that the pacing has changed so that it can fit in that broadcast time slot, because at 11:00, the broadcast news has to come on. Right. And the film [00:36:00] has to be over, but it normally would run however many minutes over.

Speaker 6: I don't take much to see that the problems of free people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that. Here's looking at you, kid.

Nick Capodice: That is the 1960s. Creative artists are not happy. And then in the 1980s, we see the explosion of home video.

Movie archival: Now you can take the hippest film of the year. Home for keeps.

Speaker 11: Awesome.

Speaker 27: Because Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles The Movie is on videocassette [00:36:30] for just 24.99.

Nick Capodice: And the studio who owns the film can do whatever it wants with the home video to sell as many copies as humanly possible.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, did the actors, the directors, cinematographers, all of the people who made these films, did they have any say in what was done to the home video?

Nick Capodice: Very little.

Eric Schwartz: Your rights in Post-theatrical changes are limited to your guild agreements, whatever the guild agreements say. And sometimes it can be you have [00:37:00] a right to, uh, consent to something. It can be sometimes a right to review, but not to consent, which is a big difference because you have the right to say, I don't like it. And they say, thanks, but we're going to do this anyway because we're the copyright owners, and colorization is basically the spark that really ignites all of it. Because from the director's point of view, the actors and certainly the cinematographers, it's an entirely different looking film.

Nick Capodice: But [00:37:30] a film buff or be you just a lover of complicated legislation. I warmly encourage all of you out there to read Eric's article on this. It's called the National Film Preservation Act of 1988, a copyright case study in the legislative process. But like Eric said, colorization was the spark that lit the flame. Media mogul Ted Turner bought the MGM library for billions of dollars, and he was releasing colorized versions of black and white films, including, notably [00:38:00] It's a Wonderful Life.

Movie archival: Dance by the light of the moon, What Do You Wish When You Threw That Rock?

Nick Capodice: Now, when he was chastised for this, he famously said, quote, the last time I checked, I own the film's end quote. Chance for me to do some old movie impressions here. Jimmy Stewart did not like the colorization. He said it was like dunking the film in, quote, a bath of Easter egg dye, end quote, and that it was wrong. Completely wrong, insulting and unfair. End quote. [00:38:30] I didn't give a full Jimmy Stewart on that. Orson Welles once asked how to stop Ted Turner from, quote, coloring my movie with his crayons. What does he say? This is a wearying one.

Orson Welles: This is a very wearying one. It's unpleasant to read. Unrewarding.

Nick Capodice: Crisp crumb coating.

Eric Schwartz: Then, frankly, the audience didn't like the colorized versions of these older films. So the the whole thing sort of went away. But during [00:39:00] that time and and during the debates about it, it led to the very heated debates between the three guilds and the ASC, the DGA directors write, WGA writers SAG the screen actors, and ASC, the American Society of Cinematographers, versus the studios.

Nick Capodice: At this time, the United States was moving to join an international copyright treaty. It was an old one that Victor [00:39:30] Hugo helped create called the Berne Convention, which had an article in it about moral rights and what are moral rights. They are personal nontransferable rights, protecting an author's reputation and connection to their work, regardless of who owns the copyright for that work. Are you with me?

Hannah McCarthy: This is intellectual property.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. So this was the setting for the creation of the National Film Preservation Board, and some rather famous people came to Congress to lobby for it.

Eric Schwartz: Jimmy [00:40:00] Stewart came to the committee hearing. Now, the House Rules Committee is a tiny hearing room. I know it because I worked for the House Rules Committee, coincidentally for nine years. I remember saying at the time, you know, Mr. Smith literally came to Washington to make sure that this legislation was going to get passed. And needless to say, every member of the committee wanted to get their picture taken with with Jimmy Stewart. Uh, whether they were for or against the bill. And that really [00:40:30] ensured that the the bill was going to go forward for the benefit of the creation of the National Film Preservation Act in 88.

Nick Capodice: All right. Getting back to the topic at hand here, after hearing about all this from Eric, I asked, so if I want another Jimmy Stewart moment, if I want to get motion smoothing turned off, how do I go about it?

Eric Schwartz: But I think it best for you to talk to the creative [00:41:00] artists and the guilds. Talk to the studios about what they think they need to be doing and they will be doing, or they are doing with, you know, those uses.

Hannah McCarthy: In other words. Find powerful, influential people who care about the soap opera effect and have them use the collective bargaining power of their guilds.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, it's like unionizing, basically. And while Tom cruise did a PSA that I [00:41:30] referenced earlier, there was a cinematographer and director, Reed Morano. She directed the first few episodes of The Handmaid's Tale. She wrote a petition. It's actually there on Change.org to have motion smoothing turned off by default. But as with so many petitions, nothing came of it, even though it got thousands and thousands of signatures and it just went away. So it seems like to have actual change. A group of famous, influential people need to come together, [00:42:00] and Tom cruise needs to testify in the House Rules Committee. So here's hoping, Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: From your lips to Tom Cruise's ears, per usual.

Nick Capodice: Well. There is a lesson in how to get rid of the soap opera effect. You know, it's not really about the soap opera effect. I was reading a book yesterday about power and politics, and the author said, I think this is [00:42:30] right. About four out of five Americans said that they are politically engaged. And what does that mean? And then he said that the vast majority of people who say they're politically engaged, when asked what they do, they say they, you know, keep a close watch on the news. They argue with their friends and family. They do a ton on social media. They track what's going on and they celebrate or they boo. That is like me saying, I play football because I watch the Super Bowl. I [00:43:00] am going to look more into this in the near future. But until then, If you care about politics, if you want to be politically active, you got to do something. Really do. This episode was made by me Nick Capodice with Hannah McCarthy. Our staff includes Rebecca LaVoy and Marina Henke. Music. In this [00:43:30] episode from Epidemic Sound, blue Dot sessions and Chris Zabriskie, who deep down in my heart knows he hates motion interpolation as much as I do. Civics 101 is a production of NPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

Michael Caine as Seal: Do you know when it snows, my eyes become large. And the light that you shine can't be seen. Baby [00:44:00] I compare you to a kiss from the rose on the bloody gray.

---

What does "detention" mean?

We've used the word "detention" many times when we've talked about immigration laws and ICE. But what does that word actually mean? A listener wanted to know, so we got the answer.

---

Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:01] Hannah McCarthy here. This is Civics 101. If you've listened to us in the past, you've almost certainly heard my co-host Nick Capodice or [00:00:10] me say, you know, if you have any questions, please ask us. We will do our best to answer them. Now, over the past few weeks, we have released several episodes about Immigration [00:00:20] and Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Ice. We tried to get down to the very basics of the system, how it works and [00:00:30] what has changed about it. One thing we did not do, however, is explain exactly what we meant when we kept referring to people being [00:00:40] detained. Fortunately, Tyler was listening.

Tyler: [00:00:44] Hello, Civics 101, this is Tyler from Milwaukee. Love your show. My question today is what [00:00:50] is detained and how is it different from arrested? And how long can someone be detained without being arrested? Thanks.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:58] So a huge thank you to Tyler, [00:01:00] without whom we might have glided glibly on thinking we knew what detention actually was. And a huge thank you to our guest who does know what it actually is. [00:01:10]

Georgiana Pisano: [00:01:10] Yes, my name is Georgiana Pisano. I'm a practicing immigration attorney and professor in Texas.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:16] You might remember Georgiana from our episode on asylum what [00:01:20] it is and how it has changed. And to my great relief, she was willing to once again help me wrap my mind around something that is referenced constantly in the headlines, something [00:01:30] that so many journalists, myself and Nick included, might talk about as though everyone knows what it means, when in actual fact, I [00:01:40] really didn't. All right, so first, Georgiana, what is detention?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:01:46] Yeah. What is detention? I don't know that it [00:01:50] is that different than what people are picturing in a criminal sense, in that it looks like jail or it looks like prison, but it is people with or without immigration [00:02:00] documentation. People who are not citizens are taken into government custody. Specifically the custody of the Department of Homeland Security. And they stay there [00:02:10] until whatever citizenship or immigration proceedings they are in or not in resolve.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:22] And [00:02:20] how does someone end up in a detention center? What gets them there?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:02:26] So what would get them into a detention center is that they are not a citizen, [00:02:30] and they have an interaction with a immigration official. So a member of DHS, whether they are subject to detention and whether DHS makes an initial determination [00:02:40] that they should be sent to a detention center, is going to have to do with their individual immigration background and the circumstances of their apprehension by immigration authorities. [00:02:50]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:51] And is apprehension different from arrest?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:02:55] Yes. So I think there is some confusion around arrest, because [00:03:00] it's so common in a criminal setting that you would have a warrant for your arrest, that you had committed a crime and that subjected you to arrest. The apprehension [00:03:10] is a bit of a broader term, because you don't have to commit a crime to be apprehended and sent to detention. It can be that you don't have immigration status, right? [00:03:20] Which is a civil a civil offense. But, you know, when we use the phrase arrest, it can kind of lead to some confusion in that area.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:28] In terms of the legality. [00:03:30] You say perhaps when people picture what detention is, it's not terribly different from jail or prison. How is it legally different?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:03:40] How [00:03:40] is it legally different? It is accounted for in a different law than criminal detention. So our jails and prisons follow different [00:03:50] standards and laws and statutes that govern individuals criminal detention and what those detention centers look like jail and prison. [00:04:00] The immigration detention centers are under a different statute, the Immigration and Nationality Act. So they follow different standards and they serve [00:04:10] sort of a different purpose. But the idea of what they look like and what they feel like is very similar. I have heard from some individuals that they don't look like [00:04:20] jail or prison in comparison. I've been in all three, and I do think they have a lot of similarities to each other. In some aspects. [00:04:30] What I saw in the immigration detention centers was much more severe than what I saw in some low security prisons.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:43] Could [00:04:40] you describe for us what's actually in a detention center? What have you seen?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:04:48] Yeah. So it's [00:04:50] there are many detention centers across the country. I saw one in the El Paso region in 2022 or 2023. And so that's all going to be, you know, subject to the time and place. [00:05:00] They are closed to the public for tours. Although individuals can visit detainees depending on the availability of each individual detention center. [00:05:10] And they do offer tours to government employees and sometimes to employees and congressional representatives.

Speaker4: [00:05:16] This visit comes at a moment of national scrutiny over Ice. California [00:05:20] Senator Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff say they're responding to concerns about how detainees are being treated inside this facility.

Speaker5: [00:05:27] When you walk inside.

Georgiana Pisano: [00:05:28] It looks like a center [00:05:30] block cement building. It's flat. It's surrounded by barbed wire. Every door locks behind you. Every door has to be unlocked before you go through it. [00:05:40] You go through security. There are very strict dress codes, that sort of thing. What struck me when I went was that the dorm area [00:05:50] in this specific detention center was bunk beds, and it was a dorm area, an activity area in a bathroom. None of those areas [00:06:00] were separated by full walls. Which is to say, you could be sitting at a table and see someone using the restroom. That's not necessarily something you would see in a low [00:06:10] security prison. Right. You might at least have a toilet stall. They had these pieces of metal screwed into the wall that were clearly burnished, so you [00:06:20] couldn't see anything in them. But the detention officer said, here are the mirrors. I don't know if you can tell me that's a mirror with a straight face, but the detention officer [00:06:30] just said, you know, oh, it needs to be polished. You're not allowed to have your own cell phone. [00:06:40] So they detainees, individuals who are detained in these centers have limited access to phone time. They have to pay to use the phone.

Georgiana Pisano: [00:06:49] In recent [00:06:50] years, we've seen a little bit more access to video calls, but still not quite. This is a bit of a larger philosophical question for why don't people in jail and prison have phones? [00:07:00] I would suggest that it's because you don't want them to continue any criminal enterprise. That's not an issue in immigration detention. So there [00:07:10] is, you know, a question of why those individuals are not given more access to their belongings and to communication and to family members. There's an outdoor area, there's a big [00:07:20] cafeteria. There are jobs. They can work in the cafeteria or work in the laundry room. According to my tour of the detention facility, those jobs are all optional, [00:07:30] but I don't know who would do them if the detainees did not. I guess one of the largest differences is that immigration detention is not built for a long term stay. So [00:07:40] in theory, you wouldn't be there long enough to get the jobs that you see in prisons where they're manufacturing big items and working for third party companies [00:07:50] and things like that. But it also means that people that do stay in immigration detention for a long time are not receiving what they should be receiving in long term care.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:01] Okay, [00:08:00] so you're describing something that sounds very much like a prison, which is a place someone ends up after they have been through the criminal justice system, [00:08:10] after they have been arrested, charged, gone through the court system, been convicted, been sentenced. That is not the process that precedes the kind of detention we are talking about [00:08:20] today. So what is the rationale behind the detention of undocumented immigrants? Is it the same rationale behind criminal detention?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:08:29] I guess I [00:08:30] should say that criminal detention, one of the reasons is punitive, and that is impermissible as a rationale for immigration detention. It is [00:08:40] impermissible for immigration detention to be used as a deterrence tactic, which is how the United States uses it to deter people from seeking asylum or any form [00:08:50] of immigration status in the United States by threatening them and following through with immigration detention. This is unlawful under international human rights law and is not a permissible [00:09:00] rationale for the use of immigration detention. The other stated concerns that differ a little bit from criminal detention is that individuals will be ordered [00:09:10] deported, but they won't leave the United States, and that the state has an interest in public security and that some of these individuals have committed crimes and should be [00:09:20] detained pending their immigration proceedings.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:23] Okay. So this actually helps to explain why the United Nations human rights chief has called the [00:09:30] United States out. You know, reminded the country that it is bound to follow international law.

Speaker6: [00:09:36] Un human rights chief Volker Turk calls on the United States [00:09:40] to ensure that its migration policies and enforcement practices respect human dignity and due process rights, decrying the dehumanizing portrayal [00:09:50] and harmful treatment of migrants and refugees.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:53] Now, this also makes me think of our own law, specifically habeas corpus, that is, you know, the legal tool, the procedure by [00:10:00] which someone can challenge their detention by the government if they don't think the government has the legal authority to detain them. And [00:10:10] habeas corpus is something that the Trump administration has suggested it could suspend.

Speaker7: [00:10:14] Well, the Constitution is clear. And that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the [00:10:20] privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So it's an option we're actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the [00:10:30] right thing.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:32] Is habeas corpus coming up a lot lately in cases of immigrant detention?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:10:38] Yes, absolutely. Habeas [00:10:40] comes up a lot. And I will say in the past 12 months has skyrocketed in the immigration profession as really like one of [00:10:50] your client's only options, uh, because the detention rates are going up so significantly, and the access to counsel, among other things, from detention is so [00:11:00] challenging. Now, the reasons for an individual's detention will also dictate whether or not they are plausibly going to receive [00:11:10] habeas relief, be released as a result of a petition for habeas.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:19] The [00:11:20] reasons for detention, the length of that detention and so much more is coming up after a quick break. We're [00:11:40] back. A little reminder here that though things [00:11:50] are certainly changing in this nation. Legal interpretations among them. It is still vitally important to know our laws, know our history, know [00:12:00] the point of the United States of America. Everyone needs a reminder now and then. Some people are especially forgetful. Fortunately, my co-host [00:12:10] Nick Capodice and I wrote a book. It is called A User's Guide to Democracy How America Works. It's got nearly everything you need to be able to say, hey, [00:12:20] now that's a violation of my constitutional rights or any number of other things. And it is also fun because if you can, you've got to have [00:12:30] some fun. You can get a User's guide to democracy wherever books are sold. All right, on to the show. This [00:12:40] is Civics 101. I am talking with Georgiana Pizano [00:12:50] gets practicing immigration attorney and professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center, who is generously helping us to understand what immigration detention [00:13:00] is. And before the break, we started to get into the different situations a detainee might be facing. Okay. So, Georgiana, can we talk about [00:13:10] those different situations for a detainee, why they are in detention, for how long, etc.?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:13:17] As far as length of stay [00:13:20] or knowing when you are going to get out? Obviously when you're in criminal detention, you receive a sentence. You know what sentence you're going to serve. Immigration is a little bit harder. If you're in removal proceedings. [00:13:30] You presumably will be either released when you succeed in your removal proceedings or deported if you do not succeed. However, [00:13:40] that can take a long time for your removal proceedings to take place, which in criminal proceedings people sometimes remain incarcerated during their trial as well. There [00:13:50] are individual subject to immigration detention, who have already had their removal proceedings and either received an order of deportation, and [00:14:00] for whatever reason, the government was not able to deport them. This happens when an individual succeeds in their proceedings and they receive protection [00:14:10] from deportation, like withholding or deferred action.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:13] Okay. And just quickly jumping in here removal proceedings. That means the government is trying to remove you from the country, [00:14:20] trying to deport you. You know, for example, for overstaying your visa or unauthorized entry into the country. You get a notice to appear for a hearing. You have a right to a lawyer [00:14:30] at your own expense. You get a chance to argue your case for staying in this country, and a judge either says you do have to be deported or delays [00:14:40] your removal. You can think of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA, for example, or a judge withholds your your [00:14:50] deportation says you cannot be deported.

Georgiana Pisano: [00:14:53] I believe this is what Kilmer Abrego had withholding of removal, which means that the government cannot deport them to their home country, [00:15:00] but they can deport them anywhere else that will take them. Now, [00:15:10] for obvious reasons, the US did not pursue this right. If someone has a genuine fear of their home country and they don't have ties to any other country, they [00:15:20] get to stay. They don't have a path to citizenship, but they don't get deported. But technically they have been ordered deported from the United States. And [00:15:30] just that deportation has been withheld to their home country. What we're seeing now is that individuals in that situation are being detained under this administration, and [00:15:40] the administration is trying to get some other country to take them. We also see individuals who did not succeed in any way, did not receive any relief, like withholding or a deferred [00:15:50] action received an order of deportation, but the government still was not able to deport them. This happens when the government doesn't have a good relationship with the home country of the individual. [00:16:00] Cuba is very unlikely to receive deportees from the United States. A lot of countries might decline to take, you know, what may [00:16:10] be seen as rejects from the United States. And so then they get caught, right? And they have an order of deportation. And DHS could detain them, but they might be detaining them [00:16:20] forever because they never get that diplomatic relationship repaired, and they can never actually effectuate deportation. Those individuals for the past several [00:16:30] years to decades have been released on an order of supervision. They go to an Ice office every year. They confirm their address. So if Ice ever thinks they [00:16:40] could actually deport them, they can take them back into detention. But in all likelihood, those circumstances don't change. And the government does not effectuate that deportation. [00:16:50]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:50] Okay, so that to me sounds similar to probation. You're not under lock and key, but you do have to check in with the powers that be. There are restrictions. [00:17:00]

Georgiana Pisano: [00:17:00] Supervised release. So, yeah, very similar idea. Under this administration, they are not confirming that a country will receive this individual, but [00:17:10] they are taking everyone in that procedural posture back into custody.

Speaker8: [00:17:14] Obviously, Ice is focused on detaining individuals who are unlawfully present [00:17:20] in the country. And there have been hundreds of thousands of of illegal aliens who have been arrested and detained and deported from this country by Ice over the course of [00:17:30] the last year. And that's their intention, and that is their goal.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:37] And I just want to make sure I have this correct. We used [00:17:40] to release these individuals from detention centers. They would be on supervised release. The government cannot find a way to deport them. But now [00:17:50] we are bringing these individuals back into detention centers. But this is with the knowledge that they have already gone through [00:18:00] a removal proceeding, that we cannot find a way to deport them. So are these individuals now in a kind of limbo where [00:18:10] they will just be in this center for who knows how long?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:18:14] That is exactly right. And that is where habeas comes in, because these are individuals that will never see a judge. [00:18:20] They will never see an immigration judge. They are not in proceedings. Their proceedings are closed. So they are just sitting in a detention center being told that they're going to be deported for months. [00:18:30] And it never happens months, if not longer. So that's where the immigration attorneys step in to file the habeas petitions with the federal courts to challenge their detention, because there [00:18:40] are laws against detaining individuals for longer than six months after they've been ordered removed. If the government cannot show that there's a reasonable likelihood that [00:18:50] they will actually be deported, right? Because then people could just be there forever.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:53] And that would, of course, be very illegal. Part of the reason the framers put habeas corpus in the Constitution, article one, [00:19:00] section nine. Okay. And you are saying for those individuals, the people who got the deportation order, the government could not deport them but has them in custody. Now, their only [00:19:10] option is a habeas petition.

Georgiana Pisano: [00:19:12] If they're an individual like the ones we've been talking about who have already completed their removal proceedings, they have very few rights, right? They have a right to file [00:19:20] a habeas petition, but they're not going to be put in touch with an attorney. They're not going to be informed of that avenue.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:26] So they can work with a lawyer, but they have to figure it out on their [00:19:30] own. Okay. So what about the people who have not actually gone before a judge yet but are in detention? What are their options?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:19:39] We might [00:19:40] refer to the first group as post order because they're after an order of removal, and then we might refer to everyone else as like pre order. There's no order of removal or order granting relief. And [00:19:50] then the preorder individuals are in two different groups. One group is eligible for release on bond, and they have a right to a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration [00:20:00] judge. The other group is subject to mandatory detention, and they do not have a right to even be considered to be released on bond. This is very different [00:20:10] than criminal detention. And what we are seeing in 2025 and 2026 under the new administration is that the statutes that allow for mandatory detention, [00:20:20] which were significantly increased in our last major immigration statute, which was the 1996 law, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility [00:20:30] Act largely expanded mandatory detention. And we're seeing a huge expansion of mandatory detention under this current administration. [00:20:40]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:00] Now, [00:21:00] what does mandatory detention mean?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:21:03] There is a phrase in the statutes for mandatory detention that reads shall be taken into [00:21:10] custody. This has previously included orders of supervision. Right. That they check in with DHS. Maybe DHS gives them an ankle monitor. Any number of things. [00:21:20] The current administration is reading shall be taken into custody to equate to detention, mandatory detention that is not subject to review by an immigration judge. [00:21:30] So this is subjecting a huge new group of people to detention with no relief, no rights to a custody determination.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:39] Okay, a custody [00:21:40] redetermination meaning a bond hearing. Right? Like, you pay money and you're allowed out of detention. They do not have that option, and supervised [00:21:50] release used to be an option for this category of people to this preorder category. But this administration is not doing that anymore. [00:22:00] So way more people in detention centers now. What about moving these detainees? Is there any law or rule that says that they [00:22:10] have to stay in one place? Or can the government move people from one center to another?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:22:17] Yes. You are able to be moved from one detention to another [00:22:20] and you will be moved. Um, that is completely a DHS discretion. We have no idea why or when they will choose to do that, but it does [00:22:30] not matter to DHS if you move across state lines because you're in federal custody. However, the law that applies to your case will change [00:22:40] depending on the detention center you are in. It will change in your immigration proceedings based on the circuit that you are in, which refers to [00:22:50] sort of regional legal rules that apply in the US, and it will change where your habeas petition is filed and what judges are going to hear your habeas petition, because it has to [00:23:00] be filed where you are being detained. So what we are seeing is that an attorney jumps in, they file a habeas petition, and DHS moves the individual away from [00:23:10] the district where the habeas petition is pending, which removes the court's jurisdiction over the issue. Although the court some courts are trying very hard to keep that jurisdiction because it's a very obvious [00:23:20] bad faith behavior to have control over the location of one party and then just move them. We saw a lot of individuals who were apprehended [00:23:30] in Minnesota be transferred directly to Texas. Texas is in the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit is a very challenging place to have your immigration proceedings. [00:23:40] And very recently, maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago, the Fifth Circuit issued a rule on these mandatory detention cases and whether or not they can have a bond hearing that [00:23:50] really favored the government and stripped individuals of that bond hearing. So now I think we will see a huge uptick in DHS detentions and transfers to Texas, because they want that Fifth Circuit [00:24:00] law to apply where individuals don't have access to bond, regardless of where they were apprehended in the first place.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:12] All [00:24:10] right. And, you know, just thinking about incarceration in the criminal system in America, I know that's really costly. I know totally depending on the state, but it can be [00:24:20] anywhere between tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars per person per year. What is this increased detention of undocumented [00:24:30] immigrants in the U.S. right now costing us?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:24:34] Yeah, so it's very expensive and it doesn't make money for taxpayers. It makes money for private [00:24:40] prison groups, specifically CoreCivic and Geo Group, who are all over and actually run. A huge number of these detention centers have been outsourced to these private groups [00:24:50] rather than being run by the government, which also brings up issues with accountability in people's ability to file complaints. Numbers wise, we are [00:25:00] seeing the current administration. I don't have completely up to date numbers, but we're well over 55,000 people being in detention at any given time. We know [00:25:10] from a couple years ago that in June 2024, Congress approved 3.4 billion for this project. And we know that detaining individuals [00:25:20] in immigration detention costs about $160 per person per day. And so it is extremely expensive. It's way more expensive than ankle monitors or [00:25:30] any other form of supervision. And as far as the money, it just is going to be out of that huge check that Congress cut for DHS a couple of months [00:25:40] ago in the in the federal spending bill.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:42] And do you happen to know when detention centers first came into play in the immigration enforcement system in the US?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:25:49] So they've been around [00:25:50] for a long time. I will say the large majority of individuals, um, non-citizens until about 1982 were [00:26:00] released on parole, which is going to be that kind of supervised release, which obviously looked very different in 1982. But between 1954 and 1982, most [00:26:10] non-citizens were released from immigration detention. There was just little to no interest in that, you know, huge financial investment in keeping people under 24, [00:26:20] over seven care.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:31] Now, [00:26:30] I know that you have mentioned several laws and provisions over the course of this conversation, but is there an overarching legal [00:26:40] justification or guideline for the way the system is functioning right now. It sounds like it is operating in a very different sphere from our [00:26:50] other legal systems.

Georgiana Pisano: [00:26:52] I think that is definitely how the current administration wants you to think about it. And what their arguments are rooted in is that this [00:27:00] detention is justified and lawful under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and these detention centers are built to satisfy these standards of [00:27:10] national detention standards set by Ice, which are different than the criminal standards. And there's really no reason for that. There's really no reason to have a different set of detention standards. If [00:27:20] you're detaining individuals, the standards for where they could should be kept and what they have access to should look pretty similar and certainly should not be lower. But I do think the argument [00:27:30] under the current administration is that this is a whole new ball game. We need to be considering it completely separately, which is why some people can go into detention who are not in proceedings, who have [00:27:40] no access to an immigration judge. And, you know, very limited access to counsel or any of the things that people in the criminal justice system have fought so hard [00:27:50] to create this access for, for criminal detainees for decades. It feels like we are starting over at zero with immigration detention, and there is no reason for that. If [00:28:00] anything, there's very little reason for detention at all when you're talking about a civil offense. I did want [00:28:10] to note that what determines what the detention center looks like or has is the Ice performance based national detention standards, which [00:28:20] are not the same standards that apply to the criminal sense, obviously, because they're by Ice. And I do want to note that the standards are nonbinding, so the detention centers do not actually have to [00:28:30] meet them.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:30] So there are guidelines, but there's nothing that says that Ice has to abide by them.

Georgiana Pisano: [00:28:37] They do not have the force of law. They are simply nonbinding [00:28:40] suggestions.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:42] Is there any law that explicitly states how these detention centers should be operating?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:28:48] I would not say explicitly. [00:28:50] Any detention is going to be subject to the Eighth Amendment, that it can't be cruel and unusual.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:01] Okay. [00:29:00] My last question for you, Georgiana. When you personally look at the shifts that have occurred within this detention system, how do you, [00:29:10] as a practicing immigration lawyer, interpret these changes?

Georgiana Pisano: [00:29:15] It is very obviously a effort [00:29:20] to deter people from immigrating to the United States. Period. Dhs is now offering individuals in detention up to $3,000 to deport themselves, which [00:29:30] is also not something they can really offer under the law. But they're proceeding with that anyway, which tells you that the government would rather pay someone pay to detain [00:29:40] them, which is very expensive, and then pay them $3,000 rather than have them join the economy and work. So it is a huge just [00:29:50] push against immigration, lawful and otherwise. It simply does not matter to them. More cynically, it is a huge wealth transfer to these private prison [00:30:00] companies. The more detention there is, the more centers are built. The more people are detained, the more money core civic and Geo group get paid by the federal government.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:17] That [00:30:10] was Georgiana Pisano Gaetz, practicing [00:30:20] immigration attorney and professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center. And [00:30:40] that [00:30:50] does it for this episode of Civics 101. It was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy, and our executive producer Rebecca Lavoie. Nick Capodice is my co-host. Marina Henke is our producer. Music in this [00:31:00] episode comes from Epidemic Sound. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Tyler did, and without that question, I would certainly be unknowingly in the dark on this one. You [00:31:10] can submit a question by clicking the ask Civics 101 a question link on our home page. Civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR New [00:31:20] Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Why did the FBI keep tabs on high school students?

As Aaron Fountain Jr. was working on his book, High School Students Unite!, he discovered a little-known partnership of sorts. He found that, during the Civil Rights era of protest and reform, parents were reaching out to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and requesting help. Namely, please spy on my civically active kid.

---

Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:10] This [00:00:10] is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy. So about a week ago, I'm doing my thing, my thing, being scouring the internet for truths about the United States. [00:00:20] Because there is always, always something I may have missed. Something that has just happened. Something that has just come to light. And I found this [00:00:30] article by an historian named Doctor Aaron Fountain Jr.

Aaron Fountain: [00:00:34] Oh, so my name is Aaron Fountain, and I am a historian of 20th century American [00:00:40] history and recently published a book on high school student activism in the 1960s and 70s.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:47] Aaron's book is called High School Students Unite [00:00:50] Teen Activism, Education reform, and FBI Surveillance in Postwar America. And that article of his. It was titled Newly [00:01:00] declassified records suggest parents collaborated with the FBI to spy on their rebellious teens during the 1960s. So [00:01:10] yeah, I had to talk to Aaron. So [00:01:20] Aaron Fountain discovered that the FBI was [00:01:30] surveilling high school students in the 1960s, and that parents would sometimes be the ones tipping the FBI off. And [00:01:40] this was something that not many people knew, including some of the very students who were being surveilled. So first, I wanted to know why [00:01:50] Aaron was focusing on high school students and their activism in the 1960s to begin with.

Aaron Fountain: [00:01:57] Oh, well, let me just [00:02:00] say I was not an activist in high school because I attended eight different schools in three states, so not really possible. However, it really started by accident. I came across [00:02:10] a book by political scientist Richard Ellis called To the Pledge, and in several pages in one chapter, he talks about junior high and high school students who sat during the Pledge of Allegiance [00:02:20] as a form of political protest in the 1960s and 70s. And it made me just wonder, well, what were the stories behind those court cases? So during that process, I saw [00:02:30] so many passing references to high school students involved in civil rights and anti-Vietnam War activism. So maybe ask, well, how did the Vietnam War affect students, teachers, and administrators? And [00:02:40] I wrote a paper on the San Francisco Bay area on that very topic. And yeah, doing my doctoral dissertation on high school student activism in the San Francisco Bay area. But the book, however [00:02:50] that I publish is nationwide.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:52] And in terms of what is actually going on in the country at this time, I know that the 1960s or the civil rights era can be this [00:03:00] kind of catch all term for, you know, social, political, global unrest and activism and change. But, Erin, can you just paint us a picture of how this period [00:03:10] of time precipitated high school civic action?

Aaron Fountain: [00:03:14] Well, in 1960s, you have a record number of teenagers enrolled in secondary school. I know high [00:03:20] school is now like a universal experience. But prior to the 1960s, less than half of the adult population in the United States had a high school diploma. It was not as important [00:03:30] to get a good paying job. However, after World War Two, receiving a secondary education became much more important in our understandings of modern citizenship [00:03:40] and to be a productive member in society. But also coming out, you know, you have the civil rights movement. Then you get the burgeoning, um, anti-Vietnam War movement, and it's teenagers [00:03:50] who are participating in both movements, and they bring these Partizan politics to campus, and they start to clash with school administrators who were determined to keep those type of activities [00:04:00] off campus. Not to upset parents. Not to upset the school board because you know you want to keep your job if you're an administrator. And it's just this constant clash going back and forth [00:04:10] between whether students have constitutional rights to engage in political activism, have free speech in the campus newspaper, etc., and school administrators [00:04:20] who look at students more paternalistic and parents who argue that his school just as democratic as a household. You don't punish your kid and put him on trial. Just, you [00:04:30] know, you do whatever your parents tell you. So that's what comes out. And over time, you get this very unique brand of high school student radicalism. Um, and there's [00:04:40] two moving parts of this, um, ideology. The first one is that high school students constitute an oppressed group analogous to poor people, minorities and women. And second is [00:04:50] that you couldn't truly reform society unless you first reform the high schools.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:55] Did you get the sense that these students were aware that they were a member of an oppressed [00:05:00] group.

Aaron Fountain: [00:05:00] Oh, yeah. When you read the underground newspapers, leaflets, fliers, they're calling their schools, prisons and concentration camps. They refer to them as like, [00:05:10] factories that just churn out future soldiers to go into the Vietnam War. And then you wonder, like, well, are we citizens? Do we have, like, free speech, the right to assemble? Um, [00:05:20] freedom of the press. And this occurs gradually. It's not like an overnight realization.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:29] And I know that college [00:05:30] campus activism was a major media focus in the civil rights era. Were high school students coming into this on their own, or was this something they [00:05:40] were, you know, borrowing from their older counterparts?

Aaron Fountain: [00:05:43] So high school student activism then and now is hyper local. Um, students are largely responding to issues that [00:05:50] affect their everyday lives. And when you think about controversies that occur in a school, it usually doesn't spill out beyond like a school board or individual campus. It remains confined to that. [00:06:00] So because they're hyperlocal, they're not seen as national stories. However, by 1968, and especially in 69 and 70, there was a lot of reports on student [00:06:10] uprisings in high school. And there was like, um, credibility behind that. There was definitely a record number of like student walkouts, boycotts, protests and sit ins or whatever. After [00:06:20] Doctor King's assassination in 1968, students start to form more independent student organizations, and underground newspapers have a stronger network. By 1968, however, [00:06:30] it was not a spillover effect. Now, I should say high school students are not adversarial to college students. They actually work alongside them. But there's a lot of distrust. [00:06:40] So for a 16 year old, somebody who is 20 year old is like old. In fact, some of the people I interviewed, they told me like, yeah, the organizer, they were like 2021. But as teenagers, we [00:06:50] thought they were just old guys. So I mean, teenagers, they definitely align with adults, but for the most part, they seek assistance from them. They're not letting them run [00:07:00] their affairs. So as teenagers, they don't have access to like, media and printing press, so they have to go to them for that type of help. High school student activism. When it reaches [00:07:10] the national attention, it's already a full blown movement. In fact, teenagers learn that there is a movement for mending from high schools. About a year or two before the national press does.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:22] You [00:07:20] know, it is hard enough for practiced adults to organize and find consensus and then do something with that in terms [00:07:30] of civic action. How did high school students, who maybe did not yet have any kind of experience with that, figure out how to do [00:07:40] it?

Aaron Fountain: [00:07:40] Oh, I'll be honest, there are just as many as adults are. There's a lot of ideological divisions. I mean, not to mention there are kids. So as a person who I interviewed told me that, [00:07:50] you know, there was jealousy, there was romance. You like, you wanted to so and so, like me or not, there's like immaturity and some of the males and some independent student groups were quite sexist [00:08:00] to their female counterparts. So it's all really messy at the end of the day. But what brings them together is that they all agree that, okay, we have to reform the school. So like, [00:08:10] you can generally get a consensus amongst students to like reform dress code like students, regardless of whether they were political or not, just did not like the fact that girls couldn't wear pants and boys had to keep their hair at [00:08:20] a certain length, and the bans against, um, afros. So, you know, no student group or underground newspaper or protest gets like the majority of support, but they do [00:08:30] get enough support to trigger a pretty vigorous reaction from people in power.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:35] Oh, yeah. And we're going to get to that. Um, but in terms of what actually, [00:08:40] you know, got these students, that reaction, what were they activating around, you know, was it about national issues, you know, the Vietnam War, civil rights, or [00:08:50] was this about what was going on in their own schools?

Aaron Fountain: [00:08:54] So it's actually a mix of both. So one thing that was pretty common is that students would ask their school principals [00:09:00] to allow, like an anti-war speaker, to come and speak at the school to balance out a visit from a military recruiter. And they had various successes and shortcomings when it came [00:09:10] to that. Um, so but you see these like, you know, there's national issues, but again, it's it's in this local context and the same thing with like, you know, black Power, a lot of there's a lot of similarities [00:09:20] between a lot of black student protests where they're asking for like, you know, black teachers, black administrators, black history courses to be taught in schools, and, um, soul food. However, while the [00:09:30] overlap, there also are local concerns too. So they want like, you know, doors on the bathroom stalls, which is a very basic, uh, concern. Um, you [00:09:40] know, they ask for, like, police officers to be removed from campus in many urban school districts. This is when you start to see school administrators become much more reliant on law enforcement to handle [00:09:50] everyday disciplinary matters. Or they'll ask for like access to a stadium that's adjacent to the school, so it's similar in a lot. A lot of these protests [00:10:00] are quite similar. They're reacting to a lot of national stuff, but it's always shaped by what's ever going on locally. So it's a combination of both that they're reacting to.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:11] Okay. [00:10:10] Law enforcement in schools. Why was it that administrators were turning to this outside force to navigate what [00:10:20] was going on in their classrooms and hallways?

Aaron Fountain: [00:10:23] That's the main point in my book where I talk about, like, the expansion of student rights coincided with the modernization of school security. So school police. There's [00:10:30] a history going back to 19, the mid 1950s, when Tucson, Arizona, was the first school district to experiment with a school resource officer. But by the 1960s, especially [00:10:40] with urban uprisings, um, you have a lot of protests that are coming out in high school, a lot of racial protests. So you have desegregation and in desegregated schools or schools that were newly integrated, you get a lot of [00:10:50] racial violence. And you also in those schools, you get a lot of protests coming from black students, Latino students, Asian students, and white students as well Native American students too. So in response, [00:11:00] with all the social unrest coming from the high school, you get a lot of pressure from parents, from teachers, school administrators, as well as the local newspapers and whatever [00:11:10] respective city demanding that order needs to be maintained in high school. So school administrators, they don't initially bring cops into school. They try like hall [00:11:20] monitors and parents patrol, or they lock the doors on campus at key, quote unquote, outside agitators out. And increasingly, what you start to see is that police officers in the department [00:11:30] in many cities start to patrol schools, but also you get undercover cops to the NYPD, and the New Orleans Police Department were quite open about the fact that they [00:11:40] had young officers with cherubic appearances masquerading themselves as seniors who would attend school and eventually investigate student activists. [00:11:50]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:50] I can only imagine what it might feel like to learn that the person who you thought was a friend or an ally is actually an officer in disguise [00:12:00] investigating you. Who were these students? You know, I know your book tells the stories [00:12:10] of so many individuals in this era. Can you share a story about someone who really stood out to you?

Aaron Fountain: [00:12:16] Oh, yeah. One of my favorite characters in my book is Bruce [00:12:20] Triggs, a kid from New York City, All-American Boy Scout. You know, he's from a Jewish background. World War Two is quite celebrated in his household. [00:12:30] Um, and, you know, he joins the Boy Scouts and he believes at a very young age that the United States is, uh, you know, a moral example, a good force for the world, and that he could do no [00:12:40] wrong. And what happens is that his family moves to Queens, and he attends a different school where he meets students who smoke marijuana, who are involved in the antiwar movement. [00:12:50] And he eventually dates a girl who's a girl in high school who was an antiwar activist. She introduced to him Che Guevara, and he asked like, hey, he's a communist, isn't he? She's like, you bet [00:13:00] he is. And his head, he's like, this is just too much. I can't support a communist. Are you crazy? And what happens is that he eventually goes to an anti-war conference where a schism occurs. [00:13:10] And normally, as he recalls, most people would be turned off, but he was just blown away. But the turning point is when he attends the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and when the riot breaks [00:13:20] out, he finds himself, he gets punched in the face by a police officer. And from, well, he was already kind of gradually shifting. That was the catalyst. And then he comes back to New York as a full [00:13:30] blown radical and helped find a New York high school student union, which leads to a pretty, you know, chaotic year in New York City schools in 1968 and 1969. So [00:13:40] that's definitely one of my favorite characters to write about. The person who goes from being a very all American Boy Scout to a political radical.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:54] All [00:13:50] right. So we got to talk about the FBI because kids like Bruce Triggs were clearly setting [00:14:00] the adults in the room on edge. And we're going to get to that after a quick break. We're [00:14:20] back. You're listening to Civics 101. And Civics 101, by the way, is a nonprofit podcast. [00:14:30] And maybe one day we should make an episode that gets into the specifics of what a nonprofit really is. But the main point here is that we are not, you know, making a profit for [00:14:40] ourselves or for anyone else. Whatever money we receive is used to pay our journalists and pay the people who keep New Hampshire Public radio functioning, and make sure we have [00:14:50] the basic gear to record people's voices and share those voices with the public. Our whole reason for existing is to share with you what is happening [00:15:00] in the world now, and what happened in the world in the past, so that you can better understand your world. So if you have the ability to contribute to that effort, please consider making a donation at civics101podcast.org. [00:15:10] You can just click the red bar at the top of the homepage to do that. And just a shout out to the many, many listeners who have already done that who make sure that we [00:15:20] can do this work every day. You know, you are proof positive that the world is not all about profit. It is also about people, education and civic empowerment. All [00:15:30] right, back to the show. I am talking with Erin Fountain, junior historian [00:15:40] and author of High School Students Unite! Teen activism, Education Reform, and FBI Surveillance in Postwar America. Erin put in an immense [00:15:50] amount of work to figure out what was going on re students and the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the postwar era, during the 60s and the 70s. [00:16:00] And given the fact that I had never heard of the FBI surveilling high school students before, I wanted to know what first tipped Aaron [00:16:10] off.

Aaron Fountain: [00:16:11] Oh, yeah. Well, it came across when I was going through an underground newspaper from Palo Alto, California, and there was a group called the United Student Movement. And in [00:16:20] the interview, the two people who were interviewed or several I don't I forget how many they kind of bragged about being spied on by the FBI as teenagers, like, we're bad. You know what? So I submitted [00:16:30] a FOIA request on that very group, was told nothing existed. So when I got to graduate school, I wrote a seminar paper on a New York high school student union, which is actually in a [00:16:40] book. And a former member gave me about 80 some pages of memorabilia. And two of those pages were the groups FBI file. My jaw immediately dropped because I'm like, oh, [00:16:50] when I long suspected is finally confirmed. So I went to a professor who gave me a FOIA template, and I submitted one on the New York High School Student Union, but realized I was too late because [00:17:00] all the files were destroyed in 79 2010. In April 2014, I had just submitted that request August of that very year. So realizing [00:17:10] that, okay, the National Archives and Records Administration's actively destroy documents, let me submit Fourier requests on all the groups I know about. I immediately got positive results from [00:17:20] Milwaukee, Minnesota, El Paso, Texas, including the United Student Movement. When I told when I was originally told, nothing existed. And, you know, over time, it wasn't like a eureka moment. I would start to expand, [00:17:30] and I submitted FOI requests on high school, underground newspapers and schools that had civil unrest or racial violence. And I started to look at suburban and rural areas. And [00:17:40] over the course of ten years, I found well over 370 high school groups under some form of surveillance or counterintelligence operation. Now, if you count the amount of students [00:17:50] who as young as 14, who had an FBI file as well as police departments, the US military and state legislators who spied on teenagers. Then that number is well over 600. [00:18:00] But even that's an undercount.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:08] And, Erin, I know that you have submitted [00:18:10] over 2000 Freedom of Information Act requests, FOIA requests in pursuit of this information, meaning essentially, that this was not common knowledge, right? It was not something [00:18:20] that everyone was aware of. What has been the reaction so far when you have told people that the FBI was surveilling [00:18:30] them?

Aaron Fountain: [00:18:31] Oh, it has varied actually. Some people say, wow, that's kind of pathetic. Like the FBI was spying on teenagers. Others are not surprised [00:18:40] because they were around at the time. I remember one one comment I saw was somebody like, I knew it when I shared an FBI file, because one thing about the FBI file, I [00:18:50] remember some school administrators, parents and students who are informants. I remember one person's like, you know, I can see school administrators and even students serving as informants, but the parents. Wow, [00:19:00] that is quite shocking. In fact, most people I interviewed, everybody was shocked that parents were informants. They weren't as surprised as school administrators were. And some were suspicious whether students were informants. [00:19:10] But for the longest time, I only had one example, so I thought it was an anomaly. It wasn't until like eight years later that I came across multiple files showing me like, oh, this was actually more widespread [00:19:20] than I had assumed.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:21] The notion, the notion of a parent, you know, ratting you out to Herbert Hoover. Right. Or expressing concern to the FBI [00:19:30] is really kind of beyond my comprehension. I think if my mother had said to me, I'm calling the FBI on you when I was in high school, I would have said like, ha ha, yeah, good luck with [00:19:40] that. You know, um, could you give us a sense of how or why a parent would feel that calling the FBI, writing a letter to the FBI was [00:19:50] a remotely reasonable response when a kid started to get activated, right? Started to to speak out or organize around what was going on in their school or what was going on [00:20:00] in their country.

Aaron Fountain: [00:20:01] Yeah, that's a good question. So nationwide, when high school student activism reached its peak, the large consensus amongst people was that this was a master [00:20:10] plan by some outside agitators who these outside agitators were. It changed over time. In the mid 1960s, they were just communists. And by 1968 and to early 1970, [00:20:20] they were SDS, the Black Panther or whatever local political group that existed in whatever locale. And parents, interestingly, they start contacting [00:20:30] the FBI as early as 1965 when students are organizing against the Vietnam War. They're mostly white, middle or upper middle class parents. But it's also important to understand what the [00:20:40] FBI symbolized in the 1960s. Popular culture lionized it going back to 1930s. I mean, you could read about the FBI in comic books and [00:20:50] listen to them on radio stations, on television and films and all of them. This still exists to the present day. I recently watched The Wolf of Wall Street. It was a scene that exemplifies [00:21:00] the FBI as being an incorruptible, crime fighting organization.

Archival: [00:21:04] What is it that you think that we did or do? I don't get it. Well, Jordan, I can't [00:21:10] discuss an ongoing investigation. No, I get that. No, I understand.

Aaron Fountain: [00:21:14] And so within that context, parents, unsurprisingly, a minority parents start [00:21:20] to contact the FBI. They either wrote letters to them, sometimes directly to J. Edgar Hoover, or they made phone calls. Any time at night. Sometime at midnight. In fact, [00:21:30] I recently got an FBI file. This is not in a book from Madison, Wisconsin, and a father. He serves as an informant in a very interesting way. His boy talks openly about a [00:21:40] political group he's involved in in Madison, Wisconsin, called the High School Student for Social Justice. And he listens to him. And what the boy doesn't know is that he relays all that information to the FBI. [00:21:50] And the FBI agrees to only contact the father when he's at work. So the son doesn't suspect anything and they all express concerns. It wasn't that they're children they thought were [00:22:00] committing like, criminal acts. They just thought they were all being indoctrinated. Um, or sometimes they thought children that weren't of their own were being indoctrinated by some quote unquote, [00:22:10] sinister force. So it's really this, this concern. I mean, I know in our contemporary eyes it's seen as obscene. Like, why would you do that to your own kid? But for many, [00:22:20] the parents, they just thought that every institution had failed to keep their kids safe. And the FBI was their last and best resource.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:28] And when you say surveillance, [00:22:30] what does that practically mean? Are we talking FBI agents hanging out in some unmarked vehicle outside of the school with binoculars? [00:22:40] Like, what does surveillance actually mean when it comes to the FBI and high school kids?

Aaron Fountain: [00:22:46] Oh, that's a good question. It's a variety of things. They will like, you know, cut out [00:22:50] newspaper clippings and, I, you know, clip them onto some, some poster or as a paper. Police officers, parents, students and administrators would confiscate. Underground newspapers and other published [00:23:00] materials and forward them to the FBI. Which is why in the book, I call the FBI Unintentional Archivist, because a. Lot of documents they collect I've never seen anywhere else. One agent in [00:23:10] Los Angeles masqueraded himself as a graduate student from UCLA, writing a paper about underground newspapers. So he calls a kid who's now a college student, Antioch [00:23:20] College. And the kid just tells him everything about the underground newspaper, and he has no idea that the person on the other line is an FBI agent.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:28] What is it about [00:23:30] the actions of these teenagers that makes adults around them act in this way?

Aaron Fountain: [00:23:38] Yeah, it's it's really just the the extent [00:23:40] of their organizing. I mean, when I say these independent student groups, they weren't just like some of them were groups with like three people, but for the most part, they were like citywide or metropolitan wide groups. They would have members [00:23:50] from across public and private schools across the city and the surrounding suburbs, and he created underground newspapers, which were really sophisticated. They would have, like [00:24:00] a photographer, a field correspondent, who, if there was a high school having an uprising, they would actually send their correspondent there and interview students. So, so much like written material, [00:24:10] so much sophisticated organizing that it's believed that there are just no way in the world teenagers on their own are doing all of this, and somebody has to be pulling the strings. I've [00:24:20] seen letters to the editors where they'll say, like, this is just way too sophisticated for our kids to write.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:25] Yeah. And to your point, right, this is the beginning of high school as the standard for American [00:24:30] teenagers. It is a new world when you have this many young people being brought together in the same place, finding their voice through both education and through community. Can you [00:24:40] talk a little bit about what these disparate movements actually ended up accomplishing? What came out of this student activism?

Aaron Fountain: [00:24:49] Yeah, [00:24:50] it's short term and long term goals. So short term a lot of schools would definitely did hire like black teachers and got, um, you know, black and Latino principals. [00:25:00] And they started teaching black history courses, which I think is important when we think about black history, that that came because of the demands from high school students themselves, wasn't just given to them. So the combination [00:25:10] of very hyper local, like for example, Berkeley High School, till this day it still has a black studies department, and it was the first one in the nation to like sex education. Or they stopped kicking girls out of [00:25:20] school because they were pregnant, which was a widespread practice in the 1960s. Of course, not the father, only the the girl who got pregnant. One thing to the school district, they passed high school bill of rights. [00:25:30] Um, Bill so these Bill of rights bills kind of really embedded the notion of student rights in the school. So like empowered, like, um, school councils gave more freedom to like, student [00:25:40] press, gave students due process rights so they can actually contest, um, suspensions and expulsions without it being arbitrarily decided. So there's the hyper local initiative, but [00:25:50] the long standing one is definitely the notion that students have constitutional rights in schools. That has to be respected so long as they don't cause a disruption. It still gets debated and whatnot. But prior [00:26:00] to 1969, that was not a notion that most people could comprehend. Whether a minor had constitutional rights.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:24] We're [00:26:20] back. You're listening to Civics 101. I am talking with Aaron Fountain, junior historian and [00:26:30] author of High School Students Unite. Teen activism, Education reform, and FBI Surveillance in Postwar America. What [00:26:40] about high school students today? Do you think that they can have the same impact on their schools and their communities?

Aaron Fountain: [00:26:45] No. Students today still will like, you know, support like labor disputes. I remember thinking [00:26:50] Madison, Wisconsin. There was a janitor who was the father of a kid at the school, and he lost his job after a dispute with his students protested, and he got his job back. So there are [00:27:00] things like that. Um, and students today still protest against book bans, or I've seen incidents in them making like freedom schools, um, challenging what's taught in the curriculum. [00:27:10] I do think it's important to, to understand that not all students are on the left. There definitely are students on the right, and they are free to believe whatever they want. So any protest I'm talking about, [00:27:20] there's always a a counter demonstration or a countermeasure to whatever students are trying to achieve. And sometimes students on the right are successful as well and getting their [00:27:30] demands.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:30] Yeah. I mean, I'm thinking about the fact that even today we are seeing students organize. We are seeing them stage school walkouts in order to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [00:27:40]

Archival: [00:27:40] The fear that our peers, um, go through every single day. It has to be vocalized. And what we're doing right now is vocalizing that fear that we've been hearing for months.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:49] And I wonder, [00:27:50] you know, just thinking about the title of your book, High School Students Unite. Exclamation point. Would you say that you are pro student activism?

Aaron Fountain: [00:27:59] Oh, yeah, [00:28:00] I'm pro people. Um, I quote Diane Nash, who made a statement that I wholeheartedly agree that one of the issues with the civil rights movement is that it's often viewed [00:28:10] as a Doctor King movement and not as a people movement. And when it's viewed as a people movement, people can sit around and ask instead of saying, hey, can we have another Doctor King [00:28:20] like figure come. They can just sit and ask, like, what can I do? So yeah, I'm a big proponent of student activism. Many of the people I talk about in the book, it really shaped their careers a lot and wanted to academia, [00:28:30] some of them became journalists. Interestingly, one person started an underground newspaper and became a journalist in the future. Um, you know, became scientists and elected [00:28:40] officials and labor organizers and a lot of that activism that they continue into their adulthood, even if they don't see it as activism, it's all rooted into their political precociousness [00:28:50] as a kid. So no. And these kids are interested in politics and issues that affect their everyday lives, regardless of whether they're on the left or the right. I think, you know, students [00:29:00] from both sides should get active.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:06] Is there anything else that you want to highlight from your book? Maybe something that [00:29:10] you don't get asked to talk about very often?

Aaron Fountain: [00:29:12] I will say one thing I wish people asked me more about was the fact of how not just national, but international high school student activism was in [00:29:20] 1960s and 70s. Um, in this book, I have a list that I worked on for over ten years to list ones. It includes the name, over 500 independent student organizations, and [00:29:30] the names of over 1000 high school underground newspapers. And I did that because when I decided to focus on the San Francisco Bay area in grad school, I was kind of getting a little annoyed when people [00:29:40] say, oh, yeah, of course. Or like, oh yeah, that would never occur where I lived though. So yeah, when I made the list, it includes the names of groups and papers from all 50 [00:29:50] states, including D.C. and Puerto Rico. Um, but I do not have, like, the international aspect. And I should for listeners to know that high school student activism in this period occurred on [00:30:00] all six continents. From the literature, we know that it occurred in Guatemala, Panama, England, France, Italy, Finland, Ethiopia, South Africa, India, Australia, New [00:30:10] Zealand, Canada, and also students to, to a small extent actually knew that they were part of an international protest movement fomenting from secondary schools. And there was [00:30:20] correspondence between American teenagers and teenagers who lived in England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And American and Canadian teenagers actually met one another in person. [00:30:30]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:30] Okay, so how were these students communicating across borders? What were they saying to each other?

Aaron Fountain: [00:30:36] Oh, so this is the high school underground press. Um, teenagers in the [00:30:40] United States created a national syndicate as a network to connect all the high school underground newspapers. So pretty pretty much the syndicates, a newspaper exchange. So let's say where I live is like [00:30:50] the office of whatever group. So I have 20 subscribers from across the nation. They each send me five copies of their papers. I send each copy to every subscriber. Maybe keep like, you know, [00:31:00] two to myself and send the others to like national publications and they will share articles. And this, this just accumulated over time to the point that they had about 700 newspapers. [00:31:10] And when you go to the archives at Temple University, you see these letters that students are writing to them from across the United States, Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, [00:31:20] um, and asking them, how do I create an underground newspaper? This is what hey, can you send me papers? Because I want to see what American students are writing about. Um, it's a unique, uh, [00:31:30] correspondence. The guy who donated that collection, who I interviewed in the book, called it the social media of the age. Unfortunately, some of those records got destroyed. He kept 50 of the best, he told [00:31:40] me, but it got destroyed in a flood. Yeah, this happens a lot. But the ones that exist, it's just, uh, it's a phenomenal collection, just to see what students were, [00:31:50] um, discussing and what issues they had. Some of them talk about like police and FBI harassment, uh, of their of their papers and others would talk about, like, you know, this is a current lawsuit, [00:32:00] um, that we're going for. So it's a, yeah, fascinating collection that they had over time. But again, it took like five years for them to build that.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:32:24] Well, [00:32:20] for those who want to know more about what Aaron learned, you can find high school students unite teen activism, [00:32:30] education reform and FBI surveillance in postwar America wherever books are sold. And stay tuned for what Aaron is working on right now. It's another book covering teenage action during the Vietnam [00:32:40] War, but this time he is going global. Aaron is looking at the roles that Canada, Australia, even New Zealand played and how high school students from across the world responded [00:32:50] to the ways their nations got involved in a war that inspired millions of people to get organized and speak out. This [00:33:00] episode was produced by me. Hannah McCarthy, Nick Capodice is my co-host. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. Marina Henke is our producer. Music in this episode comes from Epidemic [00:33:10] Sound. If you got something out of this episode, if you learned something, if you're taking what you learned and doing something with it in your world, your community, consider leaving us a review on [00:33:20] whatever platform you are listening to this on. Help us get the word out that we are here for you and only you, the public. Because this [00:33:30] is, after all, a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

When did immigrants become "illegal?"

The rules about who could and could not come and live in the United States have changed many times over the last 250 years, but exactly when restrictions were first put on immigration might surprise you.

Today, walking us through the myriad qualitative and quantitative systems surrounding immigration policy is Muzaffar Chishti, Senior Fellow and Director of the Migration Policy Institute.

Here are some links to our episodes on: The Chinese Exclusion Act, ICE, and Becoming a US Citizen.

---

Transcript

Speaker1: Dhs says federal agents have arrested some 4000 illegal aliens in Minnesota.

Speaker2: Us cutting off health care benefits for illegal aliens. They prioritize taxpayer funded benefits for illegal aliens.

Speaker3: I'd like to see something done about the illegal alien problem that would be so sensitive.

Speaker4: By the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.

Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: And today we are exploring the logistics, [00:00:30] politics, and linguistic peccadillos involved with a very charged term illegal immigrant. Now hold on, hold on everyone. I have not used that expression since 2009. Since the day I first learned, it was not the proper term to use for someone who was not authorized to reside in the United States.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. How did you first learn that?

Nick Capodice: Well, I was learning my very first tour at the Tenement Museum [00:01:00] in New York, and I was using that term to describe a Sicilian woman, Rosario Baldeschi, who came to the US through Canada in the 1920s, and the tremendous, patient, kind man who was training me, said, hold on a second. We prefer not to use that word.

Hannah McCarthy: Did he give you a specific reason?

Nick Capodice: He did. And that reason is kind of this whole episode - where we will dig into our country’s history with - and laws around immigration. So stick around.

Hannah McCarthy: All [00:01:30] right. Nick. So what were like the first laws in the United States that pertain to who could immigrate to this country and who could not?

Muzaffar Chishti: It's an interesting question. I mean, I like to tell people that we had no immigration laws at the federal level in the country till 1880.

Nick Capodice: This is Muzaffar Chishti.

Muzaffar Chishti: I'm Muzaffar Chishti, I'm a senior fellow at the Migration Policy [00:02:00] Institute.

Nick Capodice: Muzaffar is a lawyer who specializes in immigration. He has testified in front of Congress numerous times, and several years ago, he worked as director of the immigration project for the Ilgwu, the International Ladies Garment Workers Union.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh wow. You have told me a lot about them.

Speaker8: Look for the union label when you are buying white coat, dress or glove.

Hannah McCarthy: So Muzaffar said there were no federal immigration [00:02:30] restrictions until 1880.

Nick Capodice: That is correct.

Hannah McCarthy: Were there state restrictions?

Muzaffar Chishti: Sort of like we would. New York State would impose a tax on shipping companies that brought people from Europe to the US. It was literally called the head tax, which means we counted the number of heads that were brought to the shore and then charged them for bringing people in. Uh, and the second thing I tell [00:03:00] people that we had naturalization laws before we had immigration laws.

Nick Capodice: Naturization by the way means becoming a citizen.

Hannah McCarthy: When was the first naturalization law passed?

Nick Capodice: Almost at the very beginning of our country. It was the Naturalization Act of 1790 which said, to become a citizen of the US, you had to be in the country for two years, and you had to be in your state for one year.

Hannah McCarthy: And that was it. There were no other restrictions.

Nick Capodice: Well, there was one, a very big one.

Muzaffar Chishti: And that was [00:03:30] basically reserved for free. White men, black men and Native Americans were clearly excluded from that. So in the 1790 statute was for the first time the word alien was used because it was a naturalizing aliens who were present in the United States.

Nick Capodice: So that is the first use of the term alien in state law. And then eight years later, the United States passed the Alien [00:04:00] and Sedition Acts, which was the first time in federal law that the word alien was used.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Now, we have talked about these acts a few times on Civics 101, but can you just go over them real quick?

Nick Capodice: Absolutely. The Alien and Sedition Acts were for acts passed in the John Adams administration on naturalization becoming a citizen. Sedition, which is you're not allowed to say false or malicious stuff about the government and the alien friends, which allowed the president to deport foreigners [00:04:30] deemed dangerous. And the alien enemies acts.

Hannah McCarthy: And all of these acts are expired or were repealed, save for one.

Nick Capodice: Save one. The Alien Enemies Act, which allows a president to detain foreigners in times of war or invasion. This act has been invoked in three wars and one time outside of a war scenario, and it was by Donald Trump in 2025.

Speaker9: I will invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 18 [00:05:00] zero of 1798. Seven. Think of that. 1798. That's when we had real politicians that said we're not going to play games. We have to go back to 1798.

Muzaffar Chishti: And just to be more historical about it, the word alien literally comes from the crown. We inherited everything from Britain. Oddly, the birthright citizenship debate that we're having today [00:05:30] is a is a relic of the Crown during the British Empire. You either owed your allegiance to the crown or you're an alien. You're an alien was someone who did not own their allegiance to the King, and therefore everyone who was born on the territory of the king was accepted as a citizen at birth and the word illegal alien. I don't think was used in our statute until 1986.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay. [00:06:00] In 1986, this was the Immigration Reform and Control Act that Ronald Reagan signed.

Nick Capodice: Exactly. This act basically made it so any unauthorized person residing in the United States prior to 1982 was suddenly authorized.

Muzaffar Chishti: 1986 is the only time in our history where we have legalized illegal aliens. Then there was never any provision, any, any [00:06:30] chapter when we did that. Europeans have done it a number of times. Spain does it every six months, but we had never done it and we haven't done it since. That was unique. And since that legalized aliens, therefore, you had to be an illegal alien to be legalized because I actually one of my favorite cases, I. I essentially cut my teeth in that act from the coming of that act in the initial stages to [00:07:00] it becoming law. And then I was actually head of the coalition that, uh, that implemented the law. Uh, we ran the International Ladies Garment Workers Union and one of the largest legalization programs. We legalized 3000 members. But to be legalized under that law, you had to be illegal.

Hannah McCarthy: So the first time there was a law that created a designation that there are people here legally and there are people here illegally [00:07:30] was 1986.

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: But that same law said that you couldn't be here legally until it was proven that you were here illegally first.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Joseph Heller would have loved it.

Speaker10: There's some catch. I catch 22. It's the best there is.

Muzaffar Chishti: Because that was the only way you could get a green card. That if you are here as a student or lawful status or [00:08:00] H1-b worker, or you were not eligible to be legalized. So we found creative ways to to find that someone was here in violation of the law. That's why the word illegal alien by necessity, had to find its way in the statute in 1986.

Nick Capodice: As a quick aside, as we are talking about this word illegal. Do you remember Frank Luntz?

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, yeah, I do. From your episode on framing, he was [00:08:30] the guy who wrote memos to the Republican Party to tell them to use certain phrases and avoid others like, say, climate change instead of global warming or, say, death tax, not estate tax.

Nick Capodice: That's the guy. In 2005, he wrote a memo to Republican candidates saying always use the term illegal immigrants and do not use the term illegals. But Luntz was largely ignored.

Speaker3: And those.

Speaker11: People that hire illegals ought to be penalized.

Nick Capodice: In [00:09:00] 2018, a congressman in Texas, Steve McCraw, defended using the term illegal immigrant because he said it was a legal term. It is in state and federal laws.

Hannah McCarthy: Is it in state and federal laws?

Nick Capodice: Well, no, no, there is no use of the term illegal alien or illegal immigrant in Texas state law. And there's nowhere in federal law that says an unauthorized immigrant living in the United States is here illegally. And maybe part of the reason for that is, as you noted, Hannah, in your Ice episode, [00:09:30] being undocumented in the United States is not a crime.

Muzaffar Chishti: It doesn't mean the word illegal alien was not used in popular parlance. It was used by journalists quite a bit, especially in the beginning of the 20th century when the country was getting very concerned about immigration for the first time.

Hannah McCarthy: Early 1900s. So this is like peak Ellis Island era?

Nick Capodice: Absolutely it is. When Salvatore Cappa came [00:10:00] here from termini, Sicily, when the grand and great grand and great great grandparents of a staggering amount of people listening to this very podcast came to the United States. And this leads me to one of my favorite things to talk about in the world. Who came to the United States when and why, which we're going to get to right after a quick break. You're listening to Civics 101. We are talking about legal and illegal immigration today. And just a reminder, we have [00:10:30] several hundred episodes on just about any topic you can imagine on our website, civics101podcast.org.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Nick, and you were about to tell me about the myriad groups coming to the United States. When and why? So let me have it.

Nick Capodice: Absolutely, Hannah. And I think it makes sense to look at it through how we determined who was not allowed to come into the United States, who would have been turned away, which was for the first hundred years, nobody [00:11:00] whatsoever.

Hannah McCarthy: Nobody.

Nick Capodice: Literally nobody. Again, here is Muzaffar Chhetri.

Muzaffar Chishti: Anyone who showed up on our shores, it was admitted in literally you became citizen after certain requirements under the 1790 act. But you were a legal person the moment you entered on the shore in 1880 for the first time, we said we will exclude [00:11:30] some group of people and the exclusions we put in place were not numerical. I like to say they were not quantitative limits. They were actually qualitative limits.

Hannah McCarthy: Qualitative as in there are certain qualities, be they medical or professional or racial qualities that we keep out of this country.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, and not numerical. Like we only allow 10,000 Germans or French or whatever each year it was if you had this [00:12:00] quality, you were not allowed in.

Hannah McCarthy: And who was coming at that time?

Nick Capodice: We had folks coming from everywhere. Hannah. But a few groups in particular. First off, Irish immigration, the famine in Ireland in the 1840s that led to a massive influx coming from there. Around the same time, Chinese people were actively recruited in huge numbers to fill the labor force, specifically in mining and to help construct the transcontinental railroad. [00:12:30] And then from 1870 to 1900, over 12 million immigrants came to the United States, mostly from Germany, Ireland and England.

Hannah McCarthy: When did Ellis Island open as our immigration processing center.

Nick Capodice: That was 1892.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Where did people go before that?

Nick Capodice: The biggest processing center was called Castle Garden. It's on the southern tip of Battery Park in New York City. And again, until 1880, nobody was turned away. [00:13:00]

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so who was on that first list of limited people?

Muzaffar Chishti: The talk in the 80s that certain kind of people we don't like. So the candidates for that were convicts. Candidates for that were people with communicable diseases, tuberculosis especially of that time, people who were paupers, people who were prostitutes. And we in 1882, we added all of Chinese in [00:13:30] the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Now that was huge. We have a whole episode on Chinese exclusion, which I wholeheartedly encourage everyone listen to.

Nick Capodice: Absolutely. Agreed. So this was America's first racial restriction and it would not be the last. But then we get to the big wave, the Ellis Island years.

Speaker12: These gladly faced the long ocean voyage. Then immigration gateways like Ellis Island and [00:14:00] examination by immigration officials.

Hannah McCarthy: If we're going to talk about Ellis Island, do you want to start with your thing?

Nick Capodice: My thing? My soapbox.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. Let's hear it.

Nick Capodice: Something I have been known from time to time at parties and social occasions is to get on my own little soapbox, to tell anyone who will listen that nobody's name got changed at Ellis Island.

Hannah McCarthy: And to be fair, Nick, you used to think that people's names were changed. [00:14:30]

Nick Capodice: I did Hannah. I was also a victim of Godfather Part two.

Speaker12: Come on son.

Speaker13: What is your name?

Speaker14: Vito Andolini Corleone.

Speaker13: Vito corleone.

Hannah McCarthy: Nobody's name was changed at Ellis Island because nobody at Ellis Island wrote down names.

Nick Capodice: That's right. And this is a lesson in the inability to break someone's framing. I've told this little tidbit to probably a thousand people before now, and I share articles on it, and I encourage people [00:15:00] to look it up themselves if they don't believe me. But they usually go, hmm, I don't know, kid. And then they tell the Sean Ferguson joke.

Hannah McCarthy: What's the Sean Ferguson joke?

Nick Capodice: I'm not going to get into it. Hannah. Do your own research.

Hannah McCarthy: But there were inspections at Ellis Island, right? Checking for tuberculosis, trachoma, etc..

Nick Capodice: Yeah, and there was a potential that you could be sent back if you would be considered a, quote, societal burden.

Hannah McCarthy: And how many people were actually sent [00:15:30] back to their country of origin?

Nick Capodice: Very few. About 20% of immigrants who came through were detained for one reason or another, but they were usually let in eventually. Of the 12 million immigrants who came through Ellis Island, less than 2% were sent back.

Muzaffar Chishti: So the debate between the end of the 19th century and 1917 was that too many people are coming and too many [00:16:00] wrong kind of people were coming. And the definition of wrong was clearly some Europeans. We don't like some Europeans, one group of Europeans, because for both they were intellectually and physically inferior to another group that we like, mostly northern and Western Europeans. The Nordic supremacy was the governing wisdom at that time. We don't like Italians. We don't like Slavs. We don't like Russians, [00:16:30] and we certainly don't like Jews. And we definitely don't like Chinese. And then other Asians, that was clearly stated. So the the that era. This is where theories of eugenics were sold as science by distinguished academics, convincing members of Congress that these people were not at par.

Hannah McCarthy: Wait, this was in the 19 teens. People were promoting eugenics back then.

Nick Capodice: They were. And [00:17:00] contrary to what I had thought, the United States was at the very forefront of it. The seminal work on eugenics and eugenics, by the way, as the very much not real, not scientific theory that some people from some places have superior genes and others don't. But again, the seminal work is called The Passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant, a New Yorker. Adolf Hitler wrote Madison Grant a letter [00:17:30] saying, quote, this book is my Bible, end quote. End quote. We Germans must emulate what the Americans are doing.

Hannah McCarthy: Wow.

Nick Capodice: And I bring all this up because this this is what inspired our first immigration quota system.

Muzaffar Chishti: That became our first, first attempt to control immigration in quantitative limits. And guess how we decide to put the quantitative limits was by racial [00:18:00] quotas. We started putting what we call the national origin quota system in 1917, became law in 1924, is that we're going to give quantitative limits for each country based on the number of people of the stock of that country in the US in 1910.

Nick Capodice: So Congress takes the 1910 census. They look at it and they decide there already too many Italians [00:18:30] in the United States in 1910. So they push it back. They look at the 1900 census. Well, maybe this is the America I remember and still too many Italians. So they pushed the goalpost to 1890. They use the 1890 census as a guide.

Muzaffar Chishti: So it was clearly racist, openly racist by members of Congress speaking language on the floor of the House and Senate, which you would find unprintable today. So when we started putting limits on immigration, [00:19:00] they were clearly driven on racist terms.

Nick Capodice: And this this is what Muzzaffar tries to explain to people who say the well trotted out line, well, my family came here this way, the legal way.

Muzaffar Chishti: So the first thing they don't understand, and this is because they say, why didn't they come the way my grandparents came the right way, as we just finished saying, until 1924, there was no way of coming illegally. So everyone who came had to come legally. [00:19:30] So therefore, the notion that you would even have to wait in a line, There was no lie until 1924. So we started once we started the quantitative limits. Therefore, there was there was a line. So if you did not fit that line, then if you came outside that line, you were illegal. And that was the law till 1965.

Hannah McCarthy: 1965?

Nick Capodice: Yes. There was no [00:20:00] significant immigration from places like Italy, Eastern Europe, Hungary, Turkey, China, India, etc. from 1924 to 1965. In 1965, at the feet of the Statue of Liberty, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Hart-celler act, reversing the 1924 National Origins Act.

Speaker15: And this measure that we will sign today will really make us truer to ourselves, both as a country [00:20:30] and as a people. It will strengthen us in a hundred unseen ways.

Muzaffar Chishti: We entered the national origin courses and we opened the America to the entire world. So therefore history. It was a promise that had been made by President Kennedy in his campaign for presidency.

Nick Capodice: John F Kennedy gave a speech to an Italian club in Boston, and he asked everybody, hey, you know what's on your mind? [00:21:00] And they said, these quotas are destroying our families. I can't bring my sister, I can't bring my nephew, etc. And John F Kennedy promised if elected, he would change the quota system.

Hannah McCarthy: But he didn't.

Nick Capodice: No, He did[n’t lift a finger to end the national origin quota system.

Muzaffar Chishti: He made three states of Union addresses, did not address immigration even in one. It fell to President Johnson [00:21:30] to end the national origin quotas.

Nick Capodice: An LBJ was not really known to be a pro-immigration kind of guy.

Muzaffar Chishti: He was a confirmed Southern Democrat, anti-immigrant person. History shows that he had never met any immigrant, except for a piano tuner of his wife, who was a Czech man. He had no relationship with with immigration. And so he when he became president, [00:22:00] he calls all of us Kennedy's advisors into the white House. He said, look, I'm an accidental president. Just tell me, what had President Kennedy promised in his campaign? They listed immigration. He said, that becomes my cause. I have to do it.

Nick Capodice: And even though even though this lifting of the national origin system is celebrated by those who, you know, respect the words of Emma Lazarus in The New Colossus, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. [00:22:30] I still gotta say, the 1965 act was not without its own problems.

Muzaffar Chishti: The authors of the 1965 act made sure that European immigration supremacy remained intact. They wrote the law in a way that would guarantee white European immigrants to come, because they expanded the category of brothers and sisters of US citizens to [00:23:00] get privilege. The relatives of US citizens get high privilege. Guess who were the US citizens at that time? They were all white Europeans. They said if they were their brothers, they will keep on getting. This did not work out that way. The Europeans lost interest in coming to the United States. I mean, why would you? After the Marshall Plan, especially, why would we come to the US when you could live in an Italian villa? And the third world countries got out of the colonial [00:23:30] yoke, and they started sending students and then professionals. And 50 years later, the face of America had changed. Nick: Muzaffar points out that this change has stoked a lot of heated feelings in our communities, and in our politics.And those feelings about non-European immigrants were foundational - 65 years later, to the success of one president’s election in particular.

Speaker9: They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities, with no regard for the impact on [00:24:00] public safety or resources.

Muzaffar Chishti: He saw how a country had radically changed in its mix in 50 years in the history of our country, 50 years is not a long period. In 1965, immigration was 90% [00:24:30] European. Today it's 90% non-European. How that could not affect something in the country. Uh, you know, you have to be unmindful of how people think about change.

Hannah McCarthy: We have talked before about how different people with different classifications from different countries have different wait times when it comes to becoming a US citizen through the legal channels, because [00:25:00] we still use a quota system. So someone immigrating from Norway or New Zealand with family in the US will have a very different wait time than someone coming from Mexico or India in terms of the current quota system.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, I just read a report from the Cato Institute in 2018 where they found that someone trying to immigrate to the US from India with an advanced degree has an estimated wait time of 151 years. And [00:25:30] to be clear here, Muzaffar is in no way saying that the recent rise in anti-immigrant sentiment is at all justified. But he is pointing out that we have not amended our immigration policies in a long.

Muzaffar Chishti: Long time and we haven't changed our immigration level since 1990. So no wonder we're having the effect of all this paralysis in in Congress to deal with immigration. And the numbers [00:26:00] have grown in from 3 million to 14 million is not a small thing to happen. And now, because these we haven't changed our laws since 1990, and we haven't done a legalization program since 86, we now have a large number of people who may die unauthorized. We have at least probably two generations of unauthorized people. Now that's telling. So [00:26:30] a large number of people have deep roots now who are unauthorized. Therefore, when you see people being snatched from the streets, these are not people who arrived yesterday. These are people who arrived many years ago with deep roots. And almost none of them have criminal backgrounds. So therefore, if you have made this bargain that I'm going to deport a million people a year, where are you going to find them? That's the difference between the narrative and reality, is that to find them, you have to go on the inside of our country. And people see it. See this more as an attack on Americans and more [00:27:30] as an attack on American, deeply held values like First Amendment and the Second Amendment. Then they see as an attack on illegal immigration. And that's why I think Trump is losing the people on this.

Nick Capodice: This episode is made by me. Nick Capodice with you, Hannah McCarthy. Thank you. Our staff includes producer Marina Henke and executive [00:28:00] producer Rebecca LaVoy. Special thanks. Here. Special thanks. Go out to everybody at 97 Orchard Street, specifically Pedro and Annie. Sunday crew forever. Music. In this episode from blue Dot sessions. Epidemic sound and the wondrous Chris Zabriskie. Civics 101 is a production of NPR. New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

What is ICE's job?

We examine what the current presidential administration tells us about Immigration and Customs Enforcement and what the numbers, courts and history of the agency have to say.

For more information on the data referenced in this episode, you can check out this Politico fact check of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's statements about ICE, this CATO Institute analysis, this CBS report, and this TRAC report and this Deportation Data Project release.

---

Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: Do you remember the last time we made an episode about ice?

Nick Capodice: I do, I remember it was the first interview you did by yourself here at Civics 101. And you were nervous. This was like eight years ago, right?

Hannah McCarthy: May 2018. And yeah, I was nervous. We had just become the hosts of the show. This was only the third episode we had made as hosts of the show, and I was like, ah, man, how do you make a Civics 101 [00:00:30] episode about this agency that is really unpopular right now?

Archival: More protests are expected this morning after a 37 year old Minneapolis man was shot and killed by a federal agent.

Archival: Reports the incident happened on the heels of the shooting death of Rene Good, and has led to escalating tensions between protesters and federal officers.

Archival: Fast moving developments in Minneapolis after a protester, Alex, was shot and killed by federal agents in broad daylight over the weekend.

Archival: We've [00:01:00] got a deadly shooting here. We have to have an investigation. And you've got protesters screaming on the ground in front of us. Emotional throwing trash cans, barricading rooms.

Archival: Worth it, buddy. It's worth it. All right, we'll see. Hey, when you're in jail, something to protect you for long. You're in jail.

Nick Capodice: So how do you make a second Civics 101 [00:01:30] episode about ice?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, you start all over again in 2026. That's how. This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: And today, Ice, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And again, we do already [00:02:00] have an episode about Ice. It explains a lot, but it doesn't really get to what is happening right now. So two things I recommend you go back and listen to that episode if you want to know why ice exists and what the deal was in the second year of Trump's first term as president. But for the purposes of this episode, Nick, I just want to get to something really basic. What is ICE's job?

Nick Capodice: Well, I guess we can start with the actual name [00:02:30] of the organization, the Enforcement of customs and Immigration Law.

Hannah McCarthy: Let's talk about that enforcement part. You've got Customs and Border Protection, CBP historically at our ports of entry and patrolling the border. So they're usually at the edges of the country, the areas where people come into the country and they are enforcing our laws there, the borders and ports of entry. Those are not specifically ICI's job. For the most part, though, they can and do [00:03:00] work with CBP, especially lately.

Nick Capodice: All right, so Ice is on the inside.

Hannah McCarthy: Well, Ice is for the most part, the agency tasked with interior enforcement, though, you know, because a big part of their job is to arrest and detain people they suspect of being in the country without authorization, without documentation. That is something they can do at the border as well. I do just want to note here that people have noticed that Customs and Border Patrol employees have been participating in immigration operations [00:03:30] far from U.S. borders. And because of something called the hundred Mile zone in the Immigration and Nationality Act, people are wondering why that's allowed what they're doing so far from the border.

Nick Capodice: Hang on. The hundred mile zone.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, there is a federal regulation that says that immigration enforcement, this is actually both Ice and CBP have authority to board a train or a bus within a, within a reasonable distance, unquote, which federal regulation says is 100 [00:04:00] miles from any external boundary of the US. Planes, by the way, are different here because they are part of the port of entry for international travelers. So if you have heard about the 100 mile zone and thought to yourself, okay, what is going on in terms of immigration enforcement happening so far from the borders? Well, again, that hundred mile zone, it is really about boarding vessels, right? A bus or a train. And really, all of those agents and officers do have the legal authority to pull over a car and interrogate [00:04:30] and arrest them when they suspect of being undocumented. So that hundred mile zone thing, that is a restriction, but not as much of a restriction as it might seem. And while typically Border Patrol has done enforcement at the borders, and Ice has done it away from the borders, the distinction has blurred under the Trump administration.

Nick Capodice: So that's why you're seeing CBP alongside Ice far from the border and Hannah, real quick. Can we touch on this suspect of being undocumented thing? What [00:05:00] constitutes suspect?

Hannah McCarthy: So courts have said that immigration enforcement cannot stop, arrest and detain people based on their perceived race, what language they speak, where they work, or where they physically are in any given moment.

Nick Capodice: Aka Ice and CBP cannot racially or culturally profile people.

Hannah McCarthy: Well, in September 2025, the Supreme Court issued what's called a stay on a lower court's order that had barred [00:05:30] racial profiling.

Nick Capodice: Oh, so the Supreme Court said that Ice and CBP can target people for their looks and behavior?

Hannah McCarthy: Essentially, yes. For now, at least, they have paused the lower courts order.

Nick Capodice: What about 14th amendment, equal protection and Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure protection? How did Scotus explain that one?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, they didn't explain much. There is no opinion in this instance. I can tell you that Justice Brett Kavanaugh did write what [00:06:00] is called a concurrence, where he suggests that, you know, if you are a documented immigrant or a citizen who is stopped and questioned, you should just be able to show your ID and common sense says you would then be permitted to go. But many people have not had that experience.

Nick Capodice: Oh, a concurrence, but no opinion. This was a shadow docket thing, right?

Hannah McCarthy: Yes. Or as the Supreme Court prefers to put it, the emergency docket or the non [00:06:30] merits motions docket. But listen to our episode on the shadow docket to learn more. Okay, so back to your question. What does suspect mean? Well, it can mean right now according to the Supreme Court, that you look sound or are in some way acting like an undocumented immigrant in the eyes of immigration enforcement. Okay. Moving on. Because I want to talk about the differences within [00:07:00] Ice itself. We keep hearing about Ice agents and there are Ice agents. But in terms of the way that they were originally established, agents and officers perform different roles. Ice agents are supposed to do the investigating. They are stationed across the country and across the world. They fall under the label h s I. Homeland Security Investigations.

Nick Capodice: Investigating what exactly? [00:07:30]

Hannah McCarthy: Well, crimes. There are more than 400 U.S. laws pertaining to national security. Who investigates violations of those laws? So think smuggling of various kinds, trafficking of various kinds, financial crimes, fraud. Hcy agents are also tasked with breaking up terrorist groups and transnational criminal organizations, and these agents are working in offices, like I said, across the country and across the world, they are everywhere.

Nick Capodice: But to be clear, an Ice agent is not the same thing as an Ice enforcement officer, [00:08:00] right?

Hannah McCarthy: An officer falls under the e o label enforcement and removal operations. And actually, in the past, during the first Trump administration, some Hpsci agents requested to please be removed from the agency because they were getting confused with air officers.

Nick Capodice: So they're under the same umbrella. But these agents were like, we do not do the same thing, right?

Hannah McCarthy: And before I read you a bit of this letter, I do just need to say that an executive order that Trump [00:08:30] signed at the beginning of his second term does appear to change the nature of Hci's main mission. But in 2019, a number of agents reports say as many as 19 were requesting some kind of independent, some kind of distinction from this other part of Ice. In a letter they wrote to the Department of Homeland Security, DHS Secretary at the time, Kristin M Nielsen, an agent, said, quote, the perception of high seas investigative independence [00:09:00] is unnecessarily impacted by the political nature of eero's civil immigration enforcement. Many jurisdictions continue to refuse to work with Hpsci because of a perceived linkage to the politics of civil immigration, unquote.

Nick Capodice: In other words, the people who investigate crimes were upset that they were being confused with the people who were taking undocumented immigrants into custody.

Hannah McCarthy: Right. And I am not sure how [00:09:30] Hpsci agents feel right now, but later on, I am going to talk a little bit about how their mission may have changed under the Trump administration.

Nick Capodice: And what exactly are the Ice officers, as opposed to the agents supposed to be doing?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, according to the Ice website, the Ero or enforcement officers. Quote, target public safety threats such as convicted criminal, undocumented aliens [00:10:00] and gang members, as well as individuals who have otherwise violated our nation's immigration laws, including those who legally reentered the country after being removed and immigration fugitives ordered removed by federal immigration judges, unquote.

Nick Capodice: All right, here's where I'm getting caught up a little. Hannah, are Ice officers supposed to be targeting just anybody who violated immigration law? Or are they supposed to be going after safety [00:10:30] threats, criminal, undocumented aliens, as they put it?

Hannah McCarthy: This is a good question. So as I was making this episode, the Trump administration circulated a draft memo that, you know, if official would direct Ice to avoid engaging with agitators, now agitators. That is the term that Trump and his administration has used to describe people protesting Ice.

Archival: The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists. They're [00:11:00] bad people. They should be in jail.

Hannah McCarthy: Thank you. And before I read this quote from this memo, I do just want to state that we are fully aware of the problematic nature of the word aliens, instead of using the term undocumented immigrants or unauthorized immigrants. But you are going to hear that term in this episode, because it is in a lot of the language that is used by the Trump administration. It has been used by administrations in the past. Okay. So, you know, avoid engaging with quote unquote agitators. And this memo also says, [00:11:30] quote, we are moving to targeted enforcement of aliens with a criminal history. This includes arrests, not just convictions. And then this is in all caps. All targets must have a criminal nexus, unquote.

Nick Capodice: A criminal nexus.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, I actually learned a lot because of encountering this word. Nexus just means a link in this case, an arrest, a charge, a conviction. This is a term that comes up a lot with criminal cases. [00:12:00] A defense attorney might challenge the nexus, try to prove, for example, that there was no probable cause for search and seizure, or that a judge should have denied a warrant because of a lack of nexus.

Nick Capodice: And the administration is now saying there has to be a nexus.

Hannah McCarthy: Well, on January 29th, 2026, borders are. Tom Homan gave a press conference in Minnesota. He said that they were working on a, quote, drawdown plan, getting more Ice officers working in jails and prisons and fewer on the street. [00:12:30] He said agents who did not act professionally would be, quote, dealt with. He said Ice is focused on threats to public safety and national security, with a caveat. Of course.

Archival: There is not going to be a focus on people who have no other crimes except for their status.

Archival: If they're in the country illegally, you're not. You're never off the table.

Hannah McCarthy: So in terms of the quote, all targets must have a criminal nexus thing that would be so big, if true.

Nick Capodice: Why is that?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, under both Barack Obama's [00:13:00] and Joe Biden's administrations, ICE's guidance was to prioritize non-citizens who posed a threat to public safety or national security.

Nick Capodice: Prioritize, but not, like, go after exclusively.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, there's some wiggle room there. Now, you know that memo stating all targets must have a criminal nexus? Again, we have no idea if that is an official order or policy, or if it's going to be the new way of doing things. Um, in that press conference, I [00:13:30] mentioned the one with border czar Tom Homan. You heard him state that, you know, nobody who is here undocumented is, quote, off the table. And while that memo, you know, if it really means anything, would mean a significant change. This administration and its agents and officers have also signaled, in both language and action that crime and undocumented immigrant kind of go hand in hand. I'm going to talk about that in a moment, actually, because, Nick, what is ICE's [00:14:00] job? So if you look back to the beginning, right, I'm going to read you a quote from the first ever Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Julie L Myers. This is from 2007. She said that ICE's mission was, quote, to protect the United States and uphold public safety by targeting the people, money and materials that support terrorists and criminal activities, unquote.

Nick Capodice: I want to make sure I get this right. Ice was established to, if [00:14:30] I may put this extremely ham handedly to target like, identify, find, deal with The quote unquote bad guys.

Hannah McCarthy: Ice continues to state that they go after the worst of the worst. And this is a big part of what I am trying to understand with this episode. The president says that Ice is going after criminals.

Archival: Boy, these are rough characters. These are all criminal, illegal aliens that [00:15:00] in many cases, they're murderers. They're drug lords, drug dealers. They're the mentally insane. Some of them who are brutal killers, they're mentally insane. They're killers, but they're insane.

Hannah McCarthy: And then this memo comes to light that appears to say, you know, we're pivoting here. We're going to go after criminals, even though that is what, you know, the American public has been told. Ice is already doing. And before this memo even came out, Homeland Security Secretary [00:15:30] Kristi Noem said that 70% of noncitizens in custody have been convicted of or charged with a violent crime.

Archival: What's the breakdown of the percentage of those who you have in custody who have actually committed a criminal offense versus just the civil infraction?

Archival: Every single individual has committed a crime, but 70% of them have committed or have charges against them on violent crimes and crimes that they are charged with or have been convicted of.

Nick Capodice: I actually watched this clip. [00:16:00] Noam was on Face the Nation, and journalist Margaret Brennan is like, wait, 70%, because your agency says 47% of detainees have been charged or convicted of a crime.

Archival: Okay. Well, our reporting is that 47%, based on your agency's own numbers, 47% have criminal convictions against them. But let's talk about the other numbers again.

Archival: Absolutely. We'll get you the correct numbers so you can use them in the future.

Archival: Well, that's from your agency.

Hannah McCarthy: Importantly, like [00:16:30] I just want to draw your attention to the fact that that piece of information talks about crime, not violent crime. A violent crime is. And this is according to the Department of Justice, a violent crime happens when a victim is harmed or threatened with violence, unquote. This includes sexual assault, robbery, other kinds of assault and murder.

Nick Capodice: But Noam said violent crime. So where is that coming from?

Hannah McCarthy: I will tell you that a lot of people are trying to understand where exactly that is coming from [00:17:00] and what period of time Noam might be referencing, and whether she's referencing arrests or detentions. Those are two different things. Not everyone who's arrested ends up in detention. But she was being asked a question about the people currently in Ice custody, the people currently detained. And that was the answer to the question. So, you know, as soon as Ice or DHS releases the data that supports that, I will add a little addendum to this episode. Currently, there are no numbers available from DHS [00:17:30] or that have been leaked or FOIA requested that remotely suggest that much non-citizen violent crime, be it a conviction or a charge, which are two different things.

Nick Capodice: All right. The other thing that Noam also said was that everyone detained by Ice has committed a crime.

Hannah McCarthy: What Noam meant by that is not clear to me, but this does seem like a good time to share with everybody that it is not a crime in and of itself to be an undocumented person in [00:18:00] the United States.

Nick Capodice: And you're not speaking colloquially here. You are speaking literally. Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. It's not like a that's not a crime thing. It's like this is an actual legal definition being undocumented in the United States, which means you do not have a form of legal status like a visa is a civil violation. Civil violations have civil penalties. Criminal violations have criminal punishments. Overstaying your visa puts you under the civil violation umbrella. Undocumented [00:18:30] status only becomes criminally punishable if someone has already been deported and then reenters attempts to reenter or is found within the United States.

Nick Capodice: And just to be clear, you can be deported if you overstay your visa.

Hannah McCarthy: Absolutely. That is the civil penalty for the civil violation of being undocumented in the United States. You could also face reentry bans and you could, you know, have future visa applications denied depending on how long you've [00:19:00] overstayed, etc. but it is not, again, in and of itself, a crime. Congress has established it as a civil violation, and the Supreme Court actually upheld that in a case called Arizona v United States, when Arizona essentially tried to treat being an undocumented immigrant like a crime.

Nick Capodice: Hannah. So why is the secretary of DHS saying everybody in detention has committed a crime? And on top of that, most of them are either guilty of violent crime or [00:19:30] facing violent crime charges again.

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, I am really looking forward to the data that explains where that piece of information is coming from. It is really confusing when internal reporting says one thing, and the person in charge of the people who did that reporting says something entirely different.

Nick Capodice: So the administration says this is about criminals, but the data from the administration, or at least the data that's been reported, shows that it's about, well, not just criminals or [00:20:00] criminals as far as the law defines criminals.

Hannah McCarthy: Right. As opposed to the statement that everyone detained by Ice has committed a crime, which is, according to United States law, how we define a crime. Untrue. Unless Kristi Noem knows something we don't. Of all the many, many data sets and analyzes I have read, and I will post links to those in the show. Notes the highest percentage of detainees convicted of or charged with a crime that [00:20:30] I could find was in this time period between Trump's inauguration that was in January of 2025 and October of 2025. So total, that was 64%, 64% of detainees convicted or charged with a crime. And that is according to a PolitiFact analysis. But then if you look at who Ice was booking into detention as the year went on, fewer [00:21:00] and fewer people had that criminal nexus, as they say.

Nick Capodice: Hannah, how many undocumented people are there in the United States right now?

Hannah McCarthy: I do not have an exact number for you, but the most recent numbers, this is from the federal government, from state governments show between 10 and 11 million.

Nick Capodice: All right. I have seen reports that say this administration has an internal goal of deporting a million [00:21:30] people a year. Is that true?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, that number comes from anonymous sources in the administration. So who can say? But I can tell you that Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller and DHS secretary again, Kristi Noem, set a target of 3000 arrests a day earlier this year, which would be just over a million people, over 365 days if everyone arrested was detained, which they are not. And if everyone detained [00:22:00] was deported, which they are not.

Nick Capodice: Right. And how many of those people have a criminal nexus.

Hannah McCarthy: That I cannot even begin to tell you? But here is another I can tell you. I can tell you that of the people who were booked into Ice detention last year, who either had criminal convictions or charges, and I bring this up because again, we are talking about what the purpose is here and [00:22:30] the purpose is public safety and national security. Most of them were not charged with or convicted of a violent crime. For the most part, it was either vice traffic violations or immigration violations. And again, because it is not a crime to be undocumented in this country. In that case, we are talking about things like crossing the border without going through the proper channels or being in the country after being deported.

Nick Capodice: So there are a lot of things, nonviolent things, including traffic [00:23:00] violations that could amount to a criminal nexus.

Hannah McCarthy: If you want to better understand, by the way, how low level offenses became a much bigger deal for undocumented immigrants. I warmly again recommend that you go back and listen to our first episode On Ice from 2018. There was a 1996 immigration law that really shook things up. Okay, let's take a break. We're [00:23:30] back. This is civics 101. We're talking about ice. And before we try to further understand what exactly ICE's job is, just a reminder. Civics 101 is a public radio show. We do not receive any funds from the federal government because there is no longer the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. [00:24:00] We rely on contributions from listeners. That is you. If you are someone who is able to contribute to Civics 101 to help keep us going in trying to understand what is going on here, you can always go to our website to make a contribution that is at civics101podcast.org. Every little bit helps. Thank you so much.

Archival: It's the same situation that we've seen happening over the past several weeks since the shooting death of Rene Good back on January 7th, and the shooting of Alex [00:24:30] Preddie one week ago today.

Archival: Minnesota state and local officials are going to try to argue in court that the federal Department of Immigration agents in Minneapolis is illegal. Two separate hearings today will focus.

Archival: To a person to almost a case, with one exception. Every time the judges are saying you have no right to detain these people sort of underscores what we're seeing on the streets.

Archival: Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said. He told President Trump that the city would continue cooperating in what he called real criminal investigations, adding that people should be prosecuted [00:25:00] for the crimes they commit, not where they're from.

Hannah McCarthy: So back to talking about Ice. We have talked about ice before. Things are different now. We are talking about ice again. We are in the midst of an immigration crackdown promised and consistently executed by the Trump administration. The DHS secretary told us recently that everyone who was in Ice detention at the time was a criminal. The government's own data contradicts that. Recently, there has been a move to de-escalate isolated [00:25:30] tension following protests and the killing of American citizens and non-citizens alike in Minnesota and elsewhere. So Nick and I are trying to figure out what ICE's job is, what their purpose is.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, that's what I want to know.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so Ice has been around since 2003. And the big goal from the beginning for this agency within the Department of Homeland Security, a department created in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, was public safety and national security. [00:26:00] As to whether or not that is the actual role Ice plays, that has always been a question, but never a question to the degree that it is today. They have always arrested, deported and detained both criminal and non-criminal undocumented immigrants. But the numbers, the percentages of non-criminal detentions and on the street arrests vary wildly from Barack Obama's administration to Trump's administration, and then from Joe Biden's administration to Trump's second administration. [00:26:30]

Nick Capodice: As in, I'm just spitballing here, based on what we've been talking about so far, the numbers of non-criminal arrests and detentions are higher under Trump.

Hannah McCarthy: That is right. That is an accurate spitball. Both Obama's and Biden's Ice policy had two significant points prioritize terrorists national security threats, violent criminals, and exercise prosecutorial discretion.

Nick Capodice: And what does that mean?

Hannah McCarthy: Meaning, don't go after everybody. Don't get distracted [00:27:00] by the millions of non-criminal, undocumented immigrants. Focus on the ones who pose some kind of safety threat. And it seems that Ice did not like this. In 2012, for example, Obama was sued by Ice agents for preventing them from deporting DACA recipients. Do you remember DACA, Nick?

Nick Capodice: I absolutely do. Deferred action for Childhood Arrivals. It was a policy that protected certain undocumented immigrants from deportation. If they'd come to the United States when they were children.

Hannah McCarthy: Right. [00:27:30] Ice agents said that Obama was stopping them from enforcing immigration law. They also said that his prosecutorial discretion policy made it hard for them to do their job. Now, I do just need to add here that Obama was labeled by critics as the deporter in chief for removing more undocumented people from this country than any other president in U.S. history. Now, reports say that Trump has yet to surpass the numbers under Obama, though he does appear to have loftier goals. So [00:28:00] we will see if that changes. My point is, lawsuit or no, immigration law enforcement was very much in full swing under Obama. Agents and officers were able to do a big part of their job.

Nick Capodice: Hannah, what is their job.

Hannah McCarthy: Well, you know, I guess I would say it's not that much different from any other workplace. What ICE's job is very much depends on what their boss says it is. When Trump was first running [00:28:30] for office, he employed a lot of anti-immigration rhetoric. Now, whether that was exactly what Ice liked about Trump, I don't know. But I can tell you that their union endorsed him for president. And then when Trump first became president, he got rid of that prosecutorial discretion thing. In fact, he decided to leave a whole lot up to Ice agents. They could target not just people who had committed a crime, but those who they deemed to, quote, have committed acts which constitute a chargeable [00:29:00] criminal offense, unquote, or who, in ICE's judgment, otherwise posed a risk to public safety or national security.

Nick Capodice: So essentially, they got to decide who the real threat was, essentially.

Hannah McCarthy: And under the current administration, you can find a lot of Ice policy in the executive order called protecting the American people against invasion. Nick, do you remember Hpsci.

Nick Capodice: Homeland Security Investigations? [00:29:30] Right. In 2018, some of them were like, hey, we are not the same thing as Ice officers. We want to make that clear.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. I want to read you another quote from that letter that they wrote to the DHS secretary in 2018. Again, some agents from Hpsci explained, quote, Hpsci investigations have been perceived as targeting undocumented aliens instead of the transnational criminal organizations that facilitate cross-border crimes impacting our communities and national security, [00:30:00] unquote. In that executive order from Donald Trump that I'm talking about, he writes, quote, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that the primary mission of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations Division is the enforcement of the provisions of the I and other federal laws related to the illegal entry and lawful presence of aliens in the United States, [00:30:30] and the enforcement of the purposes of this order.

Nick Capodice: And what is the Ina.

Hannah McCarthy: That is the Immigration and Nationality Act? I think we should probably do an episode about it.

Nick Capodice: Okay, so here Trump is saying that DHS will make sure that the primary mission of Si is enforcement of illegal entry and unlawful presence. That sounds like targeting undocumented people. The thing those agents were worried about being perceived as doing. Back in 2018.

Hannah McCarthy: Right. In [00:31:00] 2018, there were hpsci agents who were worried that the public, the press and the law enforcement agencies they needed to work with would think that they were doing the same thing as enforcement officers. Now, I don't know enough about Hcy policy or internal direction right now to say for sure, but this executive order suggests that now they are supposed to do the same job. But what that job is.

Nick Capodice: Yes. Hannah, please. What is their job? What is it?

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, there is some language in this executive order [00:31:30] about cartels, human and drug trafficking, transnational criminal organizations. You know, that's the bad stuff, right? Perhaps if you want to find the worst of the worst in here, that is where you find it. But before you get to that section on these people who may be causing harm in the United States, there is this section Trump writes that the executive departments and agencies, quote, shall employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution [00:32:00] of the immigration laws of the United States against all inadmissible and removable aliens, unquote.

Nick Capodice: All inadmissible and removable aliens. And again, to be clear, the penalty for being undocumented in the United States is deportation.

Hannah McCarthy: That is correct. So the term removable aliens applies to all undocumented immigrants in the United States. You know, this is barring [00:32:30] a couple of options you have if you actually get to go to immigration court. But yeah, and Ice is fully, legally permitted to identify, arrest, detain and deport undocumented immigrants regardless of criminal history or charges.

Nick Capodice: So I think, Hannah, if we want to figure out what ICE's job is, we have to ask, in lieu of Congress passing or amending laws, what does the president tell them they should be doing and what they should not be doing?

Hannah McCarthy: Which is why, Nick, this could [00:33:00] be a moment to watch. You know, Trump did replace top Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino, who had been commanding Ice operations in Minnesota with border czar Tom Homan. Now, of course, this is following massive backlash and escalating tensions after the deadly shootings of Renee Good and Alex Preddie. But in terms of that de-escalation, Homan has said that change is contingent on cooperation. What kind of cooperation remains to be seen? Homan has also said that, quote, mass deportation [00:33:30] will continue. The administration seems to be suggesting a possible shift in its approach with Ice. But Trump has not revoked that sweeping executive order that I mentioned. The Department of Homeland Security has not said if or how their operation is changing. One thing that has never changed, though, in terms of ICE's job description, in terms of the way that administrations have talked about Ice, is this focus on public safety? Who and [00:34:00] what Ice is keeping the public safe from and how they go about it? That is not up to the public. That is up to the federal government and to the president of the United States. This episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Marina Henke is our producer. [00:34:30] Rebecca LaVoy is our executive producer. Special thanks to Heidi Altman, the vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, who spoke with me to help me understand this very complex picture. Music in this episode comes from Epidemic Sound. There is a lot that did not go into this episode, but we here at Civics 101 are going to keep trying to understand as much as we can and share what we learn with you. If you have questions for us, you can submit them at our website civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of NPR. New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

What is the Monroe Doctrine?

After its inception in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine was largely ignored. But after a while, different administrations saw the value in maintaining control over the western hemisphere. And notably, it is having a renaissance in the Trump presidency.

So what IS the Monroe Doctrine? How has it been interpreted in various presidencies? And, most importantly, is it legal under international law? Civics 101 regular Dan Cassino takes us from Monroe to Maduro.

⁠Click here⁠ to listen to our episode on the history of Venezuela leading up to America's invasion in 2026.

---

Transcript

Speaker1: The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot.

Speaker2: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued an order to, quote, kill everybody on the vessel.

Speaker1: By a real.

Speaker3: Life Panama Canal is ours. Trump should mind his own business. And all countries have the ability to use the Canal Monroe Doctrine.

Speaker1: We sort of forgot about it. We're very important, but we forgot about it. We don't forget about it anymore.

Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice, [00:00:30] I'm.

Hannah McCarthy: Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: And today we are talking about a 200 year old written statement by a president that didn't really mean much until it did. The Monroe Doctrine, what it was, what it became, how it was used over the centuries, and why everybody is talking about it right now. Stick around.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, Nick, we're talking about the Monroe Doctrine. Let's start with what it is. James Monroe, our fifth president. [00:01:00] Was this something that he wrote? Was it an executive order?

Nick Capodice: All right. Well, I got to set the scene first, Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: All right.

Nick Capodice: It's the 1820s. We got the War of 1812 in a rear view. We've got a national purpose. I'm okay. You're okay. It is the moment in history known as the ERA of Good Feelings.

Hannah McCarthy: In other words, the period when the Federalist Party collapses, the Democratic-Republicans run the show, and seemingly nobody is disagreeing about [00:01:30] anything.

Nick Capodice: Anything at all. And ask your question, Hannah. What is it? This is something written sort of by James Monroe, but it is not an executive order.

Dan Cassino: All right. So 1823, this is the seventh state of the Union address from President James Monroe.

Hannah McCarthy: Dan casino. It has been too long.

Nick Capodice: Every moment a treasure with Dan Casino.

Hannah McCarthy: Is Dan still professor of government and politics at Fairleigh Dickinson University?

Nick Capodice: You know it.

Dan Cassino: Yep. You know, it was fun. I, one of my colleagues, a history professor [00:02:00] got a text from his son and said, wait, do you know Dan Cassino? We heard his stuff.

Nick Capodice: James Monroe gives his state of the Union address in 1823.

Dan Cassino: Remember, state Union is not him giving a talk to Congress. It's. He just writes a letter. They didn't give talks to Congress until the 20th century.

Nick Capodice: Here's what I'm going to note, though. Hannah. It was Monroe's state of the Union. But these words were not written by him. They were written by Monroe's then secretary of State, John Quincy Adams.

Dan Cassino: So embedded [00:02:30] in this very long state of the Union address, he has this little statement where he says that foreign countries, European countries should not get involved in South America or in the Western Hemisphere.

Hannah McCarthy: One more time to make sure I've got it. Europe should not meddle with countries in the Western Hemisphere.

Nick Capodice: Right.

Hannah McCarthy: And what's the follow up to that “Should”

Nick Capodice: What do you mean?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, if Monroe says, don't do this, it seems like there should be some sort of. And if you do, like a consequence dot dot dot.

Nick Capodice: Right, right. It's the sort of thing that should be followed up with or else, you know.

Dan Cassino: But it's not. It's just a period [00:03:30] because America doesn't really have much of an army or navy at this point. So we are just making as a statement of policy, there should be no more colonies in South America.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. But why? What is the problem with European government getting involved in South America?

Nick Capodice: Well, we've got to think in the geopolitical context of the 1820s here.

Dan Cassino: Remember, so America has this revolution. You have the French Revolution. Looks like republics are taking over Europe. But by the time you get to 18, 15, 18, 16, there's been a retrenchment of monarchies.

Hannah McCarthy: A retrenchment [00:04:00] of monarchies.

Nick Capodice: Like the Empire dress and Beethoven piano sonatas. Monarchies are so back.

Dan Cassino: This is right after the defeat of Napoleon, right? And you get Poland. Russia and Austria form this alliance. Pro monarchic alliance. Putting a monarchy back in France. So we are having a resettlement of monarchies. You know, the republican fervor has finally passed and monarchies feel like they're safe going forward. And monarchies are taking back over. [00:04:30] There's a fear that those monarchies are going to try and reconquer the South American countries that had already had revolutions against the monarchy and established republics. The idea we're putting forward here is that these new republics that have been formed in South America should not be reconquered. You shouldn't try and make them back into monarchies because the old world. Okay. You guys have monarchies. We accept that. Fine. Whatever. But the new world should be republics.

Nick Capodice: And again, there is no [00:05:00] or else in there. And what we now call the Monroe Doctrine sort of floats into the mist.

Dan Cassino: So no one pays any attention. Nobody cares because America doesn't have much money, doesn't have much of a Navy. We just got our butts kicked in. The War of 1812 like this is not really much of a statement. We know, like Simon Bolivar hears about this and goes, ah, that's nice, I guess. I mean, like, no one is really taking this seriously. In fact, the only one who takes this seriously is the British, because this is really good for [00:05:30] the British.

Hannah McCarthy: Why is this good for the British?

Nick Capodice: It's good because of one word mercantilism.

Speaker7: The best things in life are free. But you can give them to the birds and bees I want money.

Dan Cassino: We don't talk about mercantilism enough. But mercantilism. All right. Mercantilism is the economic theory that in theory, Adam Smith put an end to. But in practice he did not. That the way you get the strongest and best country The strongest and best economy is by accumulating as much gold as you possibly can. If [00:06:00] you get the most gold, you win. What do you win? We don't ask questions like that, but you win if you get the most gold. So your trade policy under mercantilism is to get as much gold as possible. How do you get gold? You sell stuff to other countries because they're going to pay you in gold. So whenever I sell something in another country, some of the gold, they're gold gets transferred over me and I get their gold at the same time while I'm selling stuff. I am not buying anything, because when I buy something, gold comes out of my coffers and goes to my potential enemies. So my job is to sell as much [00:06:30] as possible and not buy anything, which kind of falls apart when you start to make this economic theory that's applying to an entire continent, because everyone is trying to buy trying to sell stuff and nobody wants to buy anything. So indirectly, this is, of course, what actually leads to colonialism. The idea that I need to find other stuff that they don't have in their country that I can sell to them, so they have to buy it from me. Ideally an addictive substance like caffeine or tobacco or something, opium, whatever. And if that doesn't work, then my colonies work as a captive audience. They have to buy [00:07:00] my stuff. Right. And I get gold from them. So this is a huge deal geopolitically in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Hannah McCarthy: Now, what did Dan mean when he said Adam Smith supposedly put an end to mercantilism, but actually didn't?

Nick Capodice: Yeah. So Adam Smith was a renowned economic philosopher who published a treatise in 1776 explaining why some nations are rich and some nations are poor, and that mercantilism is not the way to go to ensure [00:07:30] success. The short name of this treatise is The Wealth of Nations.

Dan Cassino: In theory, you know the Wealth of nations put an end to this. You know, it was a very definitive proof that this didn't actually work. And the true Wealth of nations is in the bounty and the production of your people. But nobody really bought that for at least another 40 or 50 years. So the British love this idea because all these newly freed Republicans, South America? Well, they're not part of the mercantilist system that the Spanish or whoever [00:08:00] previously owned them are part of. So previously, if Brazil is owned by Portugal, Brazil ain't trading with anybody, right? The British can't trade with Brazil, right. Because they're part of the mercantilist system with Portugal. You know, all the you know, Mexico is with Spain is with Spain. You can't trade with them because they're tied up with Spain.

Hannah McCarthy: So big, powerful European countries like Portugal and Spain, if they take over a country in South America, that makes it a lot harder for Britain to trade with that country, to get stuff [00:08:30] from South America that you can't get anywhere else like bananas.

Nick Capodice: Oh, man. Hannah, we are gonna get to bananas.

Hannah McCarthy: Really?

Nick Capodice: Oh, yeah. But yes, it is easier for Britain to trade with a small, independent republic that needs the money and doesn't have a big whanging army behind it. And remember, at this time Britain has the biggest navy in the world.

Dan Cassino: So the British become the biggest defender of the Monroe Doctrine, basically saying to other countries in Europe, no, no, [00:09:00] no, you can't go back in and reconquer this place and reconquer your your former colony, South America, because the Monroe Doctrine. Right. That's that's the whole thing over here. So the British become the defender of this throughout the 19th century, and the Americans do basically nothing with it.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay. So when does America finally start to care about the Monroe Doctrine?

Nick Capodice: First, a few little dribs and drabs. President James K Polk hints at it a little bit to justify manifest [00:09:30] Destiny and the Mexican-American War, but the rise of the Monroe Doctrine into something that actually affects American policy going forward is in the 1850s. And before we get to that, we've got to take a quick break. We are back. You're listening to civics 101, and we are talking about the Monroe Doctrine. Just a reminder to our listeners. We have hundreds and hundreds of episodes [00:10:00] at our website, civics101podcast.org. Just check it out if you need a refresher on just about anything.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, Nick, you were going to tell me about the point at which the Monroe Doctrine actually started to matter. When does that happen?

Nick Capodice: All right. But first, Hannah, a quick word on the name, the Monroe Doctrine. Here again, is the inimitable Dan Cassino.

Dan Cassino: It doesn't even get called the Monroe Doctrine until sometime in the 1850s. No one thinks about it. No one calls it a doctrine. No one. This is just something Monroe [00:10:30] said until the 1850s, where it becomes starts to get more important. Now, why is it get more important? It gets more important because America gets a bigger army and navy, so we can actually start to do stuff. And so the first time we actually see the Monroe Doctrine actually coming into effect in any sort of recognizable form is the Spanish-American War, where we're going into Cuba and saying, no, no, no, we have this long standing doctrine that we've never enforced before For saying that you, Spain, cannot have Cuba. No one can do this now. During the period between the 1820s and the 1890s, [00:11:00] lots of European powers came in and muddled around South America. I mean, the French conquered Mexico and installed an emperor in Mexico.

Hannah McCarthy: So Spain and France were actually acting against the Monroe Doctrine.

Nick Capodice: They were we said, don't do this. And they just didn't listen.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay. And why didn't we do anything about it?

Dan Cassino: Uh, we didn't do anything about it because it was 1862, and we were a little busy doing other things at the time, but there was not a whole heck of a lot America could do about it because we didn't have an army or Navy, right? We had no way of enforcing [00:11:30] these rules. We'd, in theory, put into place. And again, no one even thought of them really as being rules. Okay, so Spanish-American War, we're going in conquering all of these territories to free them from the yoke of European oppression. And it's Teddy Roosevelt who's, of course, very deeply involved in the Spanish-American War, who puts his corollary, we call it the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine this moment.

Nick Capodice: Hanna, this is a huge yes. And to the Monroe Doctrine. This is how Teddy Roosevelt justified [00:12:00] the war where the US took over Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines. And it also began our protectorate relationship with Cuba.

Hannah McCarthy: And what is the corollary? Exactly.

Dan Cassino: The Roosevelt Corollary is, again, all about economics. His argument is that we as America, we are responsible for the economic and social well-being of the Americas writ large. And what that means in practice [00:12:30] is that if a country in South America is going to default, right, if their trade policy is out of whack and they're going to default, we Americans are going to step in and get things back on track so the Europeans don't have to. The way we're going to keep Europe out of South America is by going into South America ourselves and regulating the economies, regulating the government of South America to make sure that the European powers don't actually have to do that.

Hannah McCarthy: So now it's not just, hey, Europe, stay out of South America. It's we here in the US are responsible for maintaining [00:13:00] the economic stability of South America.

Dan Cassino: Yeah, we're taking over from the British. Now. We want to do all the trade with everyone in South America. Right. And look, there is a real fear that if, uh, you know, Venezuela defaults on its loans, that the British going to come in and invade, because that's what you did at that time. And so we're saying, look, we're going to make sure Venezuela, whoever doesn't default on its loans, their economy doesn't get out of track. They don't nationalize stuff. We're going to make sure that that never happens in order to not give the Europeans an excuse to come in.

Nick Capodice: And here [00:13:30] Hannah, is where we get to the bananas.

Dan Cassino: And you get America becoming very, very active in South America and Central America. And this is because of the expansion of American companies into Central America and South America, mostly fruit companies. You're getting fruit, you're getting sugar and all these things. And so America expands its military presence in South America and Central America to protect American business interests. This actually leads America to a series of wars between about 1920 and 1934, colloquially known as the Banana Wars, and [00:14:00] the Banana Wars are the the truest expression of the Monroe Doctrine, where we just send in the Marines to protect American business interests.

Nick Capodice: So we had just finished the Panama Canal. Trade from South America was now significantly easier, and the US owned a lot of fruit companies down there, namely Dole and Chiquita, then named the Standard Fruit Company and the United Fruit Company.

Dan Cassino: So if you're the United Fruit Company, we're going to invade. We're going to attack. If you're under attack again, [00:14:30] we have to make sure that their economies are being run properly, because if their economies are not being run properly, that would, in theory, give an excuse to Europeans to come in and do something about it. But we're not really worried about that. But we're saying our business interests are supposed to be dominant here in South America and Central America. So therefore we are obliged to do whatever the heck we need to do in order to protect those business interests. Um, the Banana Wars are very, very bloody. I mean, we are talking, you know, thousands of American Marines [00:15:00] are killed in these banana wars. Uh, but that's nothing compared to the tens or hundreds of thousands of Central and South American people who are killed in these banana wars, essentially to protect American business interests and to keep the flow of tropical fruit into America and tropical fruit, sugar in America going strong.

Hannah McCarthy: So this is US owned companies using the American military as protection.

Nick Capodice: Exactly. Before this, a company would and did hire private security firms like the Pinkertons to be the muscle. [00:15:30]

Speaker8: I don't like the Pinkertons.

Nick Capodice: But now you've got the US armed forces.

Dan Cassino: Look, these are colonial economies. These are colonial plantation economies. In a plantation economy, the only people who have money are the people who own land. Right? And everyone else has no money, has no nothing. Because all the wealth comes from land, from owning where the crops are growing. And so it turns out, if you have a bunch of Americans who come in and own all of the land in the country, the locals get a little squirrely about this. They're unhappy, and sometimes you get revolts. And what are these? What are these poor American business owners supposed to do? If you [00:16:00] want to keep the flow of pineapples and bananas going to New York? Well, you call in the Marines.

Hannah McCarthy: The banana Wars ended, didn't they?

Nick Capodice: They did.

Hannah McCarthy: Why?

Dan Cassino: For a couple reasons. The big one being the Great Depression and the buildup to World War two. Like we need those Marines for other things. Weirdly, public support for supporting businesses and supporting business oligarchs [00:16:30] drops during the Great Depression. Like, I don't know, public opinion is not there. Um, and President Franklin Roosevelt's not really as big on this as, like, Calvin Coolidge would have been because, you know, Calvin Coolidge, he'll call it the Pinkertons on anybody on a moment's notice. So Franklin Delano Roosevelt's not as big on this. Knows we're building up to war in Europe. So, you know, these things wind up, you know they die down. So Franklin Roosevelt, you know, basically pulled the troops out and lets the business owners, you know, fend for themselves, which, again, is not really too much of a problem. Private security forces, things like that.

Speaker8: I [00:17:00] don't like the Pinkertons.

Dan Cassino: So we essentially don't need to send the military all over the place.

Nick Capodice: But after World War Two is over, when all the soldiers and the marines and the ships and the tanks were no longer needed in Europe, when the US is embroiled in a Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine has another renaissance. And this time it's not just protecting economies of other nations. It's about ideas.

Speaker9: Like an iceberg. Much communist [00:17:30] activity is out of sight in the underground. But here and there, signs appear.

Dan Cassino: Yeah, we are in the Cold War era, and during the Cold War era, there is a long standing tradition of America intervening in South American countries and South American governments, and this can be seen as an offshoot of the Roosevelt Corollary, the idea that our job is to maintain stability. And just by the 1950s through 1970s, we have redefined stability to mean not socialist. So because socialism is basically [00:18:00] communism, and you know how the domino theory works, if one country goes communist, then they all go communist. During the Cold War, we have to protect South America from socialist governments. And so we oftentimes don't do this with the military anymore. We're going to do this with the CIA because or with other secret means, because we don't want to get the blame for it, because people will be very upset at us if they know what we were doing.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay. As we're starting to get nearer to the modern era. Nick, I have to ask something I should [00:18:30] have asked at the beginning. Is this allowed? Can we invade a foreign country because we don't like their ideals? I know we have done it many a time under various justifications and names, but is this in line with international law?

Dan Cassino: No. Absolutely not. International law going back to the Treaty of Westphalia is supposed to say that you can't intervene in other countries without a casus belli. Um, but we look, we're at this point we're a very powerful country. And that [00:19:00] means international law doesn't really apply to us.

Nick Capodice: And I'm going to come back to that point because it's a big one. But the US continued to involve itself with affairs in the Americas, most notably in Panama in the 1980s.

Dan Cassino: And the arrest of Manuel Noriega in 1989 on drug trafficking charges, which looks very much like recent events. But in that case, we send the Marines. We invade and occupy Panama for a month while we're looking for the guy. So there's lots of times where we're still saying the Marines, but not nearly as much as we were earlier, because we don't really need to [00:19:30] as much as we did before, because we're making sure the governments that in South America are relatively friendly to us.

Speaker10: Multiple explosions and low flying aircraft were seen in Caracas in the early hours of Saturday morning. Maduro's government immediately accused the US of an imperialist attack on civilian and military installations.

Hannah McCarthy: We did an episode a few weeks back on what happened in Venezuela on January 3rd, 2026. We've got a link to that in the show notes. If anyone wants the big picture on the history leading up to the capture of Nicolas Maduro, but I will [00:20:00] just share right here. Donald Trump cited the Monroe Doctrine specifically in justifying the invasion of Venezuela.

Speaker1: The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot.

Dan Cassino: President Trump was very clear about the Monroe Doctrine, as President Trump often does. He talked about as if no one had ever heard of it before. He said, this is no doctrine. It's very big right now. Um, people forgot about it. They're not gonna forget about it again. So, yeah, he absolutely cites it as part of the justification for this.

Speaker1: Under our new national security strategy, American [00:20:30] dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.

Nick Capodice: The doctrine was explicitly called out in Trump's National security Strategy, released in 2025, which announced a quote unquote Trump Corollary, which was to quote, reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere. End quote. The Trump Corollary has been referred to by the Trump administration as the Donroe doctrine. [00:21:00]

Speaker1: They now call it the Donroe document. I don't know, it's, uh, Monroe Doctrine.

Nick Capodice: And it was not just used to justify the Venezuela invasion, but the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico, the proposed acquisition of the Panama Canal, the blowing up of boats in the Caribbean, and also which we're going to have to get to in a future episode as things unfold. I don't even know how to refer to it. The explicit intended taking of Greenland.

Speaker1: And I'm [00:21:30] a man. And by the way, I'm a fan of Denmark, too, I have to tell you. And and, you know, they've been very nice to me. Uh, I'm a big fan, but, you know, the fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn't mean that they own the land. Uh, we had lots of boats go there also.

Hannah McCarthy: Can we get back to what Dan said about international law? That the Monroe Doctrine is not applicable under international law. Because under international law, we do not invade unless [00:22:00] someone threatens or provokes us, or unless that country asks us to. How do we square that? What happens when we ignore international law?

Dan Cassino: This is reflects a very 18th century understanding, a pre-modern understanding of international law. You know, this is, you know, the Greeks during the Peloponnesian War, those who can do and those who can't suffer. I mean, we have power so we can do whatever the heck we want. And this is not the way the modern, rule oriented [00:22:30] post 1945, uh, world system is supposed to work. You have to remember. So in 1945. Right? America, we are the dominant power on earth. Everyone else has been blown to smithereens, partially by us. And what we do, We've got this hegemonic moment where we're the only ones with the nuclear bombs, the atom bombs, like we have everything. And we could use that to become the global hegemon. But instead, what we do is we say, all right, we are going to establish all these international organizations like the UN and all these other things that are going to regulate [00:23:00] trade and regulate international relations. And then we're going to give ourselves a privileged position within those organizations. But everyone gets a voice, and that way everyone will buy in to America being the leader of the world.

Dan Cassino: And we'll be able to maintain this kind of global dominance for much, much longer if we just try and do basically everything we've got. The atom bomb and you don't. Well, in ten years everyone's gonna have an atom bomb, so it's not going to work. But we can build these organizations. Yeah. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Trade Organization, the you [00:23:30] know, the UN, we can build these organizations and that'll extend that hegemony for much, much longer because we'll get everyone to buy into it. And so when we go ahead and abandon, really the rules we set up to deal with exactly this kind of thing. We abandoned those rules. We are giving permission to other people to abandon those rules as well. And that's really troubling, because one thing that's made the world safer in the last 80 years has been this rules oriented, you know, norms based, international organization system. [00:24:00] And when we get rid of that, that causes problems and doesn't cause problems just for other people, causes problems for us.

Nick Capodice: That is the Monroe Doctrine today on Civics 101. This episode is made by me Nick Capodice with you, Hannah McCarthy. Marina Henke is our producer and Rebecca LaVoy, our executive producer. Music. In this episode from The Usual Suspects, Epidemic Sound, blue Dot sessions, [00:24:30] and the tremendous Chris Zabriskie. Civics 101 is a production of NPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

How does asylum work? And what has changed?

On this episode, we’re talking about the history and evolution of United States’ refugee and asylum policy. We have been a country of exclusion for about as long as we’ve projected the image of a democratic refuge. We talk about what it actually takes to secure refugee or asylum status in the U.S. and how that gargantuan task has been made so much more difficult, if not impossible for some, under the second Trump Administration.

This episode features Georgianna Pisano-Goetz, Esq..

---

Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:00] On December 2nd of 2025, US Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a memorandum, the subject A Hold and Review of all pending asylum [00:00:10] applications in all USCIS benefit applications filed by aliens from high risk countries.

Archival: [00:00:17] There's a temporary halt for people coming in from [00:00:20] countries like Afghanistan. And in a cable obtained by the New York Times, the State Department has issued orders to the embassy.

Archival: [00:00:26] Asylum decisions are being halted. This means any asylum seekers attempting [00:00:30] to flee persecution in their country. They'll now be not be granted access into the U.S..

Archival: [00:00:35] He's also promising to expel millions of immigrants already here, revoking their legal status.

Archival: [00:00:39] Wednesday's [00:00:40] attack by an alleged Afghan national President Trump is calling for a stricter crackdown on U.S. immigration.

President Trump: [00:00:45] These are people that do nothing but complain. They complain. [00:00:50] And from where they came from, they got nothing.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:57] This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:59] I'm Nick [00:01:00] Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:01] And today, per usual, I am trying to figure out what is going on. So we're going to be talking about the history and evolution of United States refugee [00:01:10] and asylum policy. We have been a country of exclusion for about as long as we have projected the image of a democratic refuge. We'll talk about what it actually [00:01:20] takes to secure refugee or asylum status in the US, and how that gargantuan task has been made so much more difficult, if not impossible, for some [00:01:30] under the second Trump administration. Stay tuned. Today [00:01:50] on Civics 101, we are covering refugee and asylum policy in the United States, namely what those terms mean, what it takes to achieve that status, [00:02:00] and how far out of reach this has all become in the past year. And to get there, per usual, I spoke with someone who knows a lot more than I do.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:02:09] My name is Georgi [00:02:10] Pisano Goetz. I am a practicing immigration attorney down in Texas, and I'm also an adjunct professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:18] So if Georgie is a practicing [00:02:20] immigration lawyer, does that mean she actually works with asylum seekers?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:25] Yeah. But before we get to the speaking part, Nick, do you know what asylum [00:02:30] means?

Nick Capodice: [00:02:31] Generally, it is when something or someone keeps you safe from something else or [00:02:40] somewhere else.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:42] That's a start.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:02:42] So when students are coming, uh, registering for a class in asylum law, what they're learning about is the protection that the [00:02:50] US and other signatories to the Refugee Convention offer to individuals who are fleeing their home countries from persecution. So they're learning what protections are available to individuals [00:03:00] who have suffered an extreme level of harm in their home country, to the extent that they no longer feel safe remaining there.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:06] So those are the basics. Someone has experienced harm [00:03:10] where they are and they want out. And the United States has a process for that.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:03:15] Ostensibly, we actually derive it from something called non-refoulement, [00:03:20] which is a French word that I'm definitely butchering. Uh, but it means no return. And so it just means that it's a commitment that if an individual is fleeing a country where they're being harmed, [00:03:30] usually their country of origin, that the nations that are a party to this agreement refuse to return that individual to their home country. Asylum goes one [00:03:40] step further and gives them a path to citizenship and some other benefits within the country that they choose to resettle in.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:46] All right. And before we sink our teeth into what that actually looks like, [00:03:50] or I guess looked like will maybe look like again in the United States. Hannah, can we do the briefest of histories here? Because Georgie mentioned [00:04:00] the US signing a convention, which is in this case an international agreement. But from what I know about the immigration system in the United States, [00:04:10] we must have been a little late to the international part of the game.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:14] That we were. Nick, do you want to remind the people of your bona fides?

Nick Capodice: [00:04:17] I do, uh, so I worked at the [00:04:20] Tenement Museum on the Lower East Side of Manhattan for about nine years.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:23] I have been there only once, and it made my archive. Nancy Drew mystery obsessed heart sing. I cannot recommend it enough.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:29] Me [00:04:30] either. Highest recommendation possible. While I was working there, I learned a ton about immigration. And for the purposes of this episode, I learned how the United States has responded to [00:04:40] foreigners during and after global disaster. Which is which is over and over again. We walked back the whole tired, huddled [00:04:50] masses thing. During World War One, we created a literacy test. We banned anyone, quote, likely to become a public [00:05:00] charge, end quote, which is one of a long list of what the United States thinks makes for a good immigrant or a bad immigrant. And we created a quote unquote, barred [00:05:10] zone, which expanded on the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and banned people from almost all of Asia from immigrating to the United States. This [00:05:20] new act of 1917 was passed by Congress. Woodrow Wilson vetoed it, and Congress overrode his veto.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:28] Which is not to say that Wilson was an [00:05:30] open borders kind of guy.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:31] Oh absolutely not. Wilson was totally down with race based exclusion, and very wary of anyone who might just be an anarchist, [00:05:40] socialist or pacifist.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:42] Hello, Red scare number one.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:44] All right. And then, 1921, Warren G. Harding signed the Emergency Quota [00:05:50] Act, which was the first time that the United States had a formula for how many people from what nations would be allowed to emigrate to the United States. We call this now the [00:06:00] quota system, and this got even more restrictive in 1924 when America passed the big one, the Johnson-reed act. This act drastically [00:06:10] lowered the quota numbers, in effect stopping immigration from places like, for example, where my grandparents came from, from Italy, but also from Eastern Europe, other [00:06:20] parts of Asia, etc..

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:21] That was the same year that we created the Border Patrol, by the way.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:24] Yeah. Now getting us back to that refugee convention that Georgie mentioned, because [00:06:30] I know in 1948, after World War Two, we passed the Displaced Persons Act, which sounds like we are opening things up to refugees, but [00:06:40] was actually super restrictive, especially for Jewish Holocaust survivors.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:46] So much so that when Harry Truman signed it into law, he called it, quote, wholly inconsistent [00:06:50] with the American sense of justice, unquote. Because to your point, this act was specifically discriminatory against Jewish displaced persons, despite [00:07:00] the United States having been a key Allied force in World War Two. Key to the downfall of the Nazis, and to the liberation of many of those displaced peoples [00:07:10] from concentration camps. You can't go home. But you sure can't come here. So, Nick, what do you think the United States did when the United Nations [00:07:20] introduced the 1951 refugee conventions, defining the term refugee and laying out refugee rights and standards for international protection. [00:07:30]

Nick Capodice: [00:07:31] We said nope.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:32] We said nope. We did not sign it. We wanted to be in charge of our own policies, especially after World War two. Now, do [00:07:40] you happen to know when we finally did sign on to an international refugee agreement.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:45] That I do not?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:47] 1968, one year after [00:07:50] the UN came up with a revised refugee protocol. The old one was pretty much about European refugees following World War two. The new one took those restrictions away. [00:08:00]

Nick Capodice: [00:08:00] So this one was more broad and we agreed to it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:04] Well, Nick, it was the Cold War. We had already begun to change our approach to admit refugees fleeing communist [00:08:10] oppression in Europe and the Middle East. Then Hungary, then Cuba. Now, to be clear, we still had restrictions, but we were projecting an image. We wanted the United [00:08:20] States to be seen as the leader in the protection of democracy and human rights by agreeing to the 1967 UN protocol. According to then President Lyndon B Johnson, [00:08:30] we would be helping the whole world to accept and stick to those humane standards.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:37] And how does that all square with the Vietnam War?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:39] Well, yeah, [00:08:40] this is, in fact during the Vietnam War, but I would not so much try to square that despite the humane standards thing, the United States military [00:08:50] committed atrocious human rights violations in Vietnam. We were both a cause of the refugee crisis that followed the Vietnam War, and we created a path [00:09:00] for hundreds of thousands of those refugees to resettle in the United States. Contradictions abound here, Nick. Okay. Finally, in 1980, [00:09:10] Congress passed the Refugee Act. This is what gave us the law to abide by that international protocol and codified our refugee [00:09:20] policy.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:21] So smooth sailing after there, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:25] I'll get to that after the break. We're [00:09:40] back. We're talking about refugees and asylees today. Before the break, we crash course covered how we ended up with a refugee and [00:09:50] asylum process here in the United States that is also tied to an international approach to refugees and asylum. And before we get into the processes, there are two [00:10:00] things that you have to keep in mind. One, a lot of what we are about to discuss is currently, as of the publishing of this episode, [00:10:10] suspended. Two even if it weren't.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:10:14] It depends on where you bring your claim. It depends on the country you're coming from. It depends on what the current situation in the country is.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:19] Again, [00:10:20] this is Georgie Pizano, a practicing immigration attorney and adjunct professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:10:26] It depends on who's in charge of DHS. It depends on the attorney in the [00:10:30] room with you. It depends on your client. So it would really depend.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:34] I'm just going to kind of tie all this together, Hannah and Hazard that this [00:10:40] whole refugee and asylum thing depends on factors.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:46] Sure does. And I should say right off the bat, I'm not going to be able to give you the precise [00:10:50] process for any one individual to become a refugee or an asylee because so much goes into the United States decision to grant someone refugee or asylum status, or I [00:11:00] should say in many cases, so much depended. But we will get into that in a bit. Before we can get to asylum, we first should go through the refugee [00:11:10] process.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:11:11] So if you're seeking asylum, you need to show that you meet the legal definition of a refugee, which we see as someone who's fleeing their country because [00:11:20] they have or will suffer harm, rising to the level of persecution on account of a protected ground and those protected grounds. Race, religion, nationality, membership [00:11:30] in a particular social group.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:31] All right. This we laid out before the break. Basically, you've got to be in some kind of specific, provable form of harm's way to [00:11:40] be considered a refugee.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:42] That's right. And even so, I mean, even if it is definitely true that if you were sent back to your country of origin, you will be in some kind [00:11:50] of danger. It is still really difficult to achieve refugee or asylum status in the United States. Remember how Georgie talked about [00:12:00] the principle of non-refoulement? Please forgive me, French speakers. It is the big part of international refugee and asylum law. The thing that prohibits countries from [00:12:10] forcibly returning someone to the place where they face danger or persecution. Well, people are really fouled. This is a complex and difficult [00:12:20] process, but there are processes. And Georgie talked about the two basic pathways.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:12:28] Outside of the US and inside the US. [00:12:30]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:32] If you're outside the US and want to come here as a refugee, or at least this is how it used to go, you could submit an application to the [00:12:40] United States Refugee Admissions Program. Before doing that, though, you generally need a referral.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:46] From whom?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:46] From the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees, or [00:12:50] from a United States embassy, or from some other non-governmental organization.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:55] So some higher power has to know about you and agree that you are, in [00:13:00] fact, a refugee before the United States will decide whether they agree that.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:07] And you almost always need to already have left your country of [00:13:10] origin unless the US president makes a special authorization.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:14] This already sounds both difficult and immensely complicated.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:19] None of [00:13:20] what we're going to talk about today is easy, but what I am describing is probably the easiest of what we are going to talk about. So let's say you get the referral. [00:13:30]

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:13:30] You apply abroad, you go through a vetting process and then you enter the US as a refugee.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:34] Already I'm going to assume that the vetting process is fairly involved.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:39] There is a pre-interview, [00:13:40] a prescreening biographic checks, biometric checks, another interview, a security check, medical exams, making sure you have an agency to sponsor you in the United States. And [00:13:50] then even after you have arrived in the United States, Customs and Border Protection makes the final call on letting you in as a refugee. But then once [00:14:00] you're in, you are a resettled refugee. You can legally work immediately, and you actually must apply for a permanent residency, aka green [00:14:10] card, one year after arriving in the US as a refugee.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:14] Hang on, you don't have to apply for asylum if you go through that process.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:18] Nope.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:19] But [00:14:20] I thought, George, you said you had to meet the legal definition of refugee in order to apply for asylum.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:26] Oh, and you do. And that is another process entirely. [00:14:30] So we just talked about applying for refugee status from outside of the US.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:14:35] Whereas if you are inside the United States or appearing at the border, you then apply [00:14:40] for asylum and you can apply to USCIS. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is considered an affirmative application. Or you can apply [00:14:50] defensively because you've already been placed in court proceedings and you're defending against deportation by saying that you need asylum because you have a fear of returning to your home country. This is a defensive [00:15:00] application.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:00] You can apply for asylum from inside the United States.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:04] Actually, you must be either inside the United States or at a port of entry, like [00:15:10] an airport or border crossing to do so.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:12] And let's say you're already in the country. Does it matter how you got there?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:20] There [00:15:20] are so many. It depends for that one, like the kind of visa you have, or maybe you never had a visa, or your visa is expired [00:15:30] and on and on. Very broadly speaking, if you are in removal proceedings, as in the government is trying to remove you [00:15:40] from this country, you are going to apply for asylum defensively, like in defense of removal, in defense of deportation. If you are [00:15:50] not in removal proceedings, you apply affirmatively. Generally, you have to do this within a year of arriving in the United States. That is something [00:16:00] called a statutory bar.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:02] I think I got it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:03] Well, you see, the thing about asylum and refugee law is that you might think you got it, but you could be wrong.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:16:09] Do you have to have a [00:16:10] lawyer? No. Technically, the process is not built to require a lawyer. Right. You should be able to request asylum in the country you're arriving in, and not need to pay someone thousands [00:16:20] of dollars to represent you in that process. However, is it easier with a lawyer? Absolutely.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:26] More so than any other episode. Nick. This one had me on a research [00:16:30] tear because I just kept thinking, well, what about this situation? Or this one or this one? There are so many factors. There are so many situations. If you [00:16:40] go to USCIS, gov, it is a bevy of you may do this, you must do this, have this form, do this. By this time. There are exceptions to this. This may not apply to you. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera. [00:16:50] So yeah, you know, a lawyer helps, but there's a part of that process that ostensibly should not require a lawyer. [00:17:00]

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:17:00] Which is the affirmative application, which if we want to think of something as being better or worse or easier or harder, the affirmative application is going to be easier. It's not an adversarial process. [00:17:10] You truly do not need an attorney there because there's no prosecutor, you know, grilling you. There's it's not an adversarial process. You're not being tested, so to speak. [00:17:20] So you can apply you file the form, um, the form requires some biographical information from you. It asks you certain questions about harm you've experienced in the past, other countries [00:17:30] you've traveled through. If you've returned to the country, you're claiming harm from those types of things. You typically need to provide some evidence. However, your personal [00:17:40] credible testimony can be sufficient to prove your claim, but it is always helpful to provide evidence letters from people that witnessed the harm you experienced. Identification [00:17:50] certainly documents. If you're applying as a family to prove that you are a family that is related to each other. And then country conditions evidence.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:57] So that is the basic affirmative process. [00:18:00] You're in the country, you apply at the right time. You go through the system and you are either awarded asylum or you're not.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:06] And if you're not.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:08] Well, you're probably going to be referred [00:18:10] to immigration court and go through a defensive asylum process, which is also where many asylum seekers end up when they arrive at the border of the US. So [00:18:20] let's pivot to that. What does that defensive process look like? It's something like this. You show up at the border and you say you are afraid to return to your home. You fear [00:18:30] persecution. You fear perhaps torture. An agent is going to interview you.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:18:35] So there are a couple of different interview stages.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:18:37] There's one that you have to pass to [00:18:40] be placed into immigration proceedings. That usually is happening if you're arriving at the border. And that's the credible fear interview.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:46] Is credible fear different from proving that you're a refugee?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:52] It [00:18:50] is. It actually has a lower bar. That agent is just going to decide whether there is a significant possibility that [00:19:00] an asylum seeker might actually get asylum. From there, you're probably going to end up in immigration court, which means, okay, maybe you could get asylum, but [00:19:10] you are also now defending yourself from removal, hence the term defensive process.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:19:16] The similar sort of process at the courts is that you file your form. [00:19:20] You definitely need an attorney. You don't have to have one. But I would highly recommend having one because there is a prosecutor. You're filing the same sort of evidence, but maybe a little bit [00:19:30] more because you're anticipating the adversarial approach. You do not have an interview, have a hearing where you provide testimony and there's a direct examination, there's a cross-examination. [00:19:40] The attorney from the Department of Homeland Security is asking you about any inconsistencies in your case. The immigration judge is asking you about any inconsistencies in your case or [00:19:50] anything really they see fit to ask you about because asylum is discretionary. So those are the interviews. That's what you are required to do is provide [00:20:00] this form, provide some evidence to support your claims, and then speak on those claims.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:06] If you're defending yourself from removal, does that mean you're [00:20:10] being detained by the government at that point?

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:20:13] Within the courts.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:20:13] We have two processes. One is non detained. You're living at home. You go to your court proceedings, it proceeds, the other [00:20:20] is detained. You're in a detention center. You go to court via video conference and your proceedings move much faster because you're in a detained setting. Any number of other things also happen [00:20:30] in the detained setting. Like I said, sometimes it takes place over video conference. Your ability to communicate over video conference varies. Your access to counsel is much harder to get a hold of somebody from a detention center [00:20:40] for someone to visit you in a detention center, obviously, detention centers are in rural areas. They're in different states. It just really makes it very difficult. [00:20:50] You can ask to be released on bond, which functions similar to a criminal bond. You prove to the court that you're not a danger and you're not a flight risk. The court releases you. You are now in the [00:21:00] non detained proceedings.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:01] There have been a lot of changes to this whole process, Anna, and as you mentioned at the beginning of the episode, a lot of what you're talking [00:21:10] about is currently moot for a whole lot of people.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:21:13] What we are currently.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:21:14] Seeing over the past year is a movement towards detaining every single person [00:21:20] who is in court proceedings, rendering them ineligible for bond, whether or not they are truly ineligible for bond is a legal issue that is being taken up in the federal district court. [00:21:30]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:31] I'm going to get a little more into what is going on right now in just a bit, but I do just want to add that there are so many different things [00:21:40] that can go or were going into this process, and so much of them have to do with whether you know about them, like [00:21:50] finding a lawyer.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:21:51] If you're arriving at the border, you very rarely have an attorney. And there are a couple of different things that can happen. If you are placed in court proceedings, the judge should give you an opportunity [00:22:00] to find an attorney. However, what we're seeing is more and more constraints on that initial entry point. And so individuals are not necessarily [00:22:10] going to court proceedings. They don't necessarily understand their rights at any given point. And, you know, there are certainly individuals who are asylum seekers, who speak English, who have a certain level of education. [00:22:20] But there are also huge groups of individuals who do not have an education, do not speak English, do not speak a language that a border officer might speak like an indigenous language [00:22:30] from Guatemala comes up on the southern border quite a bit. Many indigenous languages, not just one. And so the idea that they then know what their rights are and know to [00:22:40] contact an attorney is slim to none. They're mostly, you know, fleeing from something very serious. And then, uh, anticipating that the country will provide a system [00:22:50] for them to enter into.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:51] Just one point of note here. Speaking English is not a requirement to be granted refugee status. And as you may know, before [00:23:00] March of 2025, the United States didn't even have English as an official language. But going back to the border, even crossing at the correct location is [00:23:10] more complicated than it may seem.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:23:12] It's very important in the United States that you arrive at a port of entry. So like an airport or also physically, there are bridges along [00:23:20] the southern border and probably the northern border as well, although I have not worked at the northern border. And so it is very important to your case process whether or not you entered with inspection or [00:23:30] without inspection. And that means you saw a Border Patrol agent, which you saw at the port of entry. However, if you've lived in another country and you've ever crossed a border, did [00:23:40] it look anything like the United States border? Was there any, you know, clear delineation? Was there a clear office that you had to go to? You know, a lot of people arrive and have no understanding [00:23:50] that they've quote unquote, entered without inspection because they just know that they need to cross the border. And once they cross the border, they will be eligible to apply for asylum.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:01] These [00:24:00] are things that I had not really considered, Hannah, that it's one thing to go through this complicated process. It's quite another to know anything at all [00:24:10] about this process.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:12] And as Georgie told me again and again, it is so totally dependent on your individual case. But [00:24:20] let's say you do actually get awarded asylum. An incredibly difficult thing to do.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:24:26] If you get asylum status, you're then an Asylee and an Asylee [00:24:30] can apply for their green card after one year. Um, and then after you have your green card for five years, you can apply for citizenship. So you get this path. And asylees typically have access to [00:24:40] some benefits. The government partners with non-profits to provide sort of resettlement assistance in the country. Um, however, we're seeing that really shrink, [00:24:50] because that has to do with a private public partnership between the government and the nonprofits. So we're seeing a lot of the resettlement agencies shrink. And so then no one's there to provide [00:25:00] the asylee benefits. However, they are technically entitled to them. And once you have Asylee status, you can be eligible for other forms of social benefits. And certainly once you get your green card, you're eligible for [00:25:10] benefits by benefits.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:11] I should just say Georgie means things like healthcare, social security, child care, benefits, supplemental nutrition assistance. There's also [00:25:20] work authorization, education benefits, travel flexibility like making it easier to enter or exit the United States, and protection from deportation if you follow US [00:25:30] law. I should also point out that green card holders from certain nations are now having their status reviewed, and we will get into that. But generally, why [00:25:40] is all of this so much further out of reach for so many people? Let's dig in after the break.

Nick Capodice: [00:26:05] We [00:26:00] are back here on Civics 101. We've been talking about refugee and asylum seekers vis [00:26:10] a vis the United States. And Hannah, just before the break, you said you were going to finally bring us up to speed on what's going on today in terms of asylum seekers and [00:26:20] refugees.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:21] I did here's Georgie Pizano again.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:26:23] This is certainly a shift away from protection on every front, right, making it harder. People cannot apply [00:26:30] from abroad, making it harder for people to apply at the border, making it harder for people to apply within the United States.

Nick Capodice: [00:26:36] So what is actually happening to people who are trying to [00:26:40] flee their home country and become a resettled refugee, or become an asylee in the United States?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:46] As far as those who apply abroad, the process we described [00:26:50] as incredibly difficult and yet easier than other processes.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:26:53] One of the first presidential proclamations, executive orders, was to end the US Refugee Admissions Program, which was [00:27:00] where you apply for asylum abroad and enters a refugee. So it's not surprising that if the administration is closing the valve abroad, that they're trying to close the valve domestically [00:27:10] as well.

Nick Capodice: [00:27:11] One of the first executive orders, meaning like a year ago.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:15] That's right. Trump first suspended refugee admissions full stop, then [00:27:20] announced the administration would be prioritizing white South Africans for refugee admission, who Trump says face racial persecution in their homeland. South Africa, by the way, denies [00:27:30] this. Trump also lowered the refugee ceiling in terms of how many people would be accepted every year, from 125,000 to 7500. [00:27:40]

Nick Capodice: [00:27:40] Wow. So very few refugees comparatively, and mostly white South Africans, correct?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:48] This also meant that many, though not all, [00:27:50] people who have spent years having their refugee applications processed have now been, at least for now, stranded without a process. The USCIS [00:28:00] has also announced that it will rereview previously reviewed cases of refugees admitted to the United States between January 2021 and February [00:28:10] 2025.

Nick Capodice: [00:28:12] As in people who already went through the whole process that you laid out earlier.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:16] Yeah, we're talking about the people who succeeded. People [00:28:20] who are in the United States legally, who went through the very detailed and very in-depth refugee vetting process, which can take up to three years by some estimations. [00:28:30] The memo announcing this new policy claimed that Biden era vetting was insufficient and led to national security concerns. Five days [00:28:40] after this memo was circulated, two National Guard soldiers were shot by an Afghan national who had come to the United States under a special Biden era resettlement program. [00:28:50] The shooting was then cited in the December policy memo that halted USCIS asylum applications and cited high risk countries, including Afghanistan. [00:29:00]

Archival: [00:29:01] For families who believed their future here was settled, certainty has now shifted to fear.

Archival: [00:29:07] I had a client just just asked the other day for a case that we just [00:29:10] filed. Like, does that mean that they're going to be out of status? Like, is that going to mean that they can be picked up? You know, there's all kinds of fears around that.

Nick Capodice: [00:29:18] Okay. What happened with the [00:29:20] asylum seeking process? Exactly.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:22] Okay. Us Citizenship and Immigration Services, aka USCIS. What I keep talking about has paused the decision making process for [00:29:30] all affirmative asylum applications, regardless of your country of origin. Trump has also issued a pause on all immigration applications, including asylum, from nearly [00:29:40] 40 different countries.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:29:42] Uscis had said that they will not process any applications for asylum or any form of benefit from those countries. You can still apply and the USCIS [00:29:50] cannot, as far as I know, cannot reject your application. They have to accept it if it's properly filed. However, they just won't do anything with it. Like you're not going to get [00:30:00] an interview. There's not going to be a process. That's. Yeah.

Nick Capodice: [00:30:02] And Hannah, you said affirmative applications have been paused. What about the defensive applications?

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:30:09] Any applications [00:30:10] before USCIS have been paused, however. What is going forward before the immigration courts has not been paused. So anybody applying for asylum before an immigration judge is still being processed. [00:30:20]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:20] At the southern border? Agents are also currently engaging in something that has been referred to as metering.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:30:26] Metering is just about controlling the access to territory. [00:30:30] So like I said, you're only eligible to apply for asylum in the United States when you have entered the United States. From a cynical point of view, it's a way to prevent people from entering the United States and barring [00:30:40] them from applying for asylum. From a less cynical point of view, it's a way to control the flow of people at the southern border that it's just too many. We don't have enough people [00:30:50] to process them and to hear their asylum claims and put them into the proper process. Uh, and so we need to control how many people cross the border at a certain point. Um, we saw it under Trump [00:31:00] 1.0, where at certain stretches of the southern border, they were saying turning people away. This is the turn back policy, which is sort of hand in hand with the metering turn back from the border and saying, you need [00:31:10] to come back a different day. We've filled our quota. And then it was sort of haphazard. They maybe had handwritten lists of who could come back, who had an appointment later. There were multiple days [00:31:20] that they didn't accept anyone who didn't have documents to cross into.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:31:25] Georgie explained that this is something that shifted a little bit during the Biden administration with the [00:31:30] CPB one app, something that migrants could use to schedule an appointment. That was unsurprisingly short lived.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:31:37] And now we're back to a little bit of metering. Well, I guess no [00:31:40] metering at all, because no one's being allowed to request asylum at the southern border under Trump 2.0.

Nick Capodice: [00:31:45] All right, Hannah, I also have to ask about arrests and detentions. There have been [00:31:50] so many cases of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, aka Ice, arresting people before or after their asylum hearings. What [00:32:00] is that?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:32:01] Yeah. So this is something that has prompted a lot of public outcry and resulted in people showing up both inside and outside of federal [00:32:10] immigration courthouses to show their support for non-citizens and to protest the presence of Ice agents. To be clear, Ice can arrest and detain asylum [00:32:20] seekers. The targets of these arrests and detentions are ostensibly people who Ice suspects are subject to removal from the United States for various [00:32:30] reasons. Now, some states, like New York, have laws that would generally require a warrant from a judge for an Ice agent to arrest an asylum seeker on their way [00:32:40] to, at or leaving court. Ice has also made, quote, collateral arrests of people suspected of violating immigration law, regardless of whether or not they are the initial [00:32:50] target. Ice also has limited ability to arrest and detain U.S. citizens if they are determined to be interfering with an arrest, assaulting an Ice agent, or [00:33:00] despite citizenship suspected of being in the United States illegally. This is ostensibly how Ice has arrested and detained US citizens, green card holders [00:33:10] and other people in the country legally. Ice agents have dragged, tackled, beaten, tased and shot American citizens recently, killing one Renee Nicole [00:33:20] Good in Minneapolis on January 7th, 2026. There have been hundreds of lawsuits filed against Ice for various reasons, including detention and deportation policies. [00:33:30] Now, in terms of what is going on with asylum seekers and their cases today, I can tell you that detention is more likely if your court case has ended [00:33:40] or been terminated.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:33:41] Certainly, we saw a couple months ago that people were showing up to court in DHS was moving to terminate their cases.

Nick Capodice: [00:33:48] So the Department of Homeland Security was [00:33:50] actually requesting that those cases be terminated.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:33:53] Right. You'd have DHS attorney move to dismiss the case. And Georgie told me that at least in [00:34:00] the past, this could actually be a good thing, a way to turn around and send an affirmative asylum application to USCIS.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:34:08] Sometimes termination can seem like [00:34:10] the best case scenario because you want to go through the affirmative process. However, several months ago, when DHS was terminating these cases, it was to place people in expedited removal. And I don't know [00:34:20] of any list. However, we did see that DHS had internal guidance that expedited removal would apply to anyone who had been in the US for less than two years, and so they were [00:34:30] targeting cases that had just started or were in preliminary proceedings. I should say two years is preliminary, right? Immigration court takes a long time unless you're in a detained [00:34:40] setting. So they were terminating the cases which the non-citizen and maybe their attorney, if they had one, was like, well, great. Like then we can pursue some other opportunities. But it was to put them in this expedited removal [00:34:50] and really limit their access to process, limit their access to an immigration judge.

Nick Capodice: [00:34:56] Expedited removal, meaning trying [00:35:00] to get them out of the country as soon as possible, right? Well, while we're on the subject, Hannah, I've heard of asylum seekers being sent to other countries. [00:35:10] Like, not the country they're fleeing from, but a third country. Is that real? Is that happening?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:35:17] It is. It is done through what is called [00:35:20] an asylum cooperative agreement. Us law does provide for these agreements, provided that an asylum seeker is safe in that third country and has access to a full and fair [00:35:30] asylum process. Now, for a long time, Canada was the only country with which we had such an agreement. We now, according to reports, have those agreements with nations [00:35:40] such as Uganda, Honduras and Ecuador.

Nick Capodice: [00:35:43] Which are, to my understanding, countries from which some people flee to seek asylum in the United States. [00:35:50]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:35:50] They are indeed. Now, in case you're wondering, there are plenty of lawsuits pertaining to so much of what we just talked about. There is so much that remains to be seen, [00:36:00] and there is so much that we did not talk about today, so many other kinds of immigrations of situations for refugees and asylees, so many new developments [00:36:10] all the time. But for now, I think the big takeaway here is that the path is narrow and getting [00:36:20] narrower.

Georgi Pisano-Goetz: [00:36:21] Everything is shrinking. We see that over the years since 1950 that the US moves towards protection or away from protection. [00:36:30] Right. And that's the way that the law shifts in the immigration space in the United States. This is certainly a shift away from protection on every front.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:36:51] That [00:36:50] does it for this episode. It was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Our producer is Marina Henke. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. [00:37:00] Music in this episode comes from Epidemic Sound. If you are seeking more information on asylum, refugee or immigration services in the United States, you [00:37:10] can find some basic information at USCIS.gov. But of course, many of those processes are suspended or halted at the moment. There are also many, [00:37:20] many resources available on the websites of many, many law firms and services available in states around the country. Just do a quick search online with the state that you're in [00:37:30] and what exactly you need help understanding. Because there is a lot more than went into this episode. You can find a lot more Civics 101, including every episode we have ever made at our website, [00:37:40] Civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

What's happening with Venezuela?

Sometimes, we just have to make a "101" episode of Civics 101. That is the case this week, in the wake of the arrest of Venezuela's sitting president by the United States. So, what's happening with Venezuela, Maduro, and the Trump administration's plan to "run" that country?

Listen:

Read the transcript:

Hannah McCarthy: Two days ago I woke up and texted our boss, Rebecca Lavoie, asking if she wouldn’t mind if I swapped out our originally planned episode for something else. She said yes, so I wrote this. Civics 101 was not designed to be a news-responsive show, and it will continue to be the place you can turn for the basics of American democracy, laws and systems, whether they’re in the headlines or not. But we also believe it’s also our responsibility to help people understand what is happening RIGHT NOW. So. Hi, Nick

Nick Capodice: Ohhhh hello. Heads down, thumbs up.

Hannah McCarthy: I’m Hannah McCarthy

Nick Capodice: I’m Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: This is Civics 101. And this is your guide to what is going on vis-a-vis America/Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro and President Donald Trump’s plan. Or at least what we know of it. We are going VERY 101 with this one, because that is why we EXIST. So first, Nick, what just happened in Venezuela?

Nick Capodice: Well, on January 3rd the United States military conducted a “large-scale strike” as they’re calling it. In Caracas, the capital of the Venezuela. As of this point Venezuela is saying that 40 people were killed, including military and civilians. And the U.S. military captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They put them on a plane and brought them to New York. And I know there are federal charges against them.

Hannah McCarthy: Yup. So anyone wondering what’s going on here?

Nick Capodice: I am. Me. 

Hannah McCarthy: I’m going to do my best. Stay tuned.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok. Before we can talk about what JUST happened in Venezuela and what is supposedly going on and what ELSE looks like it’s going on, I think we need to establish something very basic. Venezuela. What do you know about it, Nick?

Nick Capodice: So it’s at the very northern tip of South America, I know that. Next to Colombia. And I know they got a lottttttta oil.

Hannah McCarthy: They sure do, they actually have the MOST. The most oil of any country on earth. As far as we know. 

Nick Capodice: And I know that Donald Trump says the Venezuelan government has been purposefully sending a lot of drugs into America. 

Hannah McCarthy: That is also what the federal indictment against President Maduro says. AKA the thing that the United States is using as justification for having captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and bringing them to the United States. What else do you know?

Nick Capodice: Uh. Well, like you said, the President of Venezuela is Nicolas Maduro. I know that people call him a dictator even though the Venezuelan government is technically a constitutional republic. Like it’s got three branches, executive, legislative and judicial. And I guess the last big thing that comes to mind is Chavez? 

Hannah McCarthy: Oh yeah. Hugo Chavez sure does come to mind. Actually, it might make sense to start there. Who was Chavez?

Nick Capodice: Also someone people call a dictator? He died in… 2013. Former president of Venezuela.

Hannah McCarthy: And right off the bat I’m also going to tell you that there are also people who call Chavez a hero. And to get to Maduro, and not all that much to drugs, to be honest, we have to talk about Chavez. And we have to talk about oil. Those oil reserves you mentioned, the same oil President Trump is now promising to “take back,” those made Venezuela one of the wealthiest nations on the planet for a while. Their economy was almost entirely dependent on oil.

Nick Capodice: Did you know that’s called a petrostate? Or a petrocracy? The world wants oil, a country has oil, a LOT of oil, oil becomes their main thing and that causes problems.

Hannah McCarthy: It sure does. Power concentrates, corruption spreads. But before things went bad, Venezuela had all this oil, giant oil corporations like Exxon, Mobile and Chevron were down there playing a major role. And then the country went through decades of attempting to nationalize the oil industry.

Nick Capodice: Meaning what?

Hannah McCarthy: Meaning, essentially, Venezuela wanted to take control of operations and keep as much oil money in the country as possible. But also there was a little problem in the 1970s and 80s re: oil. Any guesses?

Nick Capodice: OH yeah. The energy crisis! Long lines at the gas station in that hazy 1970s sunshine. Which was caused by a lot of things. Like war.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, if you want an episode on the energy crisis drop us a line cause it’s not happening right now. But Venezuela was going through a lot of political changes, the government wanted to nationalize oil operations to gain economic sovereignty aka be the ones in charge of the stuff that makes the money. So this combination of taking control and super low oil prices by the 1980s leaves Venezuela in a pickle. Also, taking over the oil industry left them in BIG TIME debt to American oil companies who either got the heck out of dodge or struggled to negotiate new contracts AND who wanted to be recouped for their lost oil pipelines and rigs. That is a debt Venezuela has struggled to pay off. Also the U.S. imposed sanctions on Venezuelan oil, which I am also not going to get into, but which made it harder to sell that oil. And make money. To pay back debt.

Nick Capodice: Ok, take a breath and hang on. When Trump says Venezuela STOLE our oil… is that true?

Hannah McCarthy: No. Venezuela owns its own resources. Foreign companies negotiate contracts with the government in order to have oil operations there. Or, if the government and the industry is in turmoil, they fail to negotiate contracts. Which is what happened to U.S. companies in the past.

Nick Capodice: Uh huh. Ok. And the political turmoil part?

Hannah McCarthy: To the PoliSci and history professors listening, I am sorry for this broad brush. The broadest brush I got. This is my broad Chavez brush. The oil stuff was a mess, the government was blamed, the economy was in trouble, people were hungry, there were riots, a military officer named Hugo Chavez attempts a coup. He goes to jail. He gains a lot of support. He’s let out of jail and runs for president, promises to end poverty, corruption and the old political system. He wins.

Nick Capodice: And he stayed in power for a long time, right?

Hannah McCarthy: Chavez was elected in 1998. And uh oh, my brush is getting broader. Chavez says the people are in charge and have ultimate power. Like more power than the legislature and more power than the Supreme Court. And BASICALLY, Nick, BASICALLY, there is a constitutional convention with delegates who are almost entirely Chavez supporters. They change the constitution. They fire and replace the Supreme Court. The legislature loses its power.

Nick Capodice: Is this why people call Chavez a dictator?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, this is why people call Chavez a hero and this is – BROAD brush – why people call Chavez a dictator. Also, Nick, the way people in the U.S. talk about Chavez is not necessarily the way that everyone talks about Chavez. The new Constitution was chock full of human rights, supports for impoverished people, supports for workers. It also made the president very powerful. And Chavez was in power for a long time. And while he was in power, the economy got worse and worse. There was a lot of corruption. There were, as it turns out, a lot of human rights violations. The oil industry was a mess. And then in 2013 he died and Nicolas Madura stepped up.

Nick Capodice: Oh, ok, we’re on to Maduro?

Hannah McCarthy: We’re on to Maduro. Rolling right along here, because, again, what on earth is going on right now, right? That’s the point here. Chavez wanted Maduro to be his successor. Maduro wins a tight election, so tight that his opponent calls for a recount, that recount does NOT happen. 

Nick Capodice: Uh oh.

Hannah McCarthy: Maduro is not Chavez. Chavez was beloved by many. He was super charismatic. He led a sweeping regime change and told the people that THEY were in charge. Maduro inherited a collapsing economy and opposition to his leadership. He cracked down on protests and killed people. In 2018 he was declared the president again in an unopposed election, but a lot of countries refused to recognize that as legit. Maduro jailed or exiled opponents. In 2024 he claimed to have won again, despite evidence that his opponent, Edmundo Gonzalez had won. More political prisoners ended up jailed.

Nick Capodice: But all of this, Hannah, is not why the United States captured Nicolas Maduro. All of the political oppression.

Hannah McCarthy: No. Maduro was captured, after months of the United States conducting strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug trafficking boats and killing over a hundred people, on the grounds of that federal indictment we mentioned earlier. That indictment accuses Maduro, his wife and four others, of narco-terrorism.

Nick Capodice: Which, I mean, I can guess, but for the people in the back?

Hannah McCarthy: So Maduro is accused of flooding the U.S. with thousands of tons of cocaine to get himself and others rich and acquiring and using things like machine guns to do it.

Nick Capodice: Is that true?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, there’s gonna be a trial, isn’t there. There’s the truth and then there’s the American legal system. Experts say that Venezuela plays a minor role in trafficking drugs that reach the U.S.. Most of the trafficked drugs come from countries like Mexico, Ecuador, Guatemala or Venezuela’s neighbor, Colombia. 

Nick Capodice: But we didn’t capture the leaders of those countries.

Hannah McCarthy: Nope, we captured Maduro. 

Nick Capodice: Why were we allowed to do that, exactly?

Hannah McCarthy: “Allowed” is tricky, because U.S. intervention of this kind has long been scrutinized, criticized and challenged. There are people saying this is an illegal kidnapping. We have, by the way, captured foreign leaders in the past. A lot of people are comparing this one to the U.S. capture of Manuel Noriega, you remember that one?

Nick Capodice: That’s Panama, right? Under George H.W.?

Hannah McCarthy: That’s the one. Noriega was a military dictator in Panama, he was accused of drug trafficking, among other things. The United States captured him in 1989. He was tried and he was imprisoned. The difference THERE is that Panama had declared itself at war with the U.S. prior to Noriega’s capture. Prior to Maduro’s capture, the Venezuelan president told a journalist that he wanted to work with the U.S. on drug policy and oil agreements.

Nick Capodice: And just real quick, back to this “allowed” thing. How is it that the U.S. can just go in and grab someone? There’s gotta be some kinda something under that.

Hannah McCarthy: Well first I’ll tell you that this is almost certainly a violation of international law. There’s a United Nations treaty that says you can’t use military force against other countries without that country’s permission, the U.N.’s permission or in self-defense, none of which appear to apply here. BUT U.S. presidents have claimed they have constitutional powers that, basically, float above or outside of national law. That’s how Nopriega’s capture was justified. I’ll also tell you that Trump is saying that the Monroe Doctrine is one of the reasons the U.S. can do this. Although he is now calling it the “Don-roe” Doctrine.

Nick Capodice: Yeah I think I heard that one. The Monroe Doctrine I sort of know. It was the 1800s.

Hannah McCarthy: 1823.

Nick Capodice: And it was basically a deal that said the U.S. will stay out of European conflict and issues if Europe stayed away from countries in the Western hemisphere.

Hannah McCarthy: Which, by the way, European nations initially were like, ok, whatever Monroe. When France put an emperor in Mexico in the 1860s, the U.S. was like get outta there and eventually they did. THEN Theodore Roosevelt comes in with the Roosevelt Corollary.
Nick Capodice: The what now.

Hannah McCarthy: Roosevelt thought the Monroe Doctrine should also mean we can go in and get involved in unstable Latin American countries. Which, ultimately, is how the U.S. scored the Panama Canal Zone. And this principle of using the Monroe Doctrine to help out American interests – and I don’t mean interests like keeping drugs out of the country – is the way that a lot of experts are viewing what is going on with Venezuela right now.

Nick Capodice: I mean, ya know. Oil DID become a talking point pretty much right away. 

Hannah McCarthy: Something to keep in mind here is that “Western Hemisphere” part of the Monroe Doctrine. 

Hannah McCarthy: Trump is now suggesting that Colombia needs to watch its back. 

Hannah McCarthy: Secretary of State Marco Rubio is suggesting that Cuba is in play as well.

Hannah McCarthy: The Cuban government, by the way, has issued a statement telling all nations of the region to “remain alert, as the threat hangs over all.”

Nick Capodice: Well. Ok. We’ll just keep watching, I suppose. And because we are not clairvoyants all we can do right now is talk about Venezuela, right? Because I have one really big question.

Hannah McCarthy: Go for it.

Nick Capodice: President Trump said the U.S. is going to run it. Run the country of Venezuela. Explain that one to me.

Hannah McCarthy: Well, Nick, I can’t, really. And Trump hasn’t either. What he has said is that, if Maduro’s Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, “does what we want” we won’t have to send U.S. troops into Venezuela to help run the country.

Nick Capodice: Ok, but Hannah, run the country.

Hannah McCarthy: I know. Experts don’t see a legal basis for it. The phrase “violation of international law” is coming up a LOT lately. As of now, Marco Rubio seems to be the one who will be helping the “run the country” thing if necessary. Trump said Rubio talked to Vice President Rodriguez and that she was “willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.” Rodriguez, meanwhile, is saying the U.S. illegally kidnapped Maduro and said Venezuela will never again be the colony of another empire.

Nick Capodice: And the oil thing seems to be THE thing here. Trump talked a LOT about oil.

Hannah McCarthy: Trump has said U.S. oil companies are going to go and spend billions of dollars to revitalize what is currently a crumbling oil industry in Venezuela. And then get reimbursed and make tons and tons of oil money. How that is supposed to happen without a stable government or the ability to guarantee employee safety – that we don’t know. That and a lot else.

Nick Capodice: Right, well. You did your best, McCarthy. I think we gotta leave it there for now.

Hannah McCarthy: I think we gotta. Would you call all that a 101?

Nick Capodice: Definitely not.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. I know. Maybe 201?

Nick Capodice: Eh.

What is the filibuster?

Why does it take, in practice, 60 votes for a bill to pass in the Senate? Why doesn't it seem like anyone is up there talking for days anymore? And why do we even have it in the first place?

Today is all about the filibuster; from its benign origins to its use and misuse, the arguments for and against it, and what it would take to eliminate it entirely. Our guest is Molly Reynolds from the Brookings Institution.

To learn about the tumultuous back and forth between the federal and state government in Little Rock, here's our episode on Federalism.

And here is the full, 88-page transcript of Strom Thurmond's day-long filibuster. 

---

Transcript

Nick Capodice: Um. How long? How long do you think you could do it if you had to do it?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, if I were super, super dehydrated and had, like, a million blow pops. Mhm. Ten hours. Because I've gone three hours straight talking at conferences and stuff. Right.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. So what would you talk about if you had to just fill those hours?

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, I have so many monologues and poems memorized. [00:00:30] I would just I would just go through them all and then I would do that, uh, pilot trick where, like I would say, uh, in between.

Nick Capodice: I think that after I got through Kubla Khan and The Cremation of Sam McGee, I think it'd be kind of fun. Just sort of speak on any subject whatsoever. Just talking and talking in one long.

Speaker3: Unbroken sentence, moving from topic to topic so that no one had a chance to [00:01:00] interrupt. It was really quite hypnotic.

Speaker4: Would you like them in a house? Would you like them with a mouse?

Speaker5: I am not on China, G.

Speaker4: I do not like them in a house. I do not like them with a mouse.

Speaker5: China. China. China. China. China. Five, China.

Speaker6: I would go for another 12 hours to try to break Strom Thurmond's record. But I've discovered that there are some limits to filibustering. And I'm going to have to go take care of one of those in a few minutes here.

Nick Capodice: You're [00:01:30] listening to civics 101 Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: And today we are talking about a uniquely American institution, the filibuster. What it is, its history, how it has changed over the last 200 years, and finally, arguments for and against it. And I gotta get it out of the way first. Hannah, we've got a little content warning today.

Hannah McCarthy: For the filibuster.

Nick Capodice: For the filibuster. This episode acknowledges the existence of urine and the need of all humans to get it out of their [00:02:00] system, sometimes using a bucket.

Speaker7: I don't think you need that.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so before we get into the history, let's remind everyone what the filibuster is in the modern era. How does it work?

Nick Capodice: All right. We'll get the basic part out of the way before we dive into the tangles. And there are so many little tangles. So real quickly for a bill to pass in the House or the Senate, it needs a majority.

Hannah McCarthy: Which in the Senate is 51 votes.

Nick Capodice: Yes. But [00:02:30] in that time, between a bill coming to the floor for a vote in the Senate and the vote itself, there is a period of deliberation and debate, and that liminal space is where the filibuster lives.

Molly Reynolds: The idea here is that the Senate lacks a way to cut off debate, sort of stop talking about something and move on to a final passage vote. Um, with a simple majority of senators, there's no way under the [00:03:00] Senate's rules for that to happen. There's also when someone is speaking on the floor of the Senate. No way to get them to stop talking.

Nick Capodice: This is Molly Reynolds.

Molly Reynolds: My name is Molly Reynolds. I am the vice president and director of the governance studies program at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C..

Nick Capodice: So a rule was created in 1917. I'll get more into it later. This rule, though, is called cloture. If a certain number of senators agree, debate is ended, that Senator stops [00:03:30] talking and the bill comes to the floor for a vote.

Molly Reynolds: So two thirds is the original threshold in 1917. The current version of the rule, with 3/5 of the Senate chosen sworn. So it's 3/5 of the Senate's membership, which actually kind of important because it means that if you are in the majority and you're trying to invoke cloture, you actually need all 60 of your votes there. But if you're in the minority, there's not [00:04:00] the same pressure to sort of show up and vote no every time you're trying to, um, to deny, deny a cloture motion.

Hannah McCarthy: Wait, so the minority, the side doing the filibuster, they don't all need to be there. But the very hard to achieve supermajority wanting to stop the filibuster does.

Nick Capodice: Yes. And this has led to a lot of theatrics over the years. You know that scene in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington where Jimmy Stewart is filibustering and the room is pretty [00:04:30] empty and he calls for a quorum?

Hannah McCarthy: Of course.

Speaker9: Bring the call to quorum. Call the quorum.

Speaker10: No hurry, Mr. President. I got plenty of time.

Nick Capodice: If a majority of the Senate isn't there in the room, a senator may call a quorum. Senate rules are that they do a roll call to make sure. And if the bodies aren't there, they may direct the sergeant at arms to request and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent senators.

Hannah McCarthy: What [00:05:00] exactly does compel entail? How far could that go?

Nick Capodice: It's rare for it to get really physical, but it has happened. Republican Senator Bob Packwood was dodging quorum during a filibuster in the 1980s. He locked the doors of his office. The sergeant at arms unlocked it using a skeleton key. Then Packwood held his body against the door. The sergeant busted the door open, injuring Packwood's hand, and eventually a bandaged Packwood [00:05:30] was carried in feet first to the Senate chamber.

Hannah McCarthy: Did it work? Did cloture get invoked after he was dragged in there?

Nick Capodice: No. Funnily enough, no. Cloture is really hard to enact. It only gets invoked about half of the time. And before we leave quorum, there's a story of a young state legislator who famously jumped out of the window to dodge quorum after they'd locked the chamber doors. Do you have any guesses who would do this, Hannah? I'm going to give you a hint. Reporter [00:06:00] said he wasn't injured in the fall because, quote, his legs reached nearly from the window to the ground.

Hannah McCarthy: What was it, Abe Lincoln?

Nick Capodice: Honest Abe. Uh, and apparently he did it again a few years later.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so the filibuster is just a little bit odd. Notwithstanding the jumping out of windows, this idea that someone can stop legislation by talking and talking, where did that come from? Is [00:06:30] it in the Constitution?

Molly Reynolds: So the filibuster was not. It's not in the Constitution. It was not part of the founders original vision for the Senate. The emergence of the filibuster was made possible in the early 19th century, when the Senate and sort of it was actually a simple housekeeping matter removed from its rules, a provision that would allow a simple majority to end debate. This was not sort of purposeful or strategic. They were simply trying to streamline the rules. And so when they took [00:07:00] out this option for ending debate with a simple majority, no one really thought that this is what was going to happen.

Nick Capodice: This provision was removed at the behest of one Aaron Burr, who was the vice president in 1805. And he just thought it wasn't needed. He had no idea that it would evolve into the stickiest sticking point in the legislative process.

Hannah McCarthy: Where does that word come from, by the way? Filibuster?

Nick Capodice: Yeah, it comes from the Dutch freebooter, which basically means freebooter. [00:07:30] Like a pirate.

Hannah McCarthy: Like a pirate? How? Like a pirate.

Nick Capodice: Someone who plunders and robs with no regard to the law, just freebooting all over the place. And the practice of filibustering is old. So no other country does the filibuster the same way we do. They do have filibusters, but they operate differently. But this idea of stalling legislation by talking and talking, it goes back to ancient Rome. Cato would talk [00:08:00] until the sun went down to infuriate Julius Caesar. But initially in the United States it was very rarely done.

Molly Reynolds: But then, during the 19th century, filibusters started to become a regular feature of the Senate as a way for opponents of particular things that were on the Senate's agenda to try and engage in obstruction.

Nick Capodice: First famous one was in 1837. The Whigs filibustered to prevent Andrew Jackson from expunging a censure. And [00:08:30] then in 1841, there was a battle of filibusters on the topic of creating a national bank. Whig Senator Henry Clay moved to make a rule to end debate. And then Democratic Senator William King said he would filibuster that rule until the cows came home, and that Clay, quote, may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the entire winter. End quote.

Hannah McCarthy: So filibustering had caught on.

Nick Capodice: It had. And after half a century we finally get some closure. [00:09:00]

Molly Reynolds: In 1917. So the early 20th century, it sort of reached a point where you had a majority in the Senate with the backing of President Wilson, who were sufficiently frustrated by an obstinate minority that they adopted the first version of what we now call the cloture rule, which at that point allowed two thirds of all senators present and voting to cut off debate on, [00:09:30] um, a pending measure.

Hannah McCarthy: This is where cloture comes from.

Nick Capodice: This is.

Hannah McCarthy: It. And initially it was two thirds of the Senate, not 3/5.

Nick Capodice: Yeah it was that's 64 out of 96 senators as we were only 48 states back then.

Hannah McCarthy: Did they successfully invoke cloture to arm those ships?

Nick Capodice: Uh, nope. The first successful cloture wouldn't be invoked until a couple years later in 1919. Then this whole period from the 1920s leading up to the 1970s, it's sort of [00:10:00] when the filibuster had its day in the sun, and it's not surprising that it is tied to one of the most contentious eras in US history.

Speaker11: This is little Rock Central High School, approximately two hours before the school is scheduled to open its doors for the fall semester. There are approximately 200 National Guardsmen.

Speaker12: State troopers sends 500 troops of the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army to Little Rock by night. They are to keep order and to see that the [00:10:30] law of the land is obeyed.

Hannah McCarthy: By the way, if anyone wants to know more about little Rock, Governor Faubus, President Eisenhower and all that, we have got a link to our episode on federalism in the show notes.

Nick Capodice: So in the wake of the court's ruling in Brown versus Topeka Board of Education, a group of Southern Democrats fervently opposed the desegregation of schools and one of the most ardent opponents to desegregation was South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond. [00:11:00] In 1957, the Senate proposed a Civil Rights Act. This is the first civil rights act since 1875 to protect the voting rights of Black Americans. Now, this bill was assured to pass. It had the votes. But Thurmond objected and filibustered the bill.

Hannah McCarthy: Were there enough senators who were for the bill to invoke cloture?

Nick Capodice: There were not. At this time cloture needed 66 votes and they just didn't have him.

Hannah McCarthy: So how long did he talk?

Nick Capodice: Strom [00:11:30] Thurmond talked for 24 hours and 18 minutes.

Speaker7: How?

Nick Capodice: Well, the guy prepped this guy. Filibusters. He took steam baths leading up to it to dehydrate himself.

Hannah McCarthy: There you go. You got to be dehydrated.

Nick Capodice: And when he was in the third hour, Senator Barry Goldwater asked to interrupt the filibuster for a procedural diversion in which Thurmond ran out to use the bathroom real quick after that, just in case a bucket was reportedly [00:12:00] kept in the cloakroom of the Senate so Thurmond could technically hold the floor with one foot in the Senate and the other in the cloakroom. But apparently the bucket wasn't necessary.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, so he did not have to use the bathroom again, is what you're saying?

Nick Capodice: No, he didn't he didn't have to use the bucket.

Hannah McCarthy: So what did he talk about?

Nick Capodice: Well, after initially talking about why he opposed this bill, he went on to read the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's letters. And in what might be the least [00:12:30] clicked on link I've ever put in the show notes, I've got one down there for the full 88 page minuscule font transcript from the Congressional Record.

Hannah McCarthy: So I know you have to stay standing and you can drink water. Are there any other rules for filibustering?

Nick Capodice: Technically, you're allowed to have water or milk, but honestly, the rules aren't really strictly enforced. Strom Thurmond was brought glasses of orange juice, and he munched on little pieces of cooked hamburger and ate malted [00:13:00] milk drops. Also, senators slept on cots during his filibuster to avoid a call to quorum. And then a day later, a full day later, it was done.

Hannah McCarthy: And the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was passed.

Nick Capodice: It was, but this happened again. Southern Democrats joined up to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stopping all business in the Senate for over 75 hours.

Hannah McCarthy: So [00:13:30] when did the big change happen from cloture requiring two thirds to 3/5?

Nick Capodice: That would not happen until the 1970s.

Molly Reynolds: The current way that the the rule works dates to 1975. And that's about that's also about the point that we started to see the filibuster used really routinely. There's a longer for more of American history. It was used more sparingly and in 1975, in part because in [00:14:00] a separate rule change, the Senate also basically allowed for what we call dual tracking, which is the idea that more than one thing can be pending at once. It sort of reduced the cost of engaging in a filibuster, because you weren't actually holding up all of the other business. If you were demanding that the majority get to 60 votes in the current moment, we don't really see senators actually have to go to the floor and hold the floor in order to engage in a filibuster.

Hannah McCarthy: Wait, [00:14:30] so a filibuster does not need someone talking anymore?

Nick Capodice: No, not at all. Once the Senate agreed to this dual track procedure, you're not stopping the business of the Senate when you filibuster, so it's kind of pointless.

Hannah McCarthy: So what happens now?

Molly Reynolds: We've gotten to a point where both sides see The most effective way to navigate this tension is to have one side say, we're going to demand [00:15:00] that you get 60 votes and the other side say, okay, we're gonna try and get 60 votes. Either way, we're going to succeed or we're going to fail. And the demands on senator's time has led us to a place where everyone feels like they're better off with a system where we expect the supermajority, but we don't actually force the filibustering senator or senators to hold the floor.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, so let me make sure I have the new process. A bill is proposed [00:15:30] in the Senate. Someone in the minority party threatens a filibuster, but they don't actually do it.

Nick Capodice: Nope. They don't. If any senator wishes, they just tell the head of their party that they want to hold a bill.

Hannah McCarthy: And is that public information? Do we know which senators are responsible for stopping particular bills?

Nick Capodice: We do not know. It is usually anonymous. It is a silent filibuster, and once that happens, debate stops. Consideration of the bill stops. And [00:16:00] if there aren't 60 votes to pass cloture, the bill just kind of goes away. This is the norm now. We have gone from a few cloture invoking every year to hundreds.

Hannah McCarthy: So why, Nick, why do we continue to do it this way?

Nick Capodice: Well, I'm going to lay out the arguments for and against the filibuster, as well as breaking down exactly how it can be changed if it gets changed, including the nuclear option. But first, we're taking a quick break. We're [00:16:30] back here on Civics 101 talking about the filibuster. And I'm not going to take steam baths to opine on it for 24 hours. But our show exists because of listener support. So please consider making a tax deductible year end gift to keep us running at civics101podcast.org.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, Nick. So is there anything that cannot be filibustered, as in, it is so important [00:17:00] that it kind of dodges the whole thing?

Nick Capodice: Uh, yes, there is. There is one major kind of bill, a reconciliation bill. These are bills that change mandatory spending and revenues. Reconciliation bills are not subject to the filibuster. And our procedure knowing friend, the Senate parliamentarian is the one responsible for sniffing out those non-budgetary elements of a bill and having them removed before they continue. But there are other [00:17:30] things that can't be filibustered, and these additions are relatively new. Here again is Molly Reynolds.

Molly Reynolds: We have seen over the full sweep of history, a real kind of slow chipping away at the filibuster. And a couple of really pivotal points in this history came in first in 2013, when Democrats held the majority in the Senate, and they were sufficiently frustrated by sustained Republican obstruction over judicial [00:18:00] nominees to the the lower courts that they used the nuclear option to reduce the number of votes needed to end debate on judicial nominees to the district courts and the circuit courts.

Hannah McCarthy: Can we just go over the term nuclear option? Where did that come from?

Nick Capodice: Trent Lott Mississippi Senator Trent Lott coined the term nuclear option in 2003. And here is how the nuclear option works. First, let me say again, there is nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster [00:18:30] or pretty much anything we've talked about today. It is all in the rules of the Senate.

Hannah McCarthy: So theoretically, the Senate could change those rules at any time.

Nick Capodice: They could honestly eliminate the filibuster tomorrow if they wanted.

Hannah McCarthy: How many votes does it take to change the rules, though?

Nick Capodice: Two thirds have to agree to do that, which is 66 votes.

Hannah McCarthy: That's a.

Nick Capodice: Lot. It is. But there is a workaround. A simple majority can raise a point of order and say, for this kind of bill or nomination, [00:19:00] 51 means 60. And the presiding officer says, no, that's against the Senate rules. And the majority says, well, we're going to appeal that. It's against the rules. And that appeal only needs a majority to win. And a new precedent is set. This is the nuclear option. And again, it was first used to confirm lower court appointees.

Speaker13: Senate Democrats voted yesterday to change the rule that allowed Republicans to block presidential appointments. Senators [00:19:30] will only be allowed to filibuster Supreme Court nominations.

Molly Reynolds: So that happened in 2013. And then in 2017, Republicans in the majority and wanting to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, made a similar change using a similar tactic.

Speaker14: Senate Republicans have changed the way the chamber confirms Supreme Court nominees from the 60 vote threshold to a simple majority, saying they're going back to business as usual. Before Democrats started requiring that 60 vote threshold [00:20:00] for judges years ago. Republicans insist the Democrats effort to block the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch is all about payback. Democrats say Gorsuch is a nominee for a stolen Supreme Court seat, citing Republican refusal to consider then President Obama's choice last year.

Molly Reynolds: So one thing that happened this year, um, again, sort of working through this same, uh, basic setup of changes to the precedence, is the Senate made it easier to confirm a whole bunch of nominees all [00:20:30] at once. The overall story here about procedural change in the Senate is one of kind of tit for tat. So one party is in the majority wants to do something, gets really frustrated by the minority for long enough that then they're willing to change the way the Senate works to get the thing that they want.

Hannah McCarthy: And Nick, the shutdown that we just got through this October, was that tied to a filibuster?

Nick Capodice: It was because the shutdown was about an appropriations bill. And while they sound similar appropriations [00:21:00] bills, which are discretionary spending, not mandatory spending, are not the same as reconciliation bills.

Molly Reynolds: One really important thing that Congress does every year is pass appropriations bills. That's what funds large parts of the federal budget, lots of really important services that Americans rely on paychecks for active duty service members, scientific research funding, lots and lots of things that Americans associate with with the federal government to pass those bills in the Senate does require [00:21:30] getting over that 60 vote threshold. You can filibuster appropriations bills. And so when we had the government shutdown starting on October 1st, and Democrats position was for most of the shutdown, that they were not going to negotiate with Republicans unless Republicans were willing to make a certain change to health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, something that was sort of separate from the appropriations process itself. Republicans said, we're not going to do that.

Speaker15: But on the short term issue of the people who [00:22:00] with the subsidies and that's going to expire at the end of the year, will you have a vote on the issue as you're 13 Republicans, frontline Republicans, people that are that you're the speaker because of them? Yes. They're in districts that are vulnerable. Sure. Will you have a vote so they can vote?

Speaker16: The very people that you were citing in the letter believe we have to have real reform. So what I'm what I'm committed to and I have all along this has never changed.

Nick Capodice: And all of this, all this has led to the discussion that comes up every few years. What if what [00:22:30] if we just got rid of the whole thing?

Molly Reynolds: And so there was some pressure, honestly, from folks both on the right. So from President Trump.

Speaker17: It's time for Republicans to do what they have to do. And that's terminate the filibuster. It's the only way you can do it. And if you don't terminate the filibuster, you'll be in bad shape. We won't pass any legislation.

Molly Reynolds: And there were a number of sort of Democrats on the left who would also like to see the filibuster go away, who said, you know what? Let's just do [00:23:00] it. Let's just rip off the band aid, get rid of the filibuster, have the government reopen with a simple majority of votes, eliminate the ability to filibuster these kinds of spending bills. That's, in fact, not what happened. President Trump has been sort of beating the drum on eliminating the filibuster since his first term. I think this is in large part because there are things that he would like to see Congress do that they can't do with, with filibuster in place, even when Republicans control both the House and the Senate. [00:23:30] I think on the Democratic side of the aisle, there are some folks who see the filibuster as really limiting what Democrats can do when they have unified control of Washington. And so they would also ultimately like to see it go away.

Speaker18: I don't want to hear any Democrat clutching their pearls about the filibuster. We all ran on it. I ran on that in my so like, that's yeah.

Molly Reynolds: But there were enough senators sort of still in the middle, uh, who said, no, no, we don't want [00:24:00] we don't want to change the way the Senate works. Certainly not worth changing the way the Senate works to do this particular thing. If we're going to do if we're going to make this change, it's got to be for something that's more important to us than just reopening the government.

Hannah McCarthy: This brings me to my last question, Nick. Why do we still have it? I've heard the arguments that the filibuster forces consensus. It makes people reach across the aisle to get something done. But here we are, as we so often say, in an era of hyper polarization, [00:24:30] there's not a lot of acquiescence to the other side. So what's stopping the Senate from ripping off the Band-Aid?

Molly Reynolds: I think the reason we still have the filibuster is because individual senators find it useful to their own sort of power and policy goals. So particularly if you are a more moderate member of the Senate in the majority, having the filibuster allows you to sort of shift blame and say, you know, there are things that the more [00:25:00] extreme members of my party want to do, and we can't do them because the filibuster is in place.

Nick Capodice: Let's say you're a senator who lives in a state, and that state is really opposed to marijuana legalization. And the head of your party says, come on, buddy, you're going to vote for this. We're going to make it legal, and you know that you will get primaried in the next election if you vote yes on legalization, because your state's against it and the filibuster saves you here. You don't have to answer to anybody. [00:25:30] You just wash your hands of it and say, well, filibuster. Nothing I can do.

Molly Reynolds: One thing that the filibuster creates is a scenario where you have parties that go out and campaign for election and say to voters, if you elect me, if you elect other members of my party, we're going to do X, Y and Z, and they make these promises and then they get into office. And the filibuster is really limiting what they can do, and they can't deliver on to their voters in the same [00:26:00] way that they said they would be able to when they were running for election. So it creates this sort of democratic legitimacy question, and it it makes it harder for parties to actually do the things they've promised voters that they said they would do.

Hannah McCarthy: Does Molly think we're stuck with it?

Molly Reynolds: I do think it's going to go away someday. I think the story of the filibuster over American history is that we're on a long, slow march to majority rule in [00:26:30] the Senate, and it's a case of at some point in the future, a party is going to have unified control in Washington. There's going to be something it really wants to do that it can't do with the filibuster. And that will be sort of the moment that it's willing to make a change, and we just haven't quite reached that point yet.

Nick Capodice: Well, [00:27:00] that is the filibuster. Wait, before we end, I've always wanted to do this. There are strange things done in the midnight sun by the men who moil for gold. Wait, what's the one you know that you have memorized?

Hannah McCarthy: The winter evening settles down with smells of steaks and passageways. 6:00.

Nick Capodice: Yours is much better. This episode was made by me. Nick Capodice with You Hanna McCarthy. Thank you.

Hannah McCarthy: Thank you. Our staff includes Rebecca LaVoy, our executive producer, and Marina Henke, our producer.

Nick Capodice: Music. In this episode from Epidemic [00:27:30] Sound blue Dot sessions, Azura and the musician. Loved by a supermajority of podcast makers Chris Zabriskie.

Hannah McCarthy: Civics one one is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

The Lottery: How it happened, and what it pays for

The lottery generates over $70 billion in revenue each year. Today on Civics 101 we explore how we got here; from failed lotteries in the Revolutionary War to the Golden Octopus to the Numbers Game to a Mega Millions ticket from your neighborhood shop. Where does all of that money GO? And why are states so dependent on them in the first place?

Taking us on this madcap journey are two experts on the lottery in the US; Kevin Flynn (author of American Sweepstakes) and Matthew Vaz (author of Running the Numbers).

Also, we're in a friendly competition with our friends at Outside/In as to who can raise the most sugar during our year-end fund drive. Push us over the edge with a small donation today and you'll get a really cool sticker!

lottery FINAL FINAL.mp3: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

lottery FINAL FINAL.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Nick Capodice:
And a quick note before this episode on the lottery, which is one of those things you think isn't really a civics topic, but then it ends up being very much a civics topic. Uh, I want to jump in and share with you all that we have done over two hundred and fifty episodes of Civics 101. And it feels like we haven't even scratched the surface. There are dozens of departments Supreme Court decisions, cabinet positions, legislative powers that need to be explored. This show was created to address your questions about our government, how it works, but we need listener support to answer those questions. Make your year end tax deductible donation at Civics101podcast.org and you'll receive a very snazzy civic sticker, as well as our eternal thanks. Help us at Civics 101 Demonstrate and HPR that a show like ours with a cause like ours is a worthy investment. All right, onto the episode.

Kevin Flynn:
There's always been a lottery.Do we agree with old man Warner thatThe lottery should be continued simply because there's always

Nick Capodice:
Been one as Oklahomans try to strike it rich? They also invest in Oklahoma's future? Or do we

Speaker3:
Object with Tessie that the whole thing just isn't fair,

Hannah McCarthy:
Isn't right? And so people who buy tickets thinking, Hey, I'm helping education, do you think they're really doing as much as they think they are? They they believe they

Kevin Flynn:
Are, but they're absolutely not benefiting education.

Speaker3:
Whatever else Shirley Jackson has done in her story, she has certainly given us a memorable image.

Hannah McCarthy:
We're not talking about that lottery, are we, Nick?

Nick Capodice:
Well, as every English teacher in America knows Hannah. The morning of June 27 was clear and sunny with the fresh warmth of a full summer day.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right, I'm going to put the kibosh on Shirley Jackson from the outset, although I will say that short story is all about hyper local government. But I do want to ask you with all seriousness, what does buying a ticket and maybe winning millions of dollars have to do with U.S. governmental systems? Why are we doing a civics episode on the lottery?

Kevin Flynn:
Because I'm an awesome guy. No, that isn't the right answer.

Hannah McCarthy:
Wait is that Kevin?

Nick Capodice:
It is. I'll let him introduce himself here.

Kevin Flynn:
My name's Kevin Flynn. I'm a former journalist and author, and I wrote the book American Sweepstakes; How One Small State Bucked the Church, The Feds and the Mob to usher in the lottery age.

Nick Capodice:
So we've got to do a whole mess of full disclosure here. Kevin Flynn is indeed a writer, podcast host, TV and radio journalist

Hannah McCarthy:
And dear friend.

Nick Capodice:
And.

Hannah McCarthy:
And he's married to our executive producer, Rebecca Lavoie.

Nick Capodice:
He sure is. But we were in a civics one one production meeting, talking about the lottery and its intersection with the government, and we learned that Kevin had written a book on it. And so we had to have him on the show.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right now, we got that out of the way. Did he give a reason on why civics listeners should be interested in the lottery?

Kevin Flynn:
It's a great question. The lottery is just a big part of state government these days.

Hannah McCarthy:
How big?

Nick Capodice:
Big, real big. You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice,

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm Hannah McCarthy

Nick Capodice:
and today we are talking about the U.S. lottery. How it started, ended, started again. How much money it makes and where that money goes.

Hannah McCarthy:
Now, Kevin said lottery is a big part of state government, but does every state in the U.S. have one?

Nick Capodice:
Almost almost. Mississippi was the most recent state to adopt a lottery. They started selling tickets in 2020.

archival:
Scratch off tickets for the very first time, And Mississippians can take a shot at winning without Having to leave the state.

Nick Capodice:
Five states do not have a lottery. Alaska, Hawaii, Utah, Alabama and Nevada.

Hannah McCarthy:
So when did this all start? Like, what was the first lottery?

Kevin Flynn:
Oh, we have always had lotteries in civilization, right? Lotteries go back to the Bible, right? In the Old Testament. It was, you know, casting lots was the way that a lot of times the the will of God was divined. King Saul was selected because of a drawing of lots. Do you remember when the apostles were down a man where they were down to 11 guys for some reason?

Hannah McCarthy:
Down a man, as in after Judas Iscariot died?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah.

Nick Capodice:
There were two candidates to become the new Twelfth Apostle, and they cast lots, it means they threw sticks of different lengths on the ground to see who it would be, and it ended up being Mathias. And OK. That's more Bible than civics 101 has ever had. And maybe it's just so I could use clips from Jesus Christ Superstar.

You want me to do it!

Nick Capodice:
But let's move on.

Kevin Flynn:
The Great Wall of China was financed some repairs that were financed by the Chinese for an early version of Keno. I think they called it the the white pigeon game.

Nick Capodice:
The roads to Rome, Hannah, were paid for by raffles. And to finally wend our way towards America. The Jamestown settlement in Virginia, the first permanent English settlement in the Americas, was financed with a lottery.

Hannah McCarthy:
You're kidding me

Kevin Flynn:
So you could say America really is, you know, the the child of a lottery. Part of the Continental Army was financed through a lottery. George Washington wanted to raise $10 million to pay for the Revolutionary War in the Continental Army through a lottery. So, you know, it was always it's something that's been around, you know, since since people had money.

Nick Capodice:
I want to add, by the way, that lottery in 1776 to help pay for the Revolutionary War failed utterly. They didn't come even close to raising enough money. Congress printed a hundred thousand tickets, but they only sold around 30000. So to pay for the war, they just printed a bunch of money instead and borrowed a lot from France. But what's important is that it set a precedent for other lotteries in our new country to help pay for infrastructure like roads and bridges.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right now, this is where it starts to become a civics conversation, right? Armies, roads and general infrastructure costs usually fall into the purview of government expenses. So why is a lottery involved at all?

Nick Capodice:
A lottery is a way to get money for something when you don't have the power or the political interest to tax people. If you want to build a covered bridge and you don't have the money in your state budget to do it. Having a lottery to build that bridge where the winner gets some of the money from the lottery tickets and the rest goes to building the bridge; that might get you reelected, whereas raising taxes might not. So from our nation's founding up to the eighteen forties over the whole United States, hundreds and hundreds of lotteries were springing up to pay for stuff. And when you have a lot of lotteries, you start to also get a lot of rigging of lotteries to pick winners.

Kevin Flynn:
So it's just, you know, when you deal with a lot of cash like that, you know, sharpies are going to come in and do what they do. That's a lot of sugar. Nick, there's a lot of sugar there. It's funny because, you know, let's go to like the the mid eighteen hundreds. Lotteries ended up getting kind of a stink on them in in public, not illegal, but in a nation where cockfighting and duels and poker games are considered gentlemanly. It was lotteries that, you know, started to get a bad name, in part because no, no poor person ever died in a duel. Right? That was that was the lotteries ended up democratizing gambling.

Hannah McCarthy:
So rich folks are gambling left and right. But the one form of gambling that working class Americans can participate in gets a bit of stigma.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, and is often the case. In these instances, somebody just went a little too far. The biggest lottery in America in the 19th century was called the Louisiana Lottery Company, and it was huge. It was nicknamed the Golden Octopus. Its hands were everywhere. People all over the country played it. Over half of the mail in New Orleans was lottery tickets. And what the company did is they paid 40 grand each year to a charity hospital, and they got to keep the rest of their profits tax free. There was a staggering amount of corruption. Bribes got paid to reps in state and federal legislatures all over the country. So in response, the federal government passed a bill banning the sale of lottery tickets in the mail. So the Louisiana lottery company moved to Honduras. And finally, in eighteen ninety five, all lotteries in the United States were banned. And that's it.

Hannah McCarthy:
This is making me think of prohibition. Ok, right? You've got something that's legal. Highly profitable. Very popular, very prevalent. And then it's made illegal. And I would say that just with booze, but with a lot of things in history, what history has shown us is that when you then make it illegal, it rarely, if ever actually goes away.

Nick Capodice:
Naturally.

Hannah McCarthy:
And I know that the lottery didn't go away because I grew up in Massachusetts, and I know that I can walk outside and I can buy a ticket. So how did we get from the banning of the golden octopus to lotteries being run in most states?

Nick Capodice:
We get there via something called the numbers.

Matthew Vaz:
OK. You know, once upon a time, it's not a good way to start, right?

Nick Capodice:
I counter that once upon a time is always a good way to start. And this is Matthew Vaz. He's a professor at City College of New York, and he wrote a fascinating book called Running the Numbers, Race Police and the History of Urban Gambling. So once upon a time, there was a popular illegal game called policy,

Matthew Vaz:
And it involved betting on several two digit numbers between one and seventy two. The odds are a little complicated, but it offered a way to make a small bet on a number of guess and come out with a decent amount of money. If you win, you could bet a dollar, and maybe in some situations you could win two hundred dollars. But the winning numbers were generated by the spinning of a wheel, so to speak, and maybe sort of draw out almost like a pulling a ping pong ball out of a barrel kind of a thing.

Nick Capodice:
But the problem with policy was that like all lotteries beforehand, they could be rigged. The person picking out the ping pong ball could cheat and grab one with their friend's number on it. And they did. But a new system was born in Harlem in the 1920s,

Matthew Vaz:
And most people believe that it was a man named Caspar Holstein, who was an immigrant to New York from the West Indies, developed a new method for arriving at winning numbers. He came up with a game that is typically called the numbers that involves placing a bet or on a guess of what the last three digits before the decimal point will be in a massive number generated by some far off uncontrollable institution. And so what they initially use was was an institution called the New York Clearinghouse, right? It's a financial institution that sort of clears money from different banks, and millions of dollars would pass through it every day.

Nick Capodice:
And at the end of the day, they'd publish how much money went through that clearinghouse. And the last three digits of that number were the winning numbers.

Matthew Vaz:
So we could say today 12 million four hundred and eighty three thousand two hundred and twenty one dollars and sixty nine cents pass through here. And the last three digits before the decimal point were two one two two one, right? And that's a number that no man on the street can manipulate or control it. And it is in essence, almost a random number, right?

Nick Capodice:
You'd make your bet with a numbers runner and this is important. You would pick what your numbers were. People chose lucky birthdays, favorite numbers, holidays, whatever, the odds are one in a thousand that you'll win, and the payout was usually 600 bucks for a dollar bet.

Matthew Vaz:
And it becomes a very, very popular form of gambling first in the Black communities of New York. It displaces that older policy game. People basically abandoned playing that because this game is simpler. The payouts are better and it in effect cannot be rigged, right? It cannot be manipulated. And it becomes popular in most of the major cities along the East Coast, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Baltimore. And eventually it spreads well beyond the Black communities of those cities and becomes popular among working class whites. Organized crime figures start to muscle in on the game, particularly after prohibition is over, and there's a kind of violent contestation over who's going to control the game. Is it going to be the mafia or is it going to be Black gamblers that had set up this game initially?

Hannah McCarthy:
Well, this I remember from our episode on Mapp v Ohio Right that somebody bombed Don King's home in Cleveland, Ohio, over a fight to control the numbers racket. But I also remember and we talked about this when we were making that episode that the numbers were about community institutions.

Nick Capodice:
Right, right. The people who ran the numbers, they lived there in those neighborhoods, in that community, and the payout, it wasn't a million dollars and it wasn't two dollars, it was six hundred dollars. And the reason I bring that up is Matthew asked me if I'd ever won two bucks on a scratch ticket, which I have

Matthew Vaz:
If you win that four dollars or that $2 prize. What are you going to do with it?

Nick Capodice:
What are you going to do with it?

Hannah McCarthy:
Probably buy more scratch tickets.

Matthew Vaz:
You're going to buy two more. Exactly right. It's like, Oh, nice, I want give me two more of those, right? But if you're playing with old fashioned numbers game and you win six hundred dollars, what are you going to do with that, right? Something, you know, something better. It's something... You're going to catch up on your bills or whatever it is. You know, it's going to move you along a little bit.

Hannah McCarthy:
I imagine that state legislatures which had this history of using gambling to fund projects, we're taking a good hard look at the numbers, games and asking, how can we get some of that?

Nick Capodice:
How can we get some of that, as Kevin would say, how can we get some of that sugar, which they certainly did, but it wasn't going to be an easy road to that pot of municipal gold. We'll get to the legalization of lottery and where the money goes right after the break.

Hannah McCarthy:
But first, if you want a lotto fun extra civics tidbits in your life, subscribe to our newsletter Extra credit. It's every two weeks, and since it's free, it's not even a gamble. Just click the newsletter button at our website civics101podcast.org.

Hannah McCarthy:
We're back and you're listening to civics one on one now, just a quick reminder that our show depends on the generosity of our listeners to keep running and instead of us having a lottery, we just ask that you donate whatever you feel is fair at civics101podcast.org. The odds are not the same that you will win a mega million jackpot, but they're almost the same. And speaking of a mega million jackpot, Nick, how did we get from a federally banned activity to a pastime in which millions of Americans participate?

Nick Capodice:
The shift to a legal lotto starts in nineteen sixty three in a state famously opposed to taxes, none other than the home state of Civics 101, New Hampshire. Here's Kevin Flynn again.

Kevin Flynn:
Well, in New Hampshire, there was a there was a state representative named Larry Pickett who thought that a great way to raise money for state causes was would be to hold a sweepstakes, and it was finally signed into law by Governor John King. And this immediately set off a whole bunch of reaction in the state and across the country.

Hannah McCarthy:
Wait, so the lottery was illegal federally?

Nick Capodice:
Yes, it was.

Hannah McCarthy:
So is this kind of akin to states across the country decriminalizing marijuana, even though at the federal level it's still a Schedule one drug and totally illegal?

Nick Capodice:
Hannah, that analogy to marijuana legalization is more apt than you can possibly imagine because and I'm going to try to make this quick You and I can't really understand just how scandalous it was for a state to legalize the lottery in the U.S., the FBI was involved. It was considered a national moral outrage. And to jump to the present, the path towards marijuana legalization, from the blatant racial disparity of who got arrested for it to the national outcry against it and states discovering how much money can be made from it, taxing it to it, becoming legal in many states to purchase. But in some of them, you've got to pay for it in cash. Every bit of it is note for note out of the lottery legalization playbook. But back to New Hampshire in the nineteen sixties, one way they got around it is that it wasn't a lottery per say. Even though we're going to call it one, it was technically a sweepstakes.

archival:
The race is incidental to the sweeps excitement that has raised two and a half million dollars for New Hampshire's educational system.

Nick Capodice:
So instead of drawing a number on a ping pong ball and winning some money, a sweepstakes ticket holder was paired to one of two hundred and thirty two racehorses. And if that horse was picked to run in a race and then that horse won that race, you won a bunch of cash. And people across the country freaked out.

Kevin Flynn:
Well, the lottery ended up being a big scandal, and almost every newspaper in the state was against it. They had like some really great quotes, and this is where I hope the folks from Civics 101 get a montage together of people reading these headlines like old timey newspaper people like now. Be a good time to start playing that music, Nick. I'm just I'm just like setting you up to spike this ball. Ok?

archival:
As either New Hampshire Uncle Sam so hard up that this shabby dodge is the only way out. What's happening in New Hampshire at the hands of politicians shouldn't happen to a dog. Scandalous experiment. Moral bankruptcy.

Nick Capodice:
There was one quote that was in favor of the lottery in New Hampshire. It's by the newspaper publisher Bill Loeb, who said, "No one has to go to the track and bet, no one has to smoke tobacco. No one has to drink. But how do those who oppose the sweepstakes propose to raise the money, either a sales tax or property tax or some other kind of levy that people will have to pay?" And New Hampshire did it. They sold lottery tickets, and people from all over the country came to New Hampshire to buy them.

Hannah McCarthy:
That's how much the country wanted a lottery.

Nick Capodice:
But the thing was it was against the law to take lottery tickets across state lines back to where they lived. So New Hampshire found a workaround.

Kevin Flynn:
So what New Hampshire did in order to sort of get around the Gambling Paraphernalia Act was that the tickets would stay in New Hampshire. People would get a carbon copy like a receipt. They called it an acknowledgment, so it would prove to somebody that, yes, they had purchased the ticket and you couldn't have put somebody else's name. You couldn't resell the ticket. But the actual ticket, the one that would be drawn, would stay in New Hampshire.

Nick Capodice:
And this actually ended up in the United States Supreme Court in a case called U.S. V. Fabrizio. Anthony L. Fabrizio, the appellee, knowingly carried in interstate commerce from Keene, New Hampshire, to Elmira, New York. Seventy five acknowledgments of purchase on a sweepstakes race of the state of New Hampshire, and he lost that Supreme Court appeal.

Kevin Flynn:
I found out later on that it was common knowledge that there was at least one U.S. Supreme Court justice who had purchased a sweepstakes ticket at the time that they heard the case.

Hannah McCarthy:
Seriously.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy:
Do you know which one.

Nick Capodice:
I can't say, Hannah.

Kevin Flynn:
I can't tell you which one. I can't tell you which one, but you'll know him when you see him. If you're picking up what I'm putting down.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right, so once New Hampshire has the ball rolling, what is the next state to follow suit?

Nick Capodice:
The New Hampshire sweepstakes was a bit of a strange one-off. The Empire State came next. Here's Matthew Vaz again.

Matthew Vaz:
But in New York, which is the second lottery and becomes much more of a kind of national template, right? Because when New York does something, the rest of the country pays close attention. That that debate in New York, which happens over the course of nineteen sixty five and sixty six, is much more centered around the problem of illegal gambling.

Nick Capodice:
New York legalizes the lottery in nineteen sixty six and then a bunch of other states do the same, but they can't compete with these illegal numbers games that we talked about earlier. And one of the reasons is is that unlike the numbers game in the lottery, you couldn't pick your own numbers. That was it. You couldn't pick birthdays or holidays or your kids age.

Hannah McCarthy:
We're such a superstitious bunch.

Matthew Vaz:
Essentially, these state lotteries don't rest until they figure out how to get to that numbers clientele, and it takes them a number of years as New Jersey that first figures out the technology, right? Like, how do we set up something that will allow people a network that allows people to guess the number rather than just receive the number? That first New Jersey game was called pick-it

archival:
until then. This is Dick LaRosa saying Thanks for watching and playing Pickit

Nick Capodice:
And Matthew told me the lottery was a pretty sleepy thing for 13 years until they indeed did figure out a way to let people pick numbers after which sales quadrupled in four years. And here we are.

archival:
In the United States, tens of millions of people are clinging to a little piece of paper and a lot of hope. That's because tonight someone could become hundreds of millions of dollars richer.

Hannah McCarthy:
Are there still local numbers games, albeit underground in cities?

Nick Capodice:
There are not much, honestly. And part of that is due to the astronomical payout of the big lotteries. How can six hundred dollars compared to 600 million?

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, I've always wondered this, and I'm going to guess that the answer is fairly straightforward, but in terms of those massive payouts? How is that possible? Like, how much money does the lottery itself actually make? Because you have to staff this operation, right?

Nick Capodice:
I have some stats from 2015. So first, as a comparison, corporate income taxes in 2015 generated forty nine billion dollars. State lotteries generated $67 billion dollars.

Hannah McCarthy:
And did all of that money go back into the states?

Nick Capodice:
No, not all of it. And this answers your question. Forty two billion went into prizes. That's how they have such big jackpots. Three billion went to advertising and administration of the lottery, leaving about $21 billion that went back into the states.

Hannah McCarthy:
Now where does that money go? I've heard that the lottery supports, for example, education in a lot of states.

Nick Capodice:
Did you ever see The Simpsons where there's like, it's like a massive lottery?

archival:
One big winner. Our state school system, which gets fully half the profits from the lottery. Just think what we can buy with that money. History books that know how the Korean War came out. Math books that don't have that basic 6 crap in them.

Matthew Vaz:
Oh yeah, it can be argued both ways, right? And you know, I would say to you that that it varies state to state. Ok. Different states have a different arrangement for where that money goes in New York. There is a fallacy that it goes to education. Well, only in the most only and the most sort of symbolic sense does it go to education. Which is to say the state education budget in New York is determined by a formula. Right?

Nick Capodice:
As a hypothetical Hannah with wildly inaccurate numbers, let's say New York set its education budget at a million dollars and the lottery has a great year and has $750000 left over.

Matthew Vaz:
That doesn't mean that the state is now going to give one million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars towards education. The state is still just going to give a million dollars to education, but the lottery had a big, huge year, and that means that if we take now, we can take that seven hundred fifty thousand dollars that came in for the lottery and we're moving from education and just spend it elsewhere in the budget, right? The phrasing is it's a substitute, not a supplement

Kevin Flynn:
In nineteen sixty four. New Hampshire made five point seven million dollars, selling three dollar sweepstakes tickets. Right before the sweepstakes, New Hampshire was the forty fifth state as far as money that the state put towards education. And then, after the sweepstakes, New Hampshire was forty fifth among 50 states as to what it put towards local education.

Matthew Vaz:
Furthermore, once something becomes a kind of structural element of the budget, then it cannot be reduced, right? The only way to reduce it is to cut the good itself, the schools or the hospitals or whatever it's supporting, which nobody wants right or to continue to support schools and hospitals where there's only one way to do that and that is taxes, right? And you see how literally impossible it is. Raising taxes is is a blood sport in American politics, so you are in effect, committing yourself.

Hannah McCarthy:
I know the odds of winning a big jackpot are slim, but just for curiosity's sake, how slim are we talking? How far am I from becoming a multibillionaire?

Nick Capodice:
There was a Big Mega Millions jackpot in Florida in January of twenty twenty one. It was $750 million. The odds of winning it are one in three hundred and two million. Statistically, you are ten times more likely to become the president of the United States than that. But that sum, that number, that staggering sum, you can't ignore that kind of a payout.

Matthew Vaz:
I'm drawn in by the magnetism of this vast, obscene sum of money that has attracted me to this game. And so I'll play my dollar right. And lottery executives used to use the joke is like most, most players think, there's really the odds are 50 50. Either I win or I don't write, you know? You know, and in some ways, that is a kind of true feeling of, Hey, let me try, you know, either I win or I don't write. And you know it, it speaks to a kind of mentality for how we organize our society. Like, are we all just sort of slowly kind of taking our turn, winning a modest sum of money? Or are we willing to sort of assume that we're never going to win on the infinitesimal chance that if we do, we're going to be hyper rich?

Nick Capodice:
There is an expression that lotteries are quote a tax on the poor, and I don't want to go too much into that expression, but I want to make two points related to it. First, yes, Americans and lower income brackets spend more money on lottery tickets. But second, these games are marketed towards people with less money. The ads for lotteries are not aimed at wealthy Americans, and their slogans are things like New York Lotto. All you need is a dollar and a dream. A survey from 2006 found that one in three Americans who make less than twenty five thousand a year think the lottery represents the most practical way for them to accumulate significant savings.

Matthew Vaz:
You know, it speaks to like our ideas about distribution of of of wealth and inequality. It's like, Look, I'd rather have. I'll skip having a decent chance of winning a modest sum in favor of having an infinitesimally small chance of having a grossly outrageously large sum of know six hundred and seventy million dollars, right? And it tracks very closely with the with the time period of like where inequality becomes a disaster in American life since the late nineteen seventies.

Hannah McCarthy:
That fantasy that you won't win enough money to just pay off your student loans or put a down payment on a car, but you'll win enough to buy an island and a helicopter to get you to that island and all of that because you spent a dollar on a lottery ticket. I mean, nonexistent odds are not. That is a tempting dream.

Nick Capodice:
And back to the civics part, for state budgets, this influx of cash from people buying these lottery chances, these fantasies. It is a dream come true. You know what, if I could just add one more tidbit that I find fascinating? I'd forgotten completely about this. The people who win those massive jackpots, they end up having to pay about 37 percent of their winnings back to state and federal government for income tax.

Kevin Flynn:
If you want to say gambling is bad for individuals, can't necessarily argue that, but the people really addicted to lotteries are the states that run them that rely on the revenue. They're the ones who are really addicted to the lottery.

Old Man Warner:
There's always been a lottery.

Nick Capodice:
That's it. Did any of you out there get Kevin's sly hint as to which Supreme Court Justice bought a ticket? Brag at us on Twitter at Civics 101 Pod? I'm going to put the answer in this week's newsletter, which you can subscribe to at civics101podcast.org. Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with You Hannah McCarthy. Thank you.

Hannah McCarthy:
Thank you. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer and NHPR's very own Golden Octopus Music.

Nick Capodice:
Music in this episode by Blue Dot Sessions, Sir Cubworth, Tracky Birthday, ProleteR, Moore and Gardner, Metre, Ari Di Nero, and the Soni Venetum Wind Quintet.

Hannah McCarthy:
Civic's 101 is a production of NHPR New Hampshire Public Radio.

Nick Capodice:
Lottery!

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including advanced search, share transcripts, automated transcription, automated subtitles, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.

---

Transcript

Nick Capodice: And a quick note before this episode on the lottery, which is one of those things you think isn't really a civics topic, but then it ends up being very much a civics topic. Uh, I want to jump in and share with you all that we have done over two hundred and fifty episodes of Civics 101. And it feels like we haven't even scratched the surface. There are dozens of departments Supreme Court decisions, cabinet positions, legislative powers that need to be explored. [00:00:30] This show was created to address your questions about our government, how it works, but we need listener support to answer those questions. Make your year end tax deductible donation at Civics101podcast.org and you'll receive a very snazzy civic sticker, as well as our eternal thanks. Help us at Civics 101 Demonstrate and HPR that a show like ours with a cause like ours is a worthy investment. All right, onto the episode.

OPEN: There's [00:01:00] always been a lottery.Do we agree with old man Warner that The lottery should be continued simply because there's always been one? As Oklahomans try to strike it rich? They also invest in Oklahoma's future? Or do we object with Tessie that the whole thing just isn't fair, Isn't right? And so people who buy tickets thinking, Hey, I'm helping education, do you think they're really doing as much as they think they are? They they believe they are, but they're absolutely not benefiting education. Whatever [00:01:30] else Shirley Jackson has done in her story, she has certainly given us a memorable image…

Hannah McCarthy: We're not talking about that lottery, are we, Nick?

Nick Capodice: Well, as every English teacher in America knows Hannah. The morning of June 27 was clear and sunny with the fresh warmth of a full summer day.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, I'm going to put the kibosh on Shirley Jackson from the outset, although I will say that short story is all about hyper local government. But I do want to ask you with all seriousness, what does buying [00:02:00] a ticket and maybe winning millions of dollars have to do with U.S. governmental systems? Why are we doing a civics episode on the lottery?

Kevin Flynn: Because I'm an awesome guy. No, that isn't the right answer.

Hannah McCarthy: Wait is that Kevin?

Nick Capodice: It is. I'll let him introduce himself here.

Kevin Flynn: My name's Kevin Flynn. I'm a former journalist and author, and I wrote the book American Sweepstakes; How One Small State Bucked the Church, The Feds and the Mob to usher in the lottery [00:02:30] age.

Nick Capodice: So we've got to do a whole mess of full disclosure here. Kevin Flynn is indeed a writer, podcast host, TV and radio journalist

Hannah McCarthy: And dear friend.

Nick Capodice: And.

Hannah McCarthy: And he's married to our executive producer, Rebecca Lavoie.

Nick Capodice: He sure is. But we were in a civics one one production meeting, talking about the lottery and its intersection with the government, and we learned that Kevin had written a book on it. And so we had to have him on the show.

Hannah McCarthy: All right now, we got that out of the way. Did he give a reason on why civics [00:03:00] listeners should be interested in the lottery?

Kevin Flynn: It's a great question. The lottery is just a big part of state government these days.

Hannah McCarthy: How big?

Nick Capodice: Big, real big. You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice,

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy

Nick Capodice: and today we are talking about the U.S. lottery. How it started, ended, started again. How much money it makes and where that money goes.

Hannah McCarthy: Now, Kevin said lottery is a big part of state government, [00:03:30] but does every state in the U.S. have one?

Nick Capodice: Almost almost. Mississippi was the most recent state to adopt a lottery. They started selling tickets in 2020.

archival: Scratch off tickets for the very first time, And Mississippians can take a shot at winning without Having to leave the state.

Nick Capodice: Five states do not have a lottery. Alaska, Hawaii, Utah, Alabama and Nevada.

Hannah McCarthy: So when did this all start? Like, what was the first lottery?

Kevin Flynn: Oh, we have always had lotteries [00:04:00] in civilization, right? Lotteries go back to the Bible, right? In the Old Testament. It was, you know, casting lots was the way that a lot of times the the will of God was divined. King Saul was selected because of a drawing of lots. Do you remember when the apostles were down a man where they were down to 11 guys for some reason?

Hannah McCarthy: Down a man, [00:04:30] as in after Judas Iscariot died?

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

Nick Capodice: There were two candidates to become the new Twelfth Apostle, and they cast lots, it means they threw sticks of different lengths on the ground to see who it would be, and it ended up being Mathias. And OK. That's more Bible than civics 101 has ever had. And maybe it's just so I could use clips from Jesus Christ Superstar.

You want me to do it!

Nick Capodice: But let's move on.

Kevin Flynn: The Great Wall of China was [00:05:00] financed some repairs that were financed by the Chinese for an early version of Keno. I think they called it the the white pigeon game.

Nick Capodice: The roads to Rome, Hannah, were paid for by raffles. And to finally wend our way towards America. The Jamestown settlement in Virginia, the first permanent English settlement in the Americas, was financed with a lottery.

Hannah McCarthy: You're kidding me

Kevin Flynn: So you could say America really is, you know, the the child of a lottery. Part of the Continental [00:05:30] Army was financed through a lottery. George Washington wanted to raise $10 million to pay for the Revolutionary War in the Continental Army through a lottery. So, you know, it was always it's something that's been around, you know, since since people had money.

Nick Capodice: I want to add, by the way, that lottery in 1776 to help pay for the Revolutionary War failed utterly. They didn't come even close to raising enough money. [00:06:00] Congress printed a hundred thousand tickets, but they only sold around 30000. So to pay for the war, they just printed a bunch of money instead and borrowed a lot from France. But what's important is that it set a precedent for other lotteries in our new country to help pay for infrastructure like roads and bridges.

Hannah McCarthy: All right now, this is where it starts to become a civics conversation, right? Armies, roads and general infrastructure costs usually fall into the purview of government expenses. [00:06:30] So why is a lottery involved at all?

Nick Capodice: A lottery is a way to get money for something when you don't have the power or the political interest to tax people. If you want to build a covered bridge and you don't have the money in your state budget to do it. Having a lottery to build that bridge where the winner gets some of the money from the lottery tickets and the rest goes to building the bridge; that might get you reelected, whereas raising taxes might not. So [00:07:00] from our nation's founding up to the eighteen forties over the whole United States, hundreds and hundreds of lotteries were springing up to pay for stuff. And when you have a lot of lotteries, you start to also get a lot of rigging of lotteries to pick winners.

Kevin Flynn: So it's just, you know, when you deal with a lot of cash like that, you know, sharpies are going to come in and do what they do. That's a lot of sugar. Nick, there's a lot of sugar there. It's funny because, you know, let's go to like the the mid eighteen hundreds. [00:07:30] Lotteries ended up getting kind of a stink on them in in public, not illegal, but in a nation where cockfighting and duels and poker games are considered gentlemanly. It was lotteries that, you know, started to get a bad name, in part because no, no poor person ever died in a duel. Right? That was that was the lotteries ended up democratizing gambling.

Hannah McCarthy: So [00:08:00] rich folks are gambling left and right. But the one form of gambling that working class Americans can participate in gets a bit of stigma.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, and is often the case. In these instances, somebody just went a little too far. The biggest lottery in America in the 19th century was called the Louisiana Lottery Company, and it was huge. It was nicknamed the Golden Octopus. Its hands were everywhere. People all over [00:08:30] the country played it. Over half of the mail in New Orleans was lottery tickets. And what the company did is they paid 40 grand each year to a charity hospital, and they got to keep the rest of their profits tax free. There was a staggering amount of corruption. Bribes got paid to reps in state and federal legislatures all over the country. So in response, the federal government passed a bill banning the sale of lottery tickets in the mail. So the Louisiana lottery company moved to Honduras. And finally, in eighteen ninety five, all [00:09:00] lotteries in the United States were banned. And that's it.

Hannah McCarthy: This is making me think of prohibition. Ok, right? You've got something that's legal. Highly profitable. Very popular, very prevalent. And then it's made illegal. And I would say that just with booze, but with a lot of things in history, what history has shown us is that when you then make it illegal, it rarely, if ever actually goes away.

Nick Capodice: Naturally.

Hannah McCarthy: And I know that [00:09:30] the lottery didn't go away because I grew up in Massachusetts, and I know that I can walk outside and I can buy a ticket. So how did we get from the banning of the golden octopus to lotteries being run in most states?

Nick Capodice: We get there via something called the numbers.

Matthew Vaz: OK. You know, once upon a time, it's not a good way to start, right?

Nick Capodice: I counter that once upon a time is always a good way to start. And this is Matthew [00:10:00] Vaz. He's a professor at City College of New York, and he wrote a fascinating book called Running the Numbers, Race Police and the History of Urban Gambling. So once upon a time, there was a popular illegal game called policy,

Matthew Vaz: And it involved betting on several two digit numbers between one and seventy two. The odds are a little complicated, but it offered a way to make a small bet on a number [00:10:30] of guess and come out with a decent amount of money. If you win, you could bet a dollar, and maybe in some situations you could win two hundred dollars. But the winning numbers were generated by the spinning of a wheel, so to speak, and maybe sort of draw out almost like a pulling a ping pong ball out of a barrel kind of a thing.

Nick Capodice: But the problem with policy was that like all lotteries beforehand, they could be rigged. The person picking out the ping pong ball could cheat and grab one with their friend's number on it. And they did. But [00:11:00] a new system was born in Harlem in the 1920s,

Matthew Vaz: And most people believe that it was a man named Caspar Holstein, who was an immigrant to New York from the West Indies, developed a new method for arriving at winning numbers. He came up with a game that is typically called the numbers that involves placing a bet or on a guess of what the last three digits before the decimal point will be in [00:11:30] a massive number generated by some far off uncontrollable institution. And so what they initially use was was an institution called the New York Clearinghouse, right? It's a financial institution that sort of clears money from different banks, and millions of dollars would pass through it every day.

Nick Capodice: And at the end of the day, they'd publish how much money went through that clearinghouse. And the last three digits of that number were the winning numbers.

Matthew Vaz: So we could say today 12 million four hundred and eighty three thousand two hundred and twenty one dollars and sixty nine cents [00:12:00] pass through here. And the last three digits before the decimal point were two one two two one, right? And that's a number that no man on the street can manipulate or control it. And it is in essence, almost a random number, right?

Nick Capodice: You'd make your bet with a numbers runner and this is important. You would pick what your numbers were. People chose lucky birthdays, favorite numbers, holidays, whatever, the odds are one in a thousand that you'll win, and the payout was usually 600 bucks for a dollar bet.

Matthew Vaz: And it becomes a very, [00:12:30] very popular form of gambling first in the Black communities of New York. It displaces that older policy game. People basically abandoned playing that because this game is simpler. The payouts are better and it in effect cannot be rigged, right? It cannot be manipulated. And it becomes popular in most of the major cities along the East Coast, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Baltimore. And eventually it spreads well beyond the Black communities of those cities and becomes popular among working class whites. Organized [00:13:00] crime figures start to muscle in on the game, particularly after prohibition is over, and there's a kind of violent contestation over who's going to control the game. Is it going to be the mafia or is it going to be Black gamblers that had set up this game initially?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, this I remember from our episode on Mapp v Ohio Right that somebody bombed Don King's home in Cleveland, Ohio, over a fight to control the numbers racket. But I also remember and we talked about this when we were making that episode that the numbers were about community [00:13:30] institutions.

Nick Capodice: Right, right. The people who ran the numbers, they lived there in those neighborhoods, in that community, and the payout, it wasn't a million dollars and it wasn't two dollars, it was six hundred dollars. And the reason I bring that up is Matthew asked me if I'd ever won two bucks on a scratch ticket, which I have

Matthew Vaz: If you win that four dollars or that $2 prize. What are you going to do with it?

Nick Capodice: What are you going to do with it?

Hannah McCarthy: Probably buy more scratch tickets.

Matthew Vaz: You're [00:14:00] going to buy two more. Exactly right. It's like, Oh, nice, I want give me two more of those, right? But if you're playing with old fashioned numbers game and you win six hundred dollars, what are you going to do with that, right? Something, you know, something better. It's something... You're going to catch up on your bills or whatever it is. You know, it's going to move you along a little bit.

Hannah McCarthy: I imagine that state legislatures which had this history of using gambling to fund projects, we're taking a good hard look [00:14:30] at the numbers, games and asking, how can we get some of that?

Nick Capodice: How can we get some of that, as Kevin would say, how can we get some of that sugar, which they certainly did, but it wasn't going to be an easy road to that pot of municipal gold. We'll get to the legalization of lottery and where the money goes right after the break.

Hannah McCarthy: But first, if you want a lotto fun extra civics tidbits in your life, subscribe to our newsletter Extra credit. It's every two weeks, and since it's free, it's not even a gamble. [00:15:00] Just click the newsletter button at our website civics101podcast.org.

Hannah McCarthy: We're back and you're listening to civics one on one now, just a quick reminder that our show depends on the generosity of our listeners to keep running and instead of us having a lottery, we just ask that you donate whatever you feel is fair at civics101podcast.org. The odds are not the same that you will win a mega million jackpot, [00:15:30] but they're almost the same. And speaking of a mega million jackpot, Nick, how did we get from a federally banned activity to a pastime in which millions of Americans participate?

Nick Capodice: The shift to a legal lotto starts in nineteen sixty three in a state famously opposed to taxes, none other than the home state of Civics 101, New Hampshire. Here's Kevin Flynn again.

Kevin Flynn: Well, in New Hampshire, there was [00:16:00] a there was a state representative named Larry Pickett who thought that a great way to raise money for state causes was would be to hold a sweepstakes, and it was finally signed into law by Governor John King. And this immediately set off a whole bunch of reaction in the state and across the country.

Hannah McCarthy: Wait, so the lottery was illegal federally?

Nick Capodice: Yes, it was.

Hannah McCarthy: So is this kind of akin to states [00:16:30] across the country decriminalizing marijuana, even though at the federal level it's still a Schedule one drug and totally illegal?

Nick Capodice: Hannah, that analogy to marijuana legalization is more apt than you can possibly imagine because and I'm going to try to make this quick You and I can't really understand just how scandalous it was for a state to legalize the lottery in the U.S., the FBI was involved. It was considered a national moral outrage. And to jump to the present, the path towards [00:17:00] marijuana legalization, from the blatant racial disparity of who got arrested for it to the national outcry against it and states discovering how much money can be made from it, taxing it to it, becoming legal in many states to purchase. But in some of them, you've got to pay for it in cash. Every bit of it is note for note out of the lottery legalization playbook. But back to New Hampshire in the nineteen sixties, one way they got around it is that it wasn't a lottery per say. Even though we're going to call [00:17:30] it one, it was technically a sweepstakes.

archival: The race is incidental to the sweeps excitement that has raised two and a half million dollars for New Hampshire's educational system.

Nick Capodice: So instead of drawing a number on a ping pong ball and winning some money, a sweepstakes ticket holder was paired to one of two hundred and thirty two racehorses. And if that horse was picked to run in a race and then that horse won that race, you won a bunch of cash. And people across the country [00:18:00] freaked out.

Kevin Flynn: Well, the lottery ended up being a big scandal, and almost every newspaper in the state was against it. They had like some really great quotes, and this is where I hope the folks from Civics 101 get a montage together of people reading these headlines like old timey newspaper people like now. Be a good time to start playing that music, Nick. I'm just I'm just like setting you up to spike this ball. Ok?

archival: As either New Hampshire [00:18:30] Uncle Sam so hard up that this shabby dodge is the only way out. What's happening in New Hampshire at the hands of politicians shouldn't happen to a dog. Scandalous experiment. Moral bankruptcy.

Nick Capodice: There was one quote that was in favor of the lottery in New Hampshire. It's by the newspaper publisher Bill Loeb, who said, "No one has to go to the track and bet, no one has to smoke tobacco. No one has to drink. But how do those who oppose the sweepstakes propose to raise the money, either a sales tax [00:19:00] or property tax or some other kind of levy that people will have to pay?" And New Hampshire did it. They sold lottery tickets, and people from all over the country came to New Hampshire to buy them.

Hannah McCarthy: That's how much the country wanted a lottery.

Nick Capodice: But the thing was it was against the law to take lottery tickets across state lines back to where they lived. So New Hampshire found a workaround.

Kevin Flynn: So what New Hampshire did in order to sort of get around the Gambling Paraphernalia Act was [00:19:30] that the tickets would stay in New Hampshire. People would get a carbon copy like a receipt. They called it an acknowledgment, so it would prove to somebody that, yes, they had purchased the ticket and you couldn't have put somebody else's name. You couldn't resell the ticket. But the actual ticket, the one that would be drawn, would stay in New Hampshire.

Nick Capodice: And this actually ended up in the United States Supreme Court in a case called U.S. V. Fabrizio. Anthony L. Fabrizio, the appellee, knowingly [00:20:00] carried in interstate commerce from Keene, New Hampshire, to Elmira, New York. Seventy five acknowledgments of purchase on a sweepstakes race of the state of New Hampshire, and he lost that Supreme Court appeal.

Kevin Flynn: I found out later on that it was common knowledge that there was at least one U.S. Supreme Court justice who had purchased a sweepstakes ticket at the time that they heard the case.

Hannah McCarthy: Seriously.

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: Do you know which one.

Nick Capodice: I can't say, Hannah.

Kevin Flynn: I can't tell [00:20:30] you which one. I can't tell you which one, but you'll know him when you see him. If you're picking up what I'm putting down.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so once New Hampshire has the ball rolling, what is the next state to follow suit?

Nick Capodice: The New Hampshire sweepstakes was a bit of a strange one-off. The Empire State came next. Here's Matthew Vaz again.

Matthew Vaz: But in New York, which is the second lottery and becomes much more of a kind of national template, right? Because when New York does something, the rest of the country pays close attention. That that debate [00:21:00] in New York, which happens over the course of nineteen sixty five and sixty six, is much more centered around the problem of illegal gambling.

Nick Capodice: New York legalizes the lottery in nineteen sixty six and then a bunch of other states do the same, but they can't compete with these illegal numbers games that we talked about earlier. And one of the reasons is is that unlike the numbers game in the lottery, you couldn't pick your own numbers. That was it. You couldn't [00:21:30] pick birthdays or holidays or your kids age.

Hannah McCarthy: We're such a superstitious bunch.

Matthew Vaz: Essentially, these state lotteries don't rest until they figure out how to get to that numbers clientele, and it takes them a number of years as New Jersey that first figures out the technology, right? Like, how do we set up something that will allow people a network that allows people to guess the number rather than just receive the number? That first New Jersey game was called pick-it

archival: until then. This is Dick LaRosa saying Thanks for watching [00:22:00] and playing Pickit

Nick Capodice: And Matthew told me the lottery was a pretty sleepy thing for 13 years until they indeed did figure out a way to let people pick numbers after which sales quadrupled in four years. And here we are.

archival: In the United States, tens of millions of people are clinging to a little piece of paper and a lot of hope. That's because tonight someone could become hundreds of millions [00:22:30] of dollars richer.

Hannah McCarthy: Are there still local numbers games, albeit underground in cities?

Nick Capodice: There are not much, honestly. And part of that is due to the astronomical payout of the big lotteries. How can six hundred dollars compared to 600 million?

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, I've always wondered this, and I'm going to guess that the answer is fairly straightforward, but in terms of those massive payouts? How is that possible? Like, how much money does the lottery itself actually make? Because you have to staff this operation, [00:23:00] right?

Nick Capodice: I have some stats from 2015. So first, as a comparison, corporate income taxes in 2015 generated forty nine billion dollars. State lotteries generated $67 billion dollars.

Hannah McCarthy: And did all of that money go back into the states?

Nick Capodice: No, not all of it. And this answers your question. Forty two billion went into prizes. That's how they have such big jackpots. Three billion went to advertising and administration of the lottery, leaving about $21 [00:23:30] billion that went back into the states.

Hannah McCarthy: Now where does that money go? I've heard that the lottery supports, for example, education in a lot of states.

Nick Capodice: Did you ever see The Simpsons where there's like, it's like a massive lottery?

archival: One big winner. Our state school system, which gets fully half the profits from the lottery. Just think what we can buy with that money. History books that know how the Korean War came out. Math books that don't have that basic 6 crap in them.

Matthew Vaz: Oh yeah, it can be argued both ways, right? And you know, I would say to you that that it [00:24:00] varies state to state. Ok. Different states have a different arrangement for where that money goes in New York. There is a fallacy that it goes to education. Well, only in the most only and the most sort of symbolic sense does it go to education. Which is to say the state education budget in New York is determined by a formula. Right?

Nick Capodice: As a hypothetical Hannah with wildly inaccurate numbers, let's say New York set its education [00:24:30] budget at a million dollars and the lottery has a great year and has $750000 left over.

Matthew Vaz: That doesn't mean that the state is now going to give one million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars towards education. The state is still just going to give a million dollars to education, but the lottery had a big, huge year, and that means that if we take now, we can take that seven hundred fifty thousand dollars that came in for the lottery and we're moving from education and just spend it elsewhere in the budget, right? [00:25:00] The phrasing is it's a substitute, not a supplement

Kevin Flynn: In nineteen sixty four. New Hampshire made five point seven million dollars, selling three dollar sweepstakes tickets. Right before the sweepstakes, New Hampshire was the forty fifth state as far as money that the state put towards education. And then, after the sweepstakes, New Hampshire was forty fifth among 50 states as to what it put towards local education.

Matthew Vaz: Furthermore, [00:25:30] once something becomes a kind of structural element of the budget, then it cannot be reduced, right? The only way to reduce it is to cut the good itself, the schools or the hospitals or whatever it's supporting, which nobody wants right or to continue to support schools and hospitals where there's only one way to do that and that is taxes, right? And you see how literally impossible it is. Raising taxes is is a [00:26:00] blood sport in American politics, so you are in effect, committing yourself.

Hannah McCarthy: I know the odds of winning a big jackpot are slim, but just for curiosity's sake, how slim are we talking? How far am I from becoming a multibillionaire?

Nick Capodice: There was a Big Mega Millions jackpot in Florida in January of twenty twenty one. It was $750 million. The odds of winning it are one in three hundred and two million. Statistically, you are ten times more likely to [00:26:30] become the president of the United States than that. But that sum, that number, that staggering sum, you can't ignore that kind of a payout.

Matthew Vaz: I'm drawn in by the magnetism of this vast, obscene sum of money that has attracted me to this game. And so I'll play my dollar right. And lottery executives used to use the joke is like most, most players think, there's really the odds are 50 50. Either I win or [00:27:00] I don't write, you know? You know, and in some ways, that is a kind of true feeling of, Hey, let me try, you know, either I win or I don't write. And you know it, it speaks to a kind of mentality for how we organize our society. Like, are we all just sort of slowly kind of taking our turn, winning a modest sum of money? Or are we willing to sort of assume that we're never going to win on the infinitesimal chance that if we do, we're going to be hyper rich? [00:27:30]

Nick Capodice: There is an expression that lotteries are quote a tax on the poor, and I don't want to go too much into that expression, but I want to make two points related to it. First, yes, Americans and lower income brackets spend more money on lottery tickets. But second, these games are marketed towards people with less money. The ads for lotteries are not aimed at wealthy Americans, and their slogans are things like New [00:28:00] York Lotto. All you need is a dollar and a dream. A survey from 2006 found that one in three Americans who make less than twenty five thousand a year think the lottery represents the most practical way for them to accumulate significant savings.

Matthew Vaz: You know, it speaks to like our ideas about distribution of of of wealth and inequality. It's like, Look, I'd rather have. I'll skip having a decent chance of winning a modest sum in favor of having an [00:28:30] infinitesimally small chance of having a grossly outrageously large sum of know six hundred and seventy million dollars, right? And it tracks very closely with the with the time period of like where inequality becomes a disaster in American life since the late nineteen seventies.

Hannah McCarthy: That fantasy that you won't win enough money to just pay off your student loans or put a down payment on a car, but you'll win enough to buy an island and a [00:29:00] helicopter to get you to that island and all of that because you spent a dollar on a lottery ticket. I mean, nonexistent odds are not. That is a tempting dream.

Nick Capodice: And back to the civics part, for state budgets, this influx of cash from people buying these lottery chances, these fantasies. It is a dream come true. You know what, if I could just add one more tidbit that I find fascinating? I'd forgotten completely about this. The people who win those massive [00:29:30] jackpots, they end up having to pay about 37 percent of their winnings back to state and federal government for income tax.

Kevin Flynn: If you want to say gambling is bad for individuals, can't necessarily argue that, but the people really addicted to lotteries are the states that run them that rely on the revenue. They're the ones who are really addicted to the lottery.

[00:30:00]

Old Man Warner: There's always been a lottery.

Nick Capodice: That's it. Did any of you out there get Kevin's sly hint as to which Supreme Court Justice bought a ticket? Brag at us on Twitter at Civics 101 Pod? I'm going to put the answer in this week's newsletter, which you can subscribe to at civics101podcast.org. [00:30:30] Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with You Hannah McCarthy. Thank you.

Hannah McCarthy: Thank you. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer and NHPR's very own Golden Octopus Music.

Nick Capodice: Music in this episode by Blue Dot Sessions, Sir Cubworth, Tracky Birthday, ProleteR, Moore and Gardner, Metre, Ari Di Nero, and the Soni Venetum Wind Quintet.

Hannah McCarthy: Civic's 101 is a production of NHPR New Hampshire Public Radio.

Nick Capodice: Lottery!

---

What is SNAP?

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, once upon a time called food stamps, helps nearly 42 million Americans every month. While the 2025 government shutdown showed us what happens when SNAP dries up, we have yet to see the effects of major new legislative changes to the program.

So what, exactly, is SNAP? How does it work? Who gets it? Why do we have it to begin with, and what does it look like now? Our guide is Sara Bleich, Professor of Public Health Policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

---

Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:02] Nick, we talk a lot about the citizenry. We the people, constituents. And those are important [00:00:10] terms, but also sweeping terms that I think can on occasion paint flesh and blood humans as an abstract idea or a [00:00:20] philosophy. But whatever an American is, there is a body representing that American, and that body requires [00:00:30] food, water, nutrients for survival, without which there would be no body politic.

Archival: [00:00:37] It's important to remember who participates [00:00:40] in SNAP and what SNAP actually achieves.

Archival: [00:00:42] SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program serves nearly 42 million people every month.

Archival: [00:00:49] That includes Samantha [00:00:50] Bandy. She's a working single mother with a medical condition, trying to balance a job while raising her children and struggling to make ends meet.

Archival: [00:00:56] Because I'm like, I'm already struggling. I'm already stretching food. [00:01:00]

Archival: [00:01:00] The vast majority of SNAP participants are children with working parents and the elderly and the disabled.

Archival: [00:01:06] The Trump administration announced it's ending the US [00:01:10] annual report on food insecurity and hunger in America.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:20] This [00:01:20] is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:22] I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:23] And today we are talking about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, aka SNAP. [00:01:30] It's a program that was in the news a lot during the latest and longest ever government shutdown. And then the government opened back up and lo and behold, we're not [00:01:40] hearing so much about it anymore. It may be out of the headlines, but SNAP is still very much something to pay attention [00:01:50] to. So we're going to talk about what it is, what it's for, and what is happening to it.

Sara Bleich: [00:01:56] My name is Sara Bleich. I'm a professor of public health policy at the [00:02:00] Harvard Chan School of Public Health, and I do research around food insecurity and health inequities, really trying to use available evidence to drive policy.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:09] I wanted [00:02:10] to start off by understanding why we have and need programs like SNAP, and for that we have to understand food insecurity.

Sara Bleich: [00:02:19] So food insecurity [00:02:20] is an economic definition, and it's defined as limited or uncertain access to food based on your resources. And so if you look at the most available data, [00:02:30] which is coming from the Household food Insecurity report, 47 million people live in households that are experiencing food insecurity. So it impacts about 1 in 8 Americans. [00:02:40]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:40] A lot of factors go into food insecurity. So we're talking about income, employment, race and ethnicity disabilities. And then there are neighborhood conditions, [00:02:50] access to transportation, literal physical access to food.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:55] So if you live in a neighborhood without a full supermarket, for example, and you don't have the [00:03:00] means or the ability to leave that neighborhood to get what you need.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:03] And let's say there is a convenience store nearby and you might say, okay, great, but convenience stores often have higher prices [00:03:10] compared to supermarkets.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:11] The price of convenience.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:13] And they might not have the quality or variety of food. You need to be healthy and sated long term. So [00:03:20] you get the picture. Someone can experience food insecurity for any number of reasons, and millions of Americans do.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:27] And the way the federal government tries to address that [00:03:30] problem is SNAP.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:32] One of the ways.

Sara Bleich: [00:03:34] So SNAP stands for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It used to be called food stamps. And the [00:03:40] US Department of Agriculture runs a suite of 16 different federal nutrition assistance program. Of that, sweet SNAP is by far the largest. It's funded by the [00:03:50] federal government through the farm Bill, and it's administered by states.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:53] Hang on the farm bill.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:55] The farm bill is a law. Congress typically renews it every 5 or 6 years. It's an [00:04:00] omnibus that supports a whole range of stuff related to agriculture. So we're talking farm credits, trade, horticulture, forestry and food assistance programs like SNAP. [00:04:10] The first farm bill was called the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:19] All right. [00:04:20] 1933. So four years into the Great Depression. Three years into the Dust Bowl.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:25] Yeah. And to complicate matters, we had a food surplus.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:29] Hold on, Hannah, I think [00:04:30] Great Depression and dust Bowl. And I think long breadlines and ruined farms. I think famine not feast.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:38] Well, during World War One, Europe's [00:04:40] agriculture production tanked. Us farmers were encouraged to overproduce food for export, take out loans to buy more land and equipment. There was [00:04:50] a US agricultural boom. And what typically comes after a boom neck.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:55] A bust, in this case a bust with dust.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:59] Farmers are in debt. [00:05:00] Us crop prices have dropped as European farms come back to life. Then there's this cycle of produce, more food so you can pay off your debts. But then the more food there is, the lower the prices get. [00:05:10] And then, you know, Great Depression. So even though we have all this food, nobody has enough money to buy it, even though the prices are so low. So the [00:05:20] government starts passing farm bills to help out farmers. But you still have all these hungry people across the nation and you still have a food surplus.

Sara Bleich: [00:05:29] SNAP, [00:05:30] as we talked about, was originally called the Food Stamp Program, and it was actually created way back six decades ago, in 1939 during the Great Depression. And it was designed the [00:05:40] original program to address two problems. One was that there are huge food surpluses around the country at farms. The other is that there was widespread hunger among the unemployed. [00:05:50] And so the original food stamp program worked by allowing families who had low income to buy orange stamps for food and receive blue stamps for [00:06:00] free to buy surplus foods. Now, the original program was planned to reach about 20 million people. It operated for about four years and then was discontinued in 1943 [00:06:10] because the economic conditions of the Great Depression began to improve.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:14] So you could buy one kind of food stamp and get another kind of food stamp for free, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:19] Orange [00:06:20] for anything on the shelves. Blue for surplus.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:23] Wow. What counted as surplus?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:26] Any number of things that were the result of overproduction. So like flour, [00:06:30] butter, eggs, oranges, beans.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:34] But then the grocery stores are left holding the stamps.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:37] Which they could then exchange for money at the bank.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:39] Okay. [00:06:40] And then once things stabilized, they stopped the program. But that doesn't mean food insecurity went away.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:46] You are correct on that one. So after a couple of decades of proposed legislation [00:06:50] and studies and reports and pilot programs.

Sara Bleich: [00:06:54] The program became permanent with the Food Stamp Act of 1964, which was signed into law by President Lyndon [00:07:00] Johnson. And then in 1977, Congress passed legislation that eliminated the requirement for recipients to pay for their stamps, which made the program that much [00:07:10] more accessible, and it became nationwide in the early 1970s and 1974. And then to increase the ability for participants to use their [00:07:20] benefits just like everybody else. In 1990, Congress authorized the use of EBT cards to replace that paper stamp system, the food stamp system. And in the program [00:07:30] was renamed in 2008 to SNAP. And that renaming was really to reduce the stigma that was associated with having those food stamps and to better reflect the program's focus on nutrition. [00:07:40]

Nick Capodice: [00:07:40] Okay, so SNAP is the rebranding of the food stamp program because it reduces stigma and supplementary nutrition assistance is [00:07:50] especially by 2008, a more accurate description.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:53] Bingo. So here's how it's designed.

Sara Bleich: [00:07:57] Importantly, the program is designed to be countercyclical, and [00:08:00] what that means is that as you are in times of economic downturn. So think Covid 19 or the Great Recession, enrollment is going to increase. And then as the economy improves, [00:08:10] enrollment is going to decrease.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:12] But how does Congress know if enrollment is going to go up or down? How do they predict that?

Sara Bleich: [00:08:17] So it's actually built into the design of the program. And [00:08:20] so when Covid happened, there was no need to go back to Congress and say, we need more money because the program was designed to do exactly what I'm describing, which is the program is designed [00:08:30] to get bigger as the economy worsens, and it's designed to get smaller as the economy improves. So that is built in to how the SNAP program was developed.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:38] Sara explained that the [00:08:40] average monthly household SNAP benefit is $332. That's about $177 per person.

Sara Bleich: [00:08:47] So to qualify for benefits, participants [00:08:50] have to meet certain eligibility standards. And that's based on a number of things their income, their assets, their household size, their immigration status and proof of employment. And so when it comes [00:09:00] to income, a household's gross monthly income has to be at or below 130% of poverty. And that specific amount is going to vary depending on the household size. [00:09:10] So if we, for example, take a three person household and 2025, they would have to have a monthly income, a gross monthly income of $2,798 [00:09:20] or less to be considered at or below 130% of the poverty line. And the benefit itself is based on something called the Thrifty Food Plan, which is essentially [00:09:30] a calculator which determines the benefit amount.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:33] The Thrifty Food plan.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:35] Yes, I encourage any curious listeners to look this up. The US Department of Agriculture [00:09:40] comes up with a breakdown of what it should cost to buy food for a, quote, nutritious, practical, cost effective diet prepared at home per your age [00:09:50] sex group. You've got bracket breakdowns for children between 1 and 11 years old, and men and women between 12 and 71 years old.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:59] I have [00:10:00] so many questions about so many elements of that.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:03] The Thrifty Food plan has been questioned on many points, having to do with wide variations in the cost of healthy food across the country, time [00:10:10] and resources for preparing food, the availability of that food at the grocery store, the rainbow of dietary needs and restrictions depending on your personal human body, etc. but [00:10:20] that is what they use.

Sara Bleich: [00:10:21] And then if you're eligible, the way that you apply is you apply in the state where you currently live because the program is state administered. So the money [00:10:30] comes from the federal government for the most part, and it's administered by the states. And this can be done online, by mail or in person. And then once you're approved for SNAP, you receive what's called an electronic [00:10:40] benefit transfer card or an EBT card. And this essentially is a debit card. And it can be used at more than 250,000 approved stores around the country, and every month, [00:10:50] benefits are loaded onto the card by the state.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:53] So you can use that money to buy just about everything you can consume at the grocery store except for alcohol, nicotine, [00:11:00] hot prepared foods, non-food items like toilet paper, household cleaners, etc.. Pet food or medicine? Vitamin and supplements.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:09] So you can't [00:11:10] use Supplemental Nutrition Assistance to buy nutritional supplements?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:15] Yeah, the wordplay wasn't lost on me.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:16] All right. And as you mentioned at the beginning of the episode, Hannah, everyone [00:11:20] was talking about SNAP for a while because during the recent and longest ever government shutdown, it ran out of funding.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:27] It did.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:28] And now the government is back. And [00:11:30] so is SNAP.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:31] Putting it very simply, yes, the government is running in part via a continuing resolution that ends on January 30th, 2026.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:39] Which is two months from [00:11:40] when we're making this episode.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:41] It is. And the government is in part running via a continuing appropriation that funds, among other things, the Department of Agriculture, which [00:11:50] administers SNAP. That continuing appropriation carries through September 30th, 2026.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:00] But [00:12:00] what happened during the shutdown? We have had government shutdowns in the past, but I don't remember hearing that SNAP recipients were ever at risk.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:09] That is because in the past, [00:12:10] SNAP was funded even during shutdowns.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:13] How does that work?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:15] Contingency funds.

Sara Bleich: [00:12:16] You can use this fund, called a contingency fund, to pay for those benefits, [00:12:20] which has been used in past administrations to ensure that SNAP participants receive their benefits in times of shutdown. And that's been done by Republican administrations, and it's been done by Democratic [00:12:30] administrations.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:31] By the way, I interviewed Sara during the government shutdown. So you will hear her refer to certain things in the present tense. But what Sara is talking about here is the [00:12:40] fact that the executive branch can make and in the past has made the decision to fund SNAP using money that has specifically been put aside to fund necessary programs [00:12:50] in the event that the government cannot do it the normal way, aka a budget. Now, during the most recent shutdown, the Trump administration refused to do [00:13:00] that. So a bunch of states sued.

Sara Bleich: [00:13:02] So then the judges ruled that the Trump administration had to cover the benefits, and the Trump administration said we can do about [00:13:10] half, because that contingency fund has about $4.5 billion in it. And the cost of funding benefits for the month of November is about $8 billion. The [00:13:20] story continues. A federal judge came back another one and said, you have to make participants whole. There is another pot of money that sits within an agency called the Food Nutrition [00:13:30] Service, and agencies have the legal authority to transfer money across accounts. And so within that suite of nutrition assistance programs, there's SNAP, which we're talking about, [00:13:40] but there's also child nutrition, which right now is flush with money and has about $30 billion in its account. So it would be very easy for money to be moved from that account over to [00:13:50] SNAP to make participants whole for the month of November. In no way jeopardizing the child nutrition programs like school meals.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:57] So again, as of right now, SNAP is back. It is fully funded, [00:14:00] people are receiving their full allotment. SNAP has all but vanished from the headlines. But this battle over food assistance revealed exactly how much [00:14:10] of a balancing act life is for so many people in this country.

Sara Bleich: [00:14:14] Yeah, well, first and foremost, I want to talk about the families, because this scenario creates a huge amount of [00:14:20] stress for families, and they are going to be required to make very difficult trade offs. I mean, another thing that happens at the beginning of each month is rent is due. And so you potentially don't have your [00:14:30] SNAP benefit, your rent is due, and you then have to make very difficult trade offs. Do I pay for my medication? Do I pay for my rent? Do I pay for food that is really hard and for 20% [00:14:40] of SNAP participants. There is no other source of income, so these families are really in a tough spot. So then what happens? Well, then there becomes increasing demand on the charitable food sector [00:14:50] and the emergency food sector. And we are seeing that around the country. Lines at food banks are becoming increasingly long. But there's a capacity problem. So for every meal that [00:15:00] a food bank serves, SNAP serves nine more. And it's just not possible for the charitable food sector to completely fill the gap that is left by the federal government [00:15:10] if whole payments are not made, and if there's a delay in those whole payments being made. Another thing is that SNAP is supporting hundreds of thousands of local stores. [00:15:20] And so if that money is not flowing into local stores or flowing into local stores, in part that can potentially lead to layoffs. And of course, all of this [00:15:30] has health implications because SNAP reduces food insecurity. If food insecurity goes up, that's linked to all sorts of chronic health conditions. So think diabetes [00:15:40] and blood pressure, high blood pressure. And so there's lots of ways that restricting or cutting these health benefits are going to hurt real people from a stress perspective, are going to hurt real people from [00:15:50] a health outcome perspective, are going to have a negative impact on businesses and tax a charitable food system that is just not equipped to fill in the gap.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:02] I [00:16:00] never considered that domino effect, but of course you'd take support from one part of the system and the pressure is [00:16:10] on for all of these other parts that are not equipped to handle it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:13] And just because SNAP is now funded, at least through next year, that doesn't mean the pressure is off. [00:16:20]

Nick Capodice: [00:16:20] Say what.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:20] Now? Yeah, I'll say it after the break. But before that break, if you are increasingly noticing how very systematic this whole system is, how departments and programs and laws [00:16:30] and leaders are part of an interconnected organism that we call the United States government, and you want to know what exactly the component parts are supposed to be doing just [00:16:40] in case they, you know, stop. You can find a great many explainers, as in hundreds of them on our website, civics101podcast.org. [00:16:50]

Nick Capodice: [00:17:05] We're [00:17:00] back. We're talking about SNAP, what it is, what happened to it recently, what [00:17:10] it means for millions of people, etc.. And Hannah, before the break, you said that despite the return of SNAP funding, there might be something else going on with [00:17:20] this program that the pressure might not be off.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:23] Are not might and not May. Most definitely.

Sara Bleich: [00:17:27] One of the things that we're seeing happen right now is that there are [00:17:30] huge changes through the one big, Beautiful Bill act to the SNAP program, and there's a whole lot of confusion. And this happens anytime there's a massive shift in policy. And so what that can do for families [00:17:40] is it can really have a dampening effect on their willingness to apply, because they may assume that they're not qualified, even if they might actually be eligible for the program.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:49] The quote [00:17:50] unquote, one big beautiful bill changed SNAP.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:53] It sure did.

Sara Bleich: [00:17:57] So with the one big, beautiful Bill act, there were a number of major [00:18:00] changes to SNAP. So one is that the overall program was cut by $186 billion through 2034. And that's about a 20% [00:18:10] reduction in the program, which is the largest decrease in the history. What that means practically is that millions of people, including many children, are going to lose all or a substantial [00:18:20] amount of their benefits. And we know from a huge amount of evidence that SNAP helps reduce food insecurity. And so this change is going to mean that food insecurity is going [00:18:30] to increase. The other thing that the One big Beautiful Bill act did is it created stricter work requirements. So for the first time ever, the SNAP work requirements include [00:18:40] parents of school aged children over 14 and older adults ages 55 through 64. These individuals have to work 20 hours per week, [00:18:50] or they can only receive SNAP benefits for three months out of a three year period.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:54] So Sara said SNAP work requirements now include this other group of people. So [00:19:00] did work requirements already exist?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:02] They did. This new law means that more people are going to have to meet them.

Sara Bleich: [00:19:07] Yeah. So the work requirement is 20 hours per week. [00:19:10] And one of the things that we know from lots and lots of research about work requirements across various programs is that people who can work do work. And right [00:19:20] now, we are in an economy where there's not a whole lot of jobs available. So a work requirement is being introduced. There's not a whole lot of jobs. People can find jobs [00:19:30] who are on SNAP. And then what that means is they can only receive SNAP benefits for three months out of a three year period if they're subject to this requirement. And so what all the estimates are [00:19:40] suggesting is that as a result of the work requirement, hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions of people are going to fall off the SNAP rolls.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:48] And it's not just that fewer people are going [00:19:50] to be eligible. When you introduce a new requirement, you introduce a new process, something that has to be tracked and verified.

Sara Bleich: [00:19:58] Now the individuals have to work the 20 [00:20:00] hours per week. They have to document the 20 hours, and they have to share that with the state who then has to record it. And so it creates this enormous paperwork burden.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:09] While [00:20:10] we're on the subject of the states, SNAP is, as we have said, something that is funded by the federal government and at the very top, administered by the USDA. But states do a ton of work to administer [00:20:20] this program as well, and that comes at a cost that is about to get a lot higher.

Sara Bleich: [00:20:25] Another important thing that happens is through the one big Beautiful Bill act is that starting [00:20:30] in fiscal year 27 states will have to cover a higher percentage of administrative costs of the program. Historically, states have paid 50%, but with the [00:20:40] change from the One Big Beautiful Bill act, states will have to pay 75% of administrative costs. And then one other big change that's happening is with [00:20:50] respect to the shifting of costs to states, is that beginning in FY 28 or fiscal year, 28, states will actually have to pay a portion of the benefit itself, which is the really [00:21:00] big price part of the SNAP program. That's what costs the most money, and that's going to be based on their error rate. So for example, a state will be required to pay 10% [00:21:10] of SNAP benefits if they have an error rate, which ranges between 8% and less than 10%. And the error rate is referring to to what extent are participants being underpaid [00:21:20] for their benefit or overpaid for their benefit?

Nick Capodice: [00:21:24] Hang on. Let me just make sure I understand this. Anna. Basically, Sara is saying [00:21:30] that sometimes states give recipients too much money and sometimes they give them too little money.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:36] Yeah, and the USDA has been tracking those rates for years. The [00:21:40] national average error rate was nearly 11% in 2024. Starting in 2028, if states make mistakes in 6% [00:21:50] or more of their payments, they are essentially going to be penalized. They'll have to start covering up to 15% of SNAP payments in that state. [00:22:00]

Nick Capodice: [00:22:00] In other words, if they make enough mistakes, they're going to get less money from the government.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:05] Yeah.

Sara Bleich: [00:22:05] And so if you look at that more concretely, North Carolina had an error rate that was [00:22:10] a little over 10% in FY 24. So their benefits that they received were about $3 billion. So 15% of that is $450 million. [00:22:20] So these are real costs that states are going to have to absorb beginning in the not too distant future. If their error rate is on the higher side.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:28] By the way, as of last year's data, [00:22:30] only seven states had an error rate low enough to get that full funding. So you're looking at a combination of states having to cover more administrative costs and having to significantly [00:22:40] improve the accuracy of that administrative work.

Sara Bleich: [00:22:44] One other thing that's important to know about a change in the One Big Beautiful Bill act is it eliminates a program called SNAP [00:22:50] education, which is the largest nutrition education program in the country. And what it does is it helps individuals on a limited budget to prepare [00:23:00] food. And so that program has been zeroed out and will no longer be available.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:04] The new changes to SNAP will also limit eligibility for certain lawfully present non-citizens who [00:23:10] were previously eligible for SNAP, including refugee and asylum seekers. Legally, in the United States, undocumented immigrants are not now and never have been [00:23:20] eligible for SNAP. Now, the current Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, has stated that the USDA uncovered massive fraud in the SNAP [00:23:30] program. She cited 118 arrests and the removal of, quote, almost 700,000 people from the program. But lawyers and political scientists who [00:23:40] analyze SNAP data are skeptical and point out that a 100 some odd arrests in a program of 42 million recipients is a drop in the bucket, and that removing people [00:23:50] from the program is likelier because of these new legislative changes. And looking at these changes more broadly, Sara sees a common theme.

Sara Bleich: [00:23:59] There [00:24:00] is certainly a posture in this administration towards self-sufficiency, meaning moving individuals from safety net programs off of [00:24:10] safety net programs. And that's the big push behind many of the changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill act.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:16] You know, self-sufficiency has long been an American [00:24:20] thing. Bootstraps, right? By the way, I recommend our listeners check out your episodes on American myths, specifically on the myth of the self-made man. For more [00:24:30] on that. And this is just not a prevailing philosophy in other countries. So I'm wondering how we compare. We are not the only nation with people who need to eat [00:24:40] but don't have the money to do it.

Sara Bleich: [00:24:42] So if you compare the United States to other high income countries, you look at food insecurity and you look at how they're dealing with it. There's a [00:24:50] fundamental difference, which is in the US, there is higher investment in the consequences of food insecurity, as opposed to [00:25:00] the upfront investment in children and families. So what that means practically is that in the US, we are paying for food insecurity in the form of higher health care costs and [00:25:10] other costs once it occurs. But we're not doing enough front end investment. And so an example of an effective investment in children and families is something called the universal child [00:25:20] allowance. And what that is is a stable source of cash income to families with young children. There is a version of this that has been implemented in several countries, including Canada and Germany [00:25:30] and the UK, and it has been shown to significantly reduce food insecurity. So there are other models that we can look to that take a more preventive approach that might [00:25:40] help us over the long term, pull down our rates of food insecurity. What I can say is that from a societal perspective, as a country, the US spends [00:25:50] much, much more money on health care than it does on prevention. And so the fact that we are really paying for the consequences of food insecurity once they show up in the health care system is very similar [00:26:00] to how we deal with a lot of other issues. And so a shift toward a more preventative approach would require a real shift in terms of how we think about where investments [00:26:10] can make a big difference. And with a Congress that turns over so quickly, it's frankly harder to get commitments to make those big long term investments.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:18] While we're on the subject, Nick, I [00:26:20] wanted to know how specifically people argue for SNAP and how they argue against it. It's hard to argue with everybody's gotta Eat. How we get that done. [00:26:30] Exactly. That's the question.

Sara Bleich: [00:26:32] So in support of SNAP, there are four main arguments. One is that it is the nation's most important anti-hunger program, and [00:26:40] it serves 42 million Americans each month. There are mountains of evidence that shows that SNAP lists families out of poverty. It reduces food insecurity, and it is a counter-cyclical [00:26:50] program. So it's expanding during times of economic downturn, and it's reducing as the economy improves. And it also is helping to boost local economies. So every dollar [00:27:00] invested in SNAP is generating about a dollar and a half in additional economic activity. And in fact, because of that and because SNAP is one of the most effective forms of [00:27:10] economic stimulus, because the money is spent right when it's received. It was used during the Great Recession to really try to boost the economy. But [00:27:20] then you'll hear arguments on the other side. So what do you hear for why SNAP benefits shouldn't be provided? Some conservative critics argue that the program encourages dependance [00:27:30] rather than self-sufficiency, although the evidence says that pretty much all those who can work do, and so people that are taking advantage of the program are using it to supplement the income [00:27:40] in large part, that they already have coming into the household.

Sara Bleich: [00:27:43] Another criticism that you'll hear is that the program costs are going up, and that's true. You know, between 2019 and 2023, [00:27:50] the program costs roughly doubled. But that was also a time when there was a lot of temporary pandemic relief for Covid. There was a permanent boost to the overall size of the program, [00:28:00] and it increases with inflation. And even with all those changes, we still know that the average benefit is not enough to afford a modest [00:28:10] meal in 99% of counties. A fourth area of criticism that you'll hear about SNAP is that, well, people that receive SNAP benefits have higher obesity risk. The evidence [00:28:20] on this is very mixed, with most studies pointing to null or negative findings. And then the final thing is that some conservative critics will argue that SNAP has a lot of fraud, [00:28:30] and actually SNAP has very low administrative costs, with the overwhelming majority of money going to benefits that help pay participants to buy food. [00:28:40] And relative to other safety net programs, the fraud rate in SNAP is particularly low.

Nick Capodice: [00:28:48] Something that Sara just said that [00:28:50] the average benefit is not enough to afford a modest meal. So whether you're for SNAP or against it, are we talking about a program that doesn't [00:29:00] actually provide enough money to get enough food?

Sara Bleich: [00:29:04] So from my perspective, and people might argue this point, but from my perspective, no SNAP benefits are not sufficient [00:29:10] for most recipients. And here's the main reasons I would give. One is that many families, and that's about 80% are using up their SNAP benefit within two weeks [00:29:20] of receiving it. And so for the second two weeks of the month, then they could have increased food insecurity. Another is that the average SNAP benefit is approximately $1.40 [00:29:30] per person per meal, which if you just think about that, that for many families is insufficient for a nutritious diet. And in fact, there was a study that was recently done which [00:29:40] found that SNAP benefits do not cover the cost of a modest meal in 99% of US counties. And the final reason why I would argue that SNAP benefits are [00:29:50] not sufficient. It is intended the benefit itself is intended to be supplemental. That's why it is called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But that said, there [00:30:00] are 20% of households who are in SNAP that have no other source of income.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:09] We started [00:30:10] this conversation by talking about people. There are a lot of numbers, a lot of arguments, and a lot of documents in the SNAP story. But what about the [00:30:20] human beings who need food and cannot afford it? Given all of these changes, all of the chaos, everything that the government shutdown taught us about food insecurity in the United [00:30:30] States, what can people do if they're hearing this and thinking, where do I go from here?

Sara Bleich: [00:30:36] One important place is the food banks often have people on the ground [00:30:40] that are helping with information and helping individuals navigate. That's one place. Another place is the state agency. So because SNAP is federally funded and [00:30:50] state administered, everyone has to go to their state to understand what are the changes that are happening. And so the state agencies can help provide information. I will say, though, [00:31:00] that because of the reductions in force that have been happening, the state agencies may not be as well staffed as they were, you know, a year ago, and that may increase whole times. [00:31:10] And so I would say that if you know of resources, you need to connect people with resources that are available in their local community. Help people understand where they can go to understand [00:31:20] if they're eligible. And again, it's probably going to be in the charitable food sector, going to the state agency, but trying to help the information flow is going to be really, really important [00:31:30] because confusion is very high. And then the way that this is going to be implemented at the state level is going to also be very instructive of the impact [00:31:40] on participants. Some states may implement, like the work requirement, for example, more efficiently than others. And that could be something as simple as how hard is the paperwork to navigate [00:31:50] when it comes to the work requirement? The easier it is, the more people are going to stay on the program.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:31:58] I know this episode has been pretty [00:32:00] numbers heavy, so in the event those were not helpful, I will leave you with a couple that might be. You can call 8663 hungry. That's 8663 [00:32:10] hungry or 8778 Amber. That's 8778. H a m b r e to reach the National Hunger Hotline and access [00:32:20] free food near you. Oh, and one more thing.

Sara Bleich: [00:32:24] So I am a SNAP baby, and I always take opportunities to tell people that about why I care so much about [00:32:30] the program and how I really understand the real world impacts. I'm happy to say that if it's helpful.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:32:42] That [00:32:40] does it for this episode. It was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with help from Nick Capodice. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. Marina Henke is our producer. Music in this episode [00:32:50] comes from Epidemic Sound. You can apply for SNAP at your local SNAP office. To find out where that is go to www.fns.usda.gov. Civics [00:33:00] 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

How did the Epstein Files Transparency Act happen?

Today we talk about the myriad procedures involved in getting the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed in record time. How do discharge petitions work? What did HR 581 do exactly? How did it get through the Senate so quickly? And while we're at it,  why did it take a record seven weeks to swear in a new representative?

Here is the discharge petition signed by 218 members of Congress.

Here is the full text of HR 581, passed by the House on 11/17.

And finally, here is HR 4405, related to HR 185, which was brought to the floor by HR 581.

---

Transcript

C101_Epstein Files.mp3

Archival: Lawmakers will hold a vote tomorrow on legislation to force the release of the Epstein files. And in a stunning change of his earlier position, President Trump is now supporting the move.

Archival: Over the last several months, the president has repeatedly tried to stop this vote from happening. Speaker Johnson sending the House on August recess early and keeping them out for weeks during the shutdown, which in turn stalled a vote.

Archival: Of stunning developments on Capitol Hill. The House voted overwhelmingly to release the Epstein files, and [00:00:30] now the Senate Majority leader, John Thune, says that since it has the president's support, he could hold a vote as soon as today.

Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: And today we're doing a rather nuts and bolts civics explainer tied to everything going on with the government's actions related to Jeffrey Epstein and the Epstein files. We are not going into the contents of those files or any of that stuff. This is a purposefully [00:01:00] Fully removed exploration of how a bill became a law in less than a week. This episode is about things like discharge petitions, the legislative process, the DOJ executive power, that sort of stuff. So where do you want to begin with this? Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: Can we just start with the quote unquote files? When people refer to the Epstein files, what are they talking about?

Nick Capodice: Jeffrey Epstein was the subject of two criminal investigations, one that [00:01:30] started in 2005 and another in 2019. He was convicted, pleading guilty in the first investigation to two prostitution charges. And in the second investigation, evidence was found proving he was running a massive sex trafficking ring. He was charged with sex trafficking and conspiracy to traffic minors for sex. He died in his prison cell in August 2019, so these investigations amassed a staggering amount of evidence. We're talking emails, videos, texts, phone calls, flight logs, financial [00:02:00] transactions, client lists and interviews.

Hannah McCarthy: And as many of us know, some of those files have been released, some have not. I just want to understand the timeline of it all.

Nick Capodice: All right, I think I can do this. I think I can do it fast. And I'm gonna stick to recent events. During President Trump's campaign in 2024, he said if he were elected, he would order the DOJ to release the files.

Archival: Would you declassify the Epstein files?

Archival: Yeah, yeah, I would. [00:02:30]

Nick Capodice: After his election in February 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi, the attorney general, by the way, is the person who heads the Justice Department. Bondi said she had a client list and that the Epstein files were on her desk.

Archival: The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?

Archival: It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump.

Nick Capodice: Attorney General Bondi then sent binders marked declassified the Epstein Files [00:03:00] phase one to powerful right wing influencers, but those binders contain information that had already been made public. In May, the attorney general informed President Trump that his name appeared multiple times in the files. But in July of 2025, the Department of Justice released a memo saying there was no client list. And that, quote, we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties, end quote, and that no more files would be released.

Archival: The DOJ says it found no credible [00:03:30] evidence that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals, concluding Epstein did not maintain a client list that he used to traffic underage girls. It's a striking reversal of a past statement by the head of the Justice Department, Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Nick Capodice: Shortly thereafter, President Trump posted on Truth Social that Epstein files were a hoax, a hoax that was completely fabricated by the Democratic Party that, quote, their new scam is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein hoax. End quote. After that, the Wall Street [00:04:00] Journal published a birthday letter from Donald Trump to Epstein.

Archival: The letter bearing Trump's name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy, like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker.

Nick Capodice: Which the president denied writing and for which he sued the newspaper for $10 billion. The Wall Street Journal has moved to dismiss this lawsuit, and it has not proceeded since then. In September this year, speaker of the House Mike Johnson [00:04:30] claimed that President Trump was an FBI informant against Epstein is horrifying.

Archival: The whole thing. It's been misrepresented. He's not saying that. What Epstein did is a hoax. It's a terrible, unspeakable evil. He believes that himself. When he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Mar a Lago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this, this stuff down.

Nick Capodice: Then a week later, he claimed he had misspoken.

Archival: I don't know if I used the right word. I said FBI informant. I'm not sure I wasn't there. This isn't my lane. I'm just repeating what is common knowledge and has been [00:05:00] out in the public for a long time.

Nick Capodice: September 2nd, Republican member of Congress Thomas Massie moved that the House votes to release the Epstein files through a discharge petition, which I'm going to talk about at length today. The government shuts down for 43 days, the longest shutdown ever. It reopens. And that is how we get to last week, November 18th, 2025.

Hannah McCarthy: Very nice timeline there.

Nick Capodice: Thank you.

Hannah McCarthy: We have episodes explaining a shutdown. We have an episode on how a bill really [00:05:30] becomes a law, but we've never actually gone to in depth on discharge petitions. What they are, how they work.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, I think this is the first one of these to make the headlines in quite a long time, Hannah. So just kind of quickly run me through the legislative process.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. That I got a member of the House or the Senate introduces a bill. If it is a money bill, it's got to start in the House. They hold the power of the purse. So they put that in the hopper and depending on which chamber it originates in, [00:06:00] it is assigned to a specific committee by either the speaker of the House or the president pro tempore of the Senate. That committee explores the bill, sends it to subcommittees, debates it, changes it through the markup process. And and and that's usually it. The vast, vast majority of bills die in committee, as in they are not brought to the floor for a vote before Congress adjourns, which means they'll have to start again from scratch the next session.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. And this Congress, the [00:06:30] 119th, is no exception. So far, about 11,000 bills have been proposed in Congress, and of those, 37 were signed into law by the president.

Hannah McCarthy: And aside from H.R. one, also called the Big Beautiful Bill act and the bill signed yesterday, I have not heard much about the 37 others.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, 16 of those. 37 are joint resolutions disapproving former legislation, which basically means that a rule that had been passed by a previous Congress no [00:07:00] longer has any effect. But anyways, the point I'm making here is that it is very hard to get a bill signed into law. And the first big obstacle is committee. That's where most of them die. The second obstacle getting it on the calendar. Now the party that controls the house decides when and if to vote on bills that are reported out. Those are bills that make it out of committee. There's a rules committee that chooses how it's going to be debated, how long everyone has to debate it, etc. and [00:07:30] then if a bill gets more than 50% in favor, that bill is passed in the House. Most of the time, though, most of the time the House opts to vote on suspension of the rules. That means there's going to be 40 minutes exactly to talk about the bill, and there are no other rules. But this kind of a vote requires a two thirds majority, not just a simple majority of the House.

Archival: Mr. speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4459. 59.

Archival: The clerk will report the title of the bill.

Nick Capodice: But [00:08:00] let's say there is a bill languishing in committee. It's just going to be another statistic for us to say in an episode one day. And a large cohort of the House does not want it to die there. They want that thing out.

Hannah McCarthy: And this is where we get the discharge petition.

Nick Capodice: This is it. A discharge petition takes a bill that has been proposed at least 30 days ago and forces it on the floor for a vote.

Hannah McCarthy: Now, is this really rare?

Nick Capodice: Super rare. There have [00:08:30] been 671 attempted discharge petitions in US history, and only seven have been signed into law.

Hannah McCarthy: Why is that exactly? I would imagine that many politicians get frustrated when their bills don't get reported out of committee. So why don't we hear about discharge petitions more often?

Nick Capodice: Well, they take a lot of work, Hannah. For starters, it is a literal petition. It's a piece of paper that needs to be signed. 218 members of the House have to literally write [00:09:00] their signature on that paper and say, I am asking this bill be voted upon, and that's public information. Anyone can pressure anyone else when this petition is going around. They can say, you know, hey, don't put your name on this, or I'm going to kick you off the Appropriations Committee and bust you down to the printing committee.

Hannah McCarthy: How did the petition process go with this particular bill? The one to release the Epstein files.

Nick Capodice: It was tangled, Hannah. It was a mess. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie introduced [00:09:30] this petition, the name of which is House resolution 581. I have a link to the resolution down in the show notes. By the way, if anyone wants to take a peek, I encourage you to do so.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. I just want to make sure I have this right. The discharge petition brings a bill out of committee that has been submitted in the past. Correct?

Nick Capodice: Correct.

Hannah McCarthy: So there was a proposed bill in committee that was mandating the release of the Epstein files are Kinda.

Nick Capodice: And here is where a lot [00:10:00] of procedural things happen that are beyond the 101. The bill being dragged out by petition 581 is H.R. 185, which is easy and convenient because it is the reverse of 581. Anyways, this bill is called the Responsible Legislating Act. It's a very long bill. Hanna 85 pages. It is about myriad procedures. And the name Epstein is not mentioned once.

Hannah McCarthy: What committee was it in?

Nick Capodice: Uh, well, it was sitting. Where was it sitting? Uh, [00:10:30] the last action on this bill was in March. It had been referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry.

Hannah McCarthy: Livestock, Dairy and Poultry. What am I missing here?

Nick Capodice: 581 drags out H.R. 185.

Nick Capodice: Now, H.R. 185 has a related bill, H.R. 40 405. This is the one that Representative Ro Khanna introduced in July, which is an Epstein transparency bill. So [00:11:00] the discharge petition says we're going to bring H.R. 185 to the floor for a vote. But like everything in it, besides what's in the related bill, H.R. 4405, and, yes, H.R. 4405 is the actual bill that moved through the legislative process after that.

Hannah McCarthy: So H.R. 581 passed on Tuesday, November 17th, meaning H.R. 4405 passed and began its journey towards [00:11:30] the president's desk. But I don't want to skip over the petition signing. Getting those 218 signatures is a Herculean task.

Nick Capodice: You are absolutely right, Hannah. It was a donnybrook. And I'm gonna tell you about that as well as the next steps after a quick break.

Speaker15: Malcolm Gladwell here this season on revisionist history. We're going back to the spring of 1988, to a town in northwest Alabama where a man committed a crime [00:12:00] that would spiral out of control.

Speaker16: There was this joke that said that it was easier to get forgiveness in the Church of Christ for murdering somebody, than it was to be divorced.

Speaker15: From revisionist history. This is the Alabama murders. Listen to revisionist history, the Alabama murders, wherever you get your podcasts.

Nick Capodice: We're back. And we are talking about the procedural system surrounding the release of the Epstein [00:12:30] files.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, Nick, so tell me about the path to 218 signatures on the discharge petition. How did that happen?

Nick Capodice: All right. And by the way, anyone out there, you can see the signatures on the petition. It is at the official website of the house clerk. I'll put a link to that in the show notes, too, for members of the Republican Party. Sign this petition on September 2nd. Thomas Massie, who co-sponsored the bill, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace. In the next few days, every member of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives [00:13:00] signed it, bringing that number to 217. And the final signature would not come for a long time.

Archival: Well, voters in Cd7 have spoken, and tonight it appears that Adelita Grijalva will head to Washington to fill the seat held for so many years by her late father, Raul Grijalva.

Nick Capodice: Adelita Grijalva won a special election in Arizona, filling the seat that had been occupied by her father, Raul Grijalva, who passed away in March.

Hannah McCarthy: And when [00:13:30] was the special election?

Nick Capodice: September 23rd.

Hannah McCarthy: And when was she sworn into Congress?

Nick Capodice: She was sworn in on November 12th, seven weeks later.

Hannah McCarthy: And the swearing in of a new representative is determined by the speaker of the House. Yeah. What you're saying is that speaker Mike Johnson of the House delayed Grijalva's swearing in for seven weeks.

Nick Capodice: That's right. And he gave several reasons for this. This was a record delay 50 days. The previous record was 35 days. In 2017, [00:14:00] California Democratic Representative Jimmy Gomez cited family issues as the reason for his self-imposed delay, and he was lambasted by Republicans who claimed that he was trying to push through state legislation before taking his federal seat. Then Speaker Kevin McCarthy said his delay, quote, is an abdication to participate in representative democracy. End quote.

Nick Capodice: So here are the given reasons for Grijalva's delay. Although Grijalva won a victory with a 2 to 1 margin, [00:14:30] Speaker Johnson said he wanted to wait until the election results were certified. Worth mentioning here, he did not do that for three other representatives who were sworn in the day after their special elections. Johnson then said that the swearing in couldn't happen until the House was back from recess, again, contradicting precedent he had set in this 119th Congress. Johnson then extended the recess by another week, scheduling the swearing in of Grijalva for October 7th. And then he delayed [00:15:00] that by declaring a district work session.

Hannah McCarthy: As in, everyone in the House has to go back to their states and work on their local issues.

Nick Capodice: Exactly. And so then Grijalva was scheduled for October 14th, and then it was delayed one more time. And then Johnson announced that the House would not meet during the government shutdown. So finally, on November 12th, he swore Adelita Grijalva in.

Speaker12: Well, representative elect Grijalva and members of the Arizona delegation present themselves in the well, [00:15:30] and all members will rise. And the representative elect will raise her right hand.

Nick Capodice: And she signed the petition that day.

Hannah McCarthy: Now, once you sign a petition, can you take your name off of that petition?

Nick Capodice: Interesting. Yes you can. During the signing process. But once it reaches that 218 signatures threshold. It is frozen. You cannot take your name off it. And this is important because before the threshold was [00:16:00] reached, Representatives Boebert, Mace and Taylor-greene all received direct communications from the white House about removing their names from the petition and to mention Lauren Boebert in particular. She was summoned to an emergency meeting in the Situation Room at the white House, and this meeting was confirmed by the press secretary.

Hannah McCarthy: But nobody took their names off of the petition, and it was put on the calendar for a vote on Tuesday, November 18th. And it's pretty much a sure bet to pass at that point, isn't it? 218 [00:16:30] is a majority, and a majority is what is required to approve a bill and send it to the Senate.

Nick Capodice: Correct. And things moved very quickly after this. Over the weekend before the vote, President Trump reversed his stance on the bill, asking for every single Republican in the House to vote for it. It was voted for under suspension of the rules. Only 40 minutes of debate.

Hannah McCarthy: Now, this is when the presiding officer manages the clock. And there's a lot of yielding of time to other members so that they can get up and say their piece.

Archival: The gentleman reserves. [00:17:00] The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.

Archival: We on our side want justice to.

Archival: Mr. speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining myself? Three and a half. I yield a minute and a half to distinguished gentleman.

Archival: Gentleman has 5.5 minutes remaining.

Archival: As a group more focused on scoring political points, they've.

Archival: Said.

Archival: That doesn't.

Archival: Protect victims. Well, if that is so, why were dozens of victims with us today at a press conference urging this body to pass this legislation?

Archival: Jeffrey Epstein.

Nick Capodice: And [00:17:30] these are moments for House reps to get their face and their thoughts on camera for a few shining minutes. Very little was said about policy and procedure. It was just reiteration of points that the parties have made for the last few months. With one notable exception. Speaker Mike Johnson made it very clear he wanted the bill to be amended in the Senate.

Archival: And there are serious deficiencies in the The legislation that I have noted at length, and Republicans have to work to address those deficiencies in the Senate [00:18:00] if and when this legislation is advanced.

Hannah McCarthy: And if a bill is amended in the Senate and passes, that means it has to go back to the House and be voted on again.

Nick Capodice: Exactly. And it can bounce back and forth between the chambers for a long time. But the House vote passed 426 to 1. Louisiana Representative Clay Higgins was the only nay vote, citing potential harm to the survivors of Epstein's crimes. If the files were released.

Hannah McCarthy: And then it went to the Senate, where, because it was not an appropriations bill, it [00:18:30] required 60 votes to not be subject to the filibuster.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, but something pretty strange happened, Hanna. This is something even more rare than the discharge petition. Do you know what a deem and pass provision is?

Hannah McCarthy: No.

Nick Capodice: So this happens sometimes in the House of Representatives. It's also called a self-executing rule. This is where legislators put a provision in the bill that if the rules for debate on the bill are agreed upon, the bill just [00:19:00] passes.

Hannah McCarthy: Really?

Nick Capodice: Yeah. I can't I can't get into it today. It's very complicated. Its constitutionality is debated and it's not really what happened here, but it rhymes with this. So as soon as the bill passed in the House, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer proposed a deem and pass resolution, which 100% of the Senate agreed to, that as soon as the bill came to the Senate, it would instantly pass.

Hannah McCarthy: So no vote and [00:19:30] no amendments, no debate whatsoever.

Nick Capodice: None whatsoever.

Hannah McCarthy: They agreed in advance to say yes.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. It's like it wasn't even there. It's like the bill had a ten minute layover at Dulles.

Archival: The bill to release the Epstein files has passed by unanimous consent in the United States Senate. It now heads to Donald Trump's desk. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer made the request to pass the bill by consent. And it did.

Hannah McCarthy: With Speaker Johnson frustrated that it was not amended.

Nick Capodice: He certainly [00:20:00] was, and he was quite vocal about it.

Speaker24: Any reaction to seeing the bill without adding amendments or changing it?

Archival: I am I am deeply disappointed in this outcome. I think, uh, I'm told I've been at the state dinner, I don't know. I was just told that Chuck Schumer rushed it to the floor and put it out there preemptively. It needed amendments. I just spoke to the president about that. We'll see what happens.

Archival: So is he. Do you think he.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so this passes the House. It passes the Senate. Next step is that it goes to the president for a signature. And [00:20:30] the president has ten days to sign it. Right?

Nick Capodice: Yep. Ten days to sign it or veto it. A pocket veto can happen if Congress adjourns during that ten day period. But again, with all expedience possible, President Trump announced on Truth Social that he signed the bill the night it came to his desk November 19th.

Hannah McCarthy: And how long until the Department of Justice is required to release the files 30 days.

Nick Capodice: So this can be expected on December 19th.

Hannah McCarthy: I do have one more question. [00:21:00] The biggest criticism of this bill in the House debate was that these files had been in the possession of the former Biden administration for years, and the question was, why didn't he release them? Now, critics of the Trump administration have said, why doesn't Trump just release them himself without getting Congress involved? Because my understanding is that a president can indeed tell the DOJ to release files like this, right?

Nick Capodice: Well, this is tricky, and [00:21:30] I had to ask a policy expert on that specifically. And she said, well, this is tricky. Uh, she told me that this falls into our category, Hannah, of can a president Do X, where the answer is redundant because the president does X regardless, president Trump has ordered the release of the files related to the assassinations of Doctor Martin Luther King Jr and President John F Kennedy, and a lot of that material was classified. And declassification requires a well outlined, thorough process. [00:22:00] But at the same time, President Trump has stated, quote, there doesn't have to be a process. As I understand it, if you're the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it's declassified, even by thinking about it. So that is pretty much all I've got today. Hannah, do you have any questions left?

Hannah McCarthy: None that I think can be answered by you right now. The only question I have left is [00:22:30] whether or not the release of these files can be stalled due to ongoing investigation. Because on November 14th, the president ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate links between Epstein and members of the Democratic Party exclusively. So like the investigation would be just as pertains to members of the Democratic Party. And I would assume that there are things in the quote unquote, Epstein files that would be used in that investigation.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, you were right, Hannah. I do not have an answer to that. And I don't [00:23:00] know what's going to happen. I think we are all just going to have to wait until December 19th to know for sure.

Nick Capodice: All right.

Nick Capodice: All right, everyone, take care of yourselves. And we're going to see you next week. This episode is made by me. Nick Capodice with you, Hannah McCarthy. Thank you Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: Thank [00:23:30] you. Nick.

Nick Capodice: Marina Henke is our producer and Rebecca Lavoie, our executive producer. Music. In this episode from Epidemic Sound, blue Dot sessions and the wondrous Chris Zabriskie. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR. New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

What can we learn from the American Revolution?

Ken Burns and Sarah Botstein spent nearly a decade making a twelve-hour documentary on the American Revolution. This is what they learned from the thousands of stories and events that resulted in the United States of America. It's a story of world-changing ideas, contradictory figures, myths that do us no good and what it means to be in pursuit of a more perfect union.

You can watch Ken Burns The American Revolution on PBS, PBS.org and the free PBS app.

---

Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:02] You ever think it's a little odd that we have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours talking about what [00:00:10] we are, who we are, how we work, why we exist, what all of this is based on. And yet, Nick. Yet we [00:00:20] have never really talked about the beginning. The war that changed everything. And [00:00:30] I mean everything.

Ken Burns: [00:00:32] You think you know something about the revolution and then what you learn over the next nine and a half years is that you knew nothing about the revolution.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:39] I'm Hannah [00:00:40] McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:40] I'm Nick Capodice. This is Civics 101. And today we are speaking with two people who radically opened my eyes to the thing that I, and I dare say, many of [00:00:50] us, thought we knew a lot about.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:54] We were wrong.

Ken Burns: [00:00:56] I'm Ken Burns, I am a co-director and co-producer of the [00:01:00] series The American Revolution with Sarah Botstein and David Schmidt.

Sarah Botstein: [00:01:04] My Name is Sarah Botstein, and I co-produced and co-directed the series along with [00:01:10] Ken and David Schmidt.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:12] If you've missed it on PBS or you're not television inclined, the whole series is available to stream on PBS.org. Hannah [00:01:20] and I have watched it, all of it, and I'll just speak for myself. I feel like I just met America.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:31] In [00:01:30] this episode is a little bit different from your typical Civics 101, wherein we pick a topic and explain that one thing as best we can, because today [00:01:40] we're not going to explain the Revolutionary War to you. If you want that, I warmly recommend you dig into the documentary. Instead, we are going to talk about what it was like [00:01:50] for Ken and Sarah to make this project, what they learned, and how they think about the seven plus year conflict that resulted in an entirely new nation, [00:02:00] and how they approach the story of America and the study of history itself.

Ken Burns: [00:02:06] Do you think you know something about George Washington? You knew nothing about George Washington. [00:02:10] You hadn't heard of most of the people that we introduced you in the film, let alone, you know, got to know them in intimate ways.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:18] It's remarkable to me the [00:02:20] degree to which the elements and players of the American Revolution lived in my mind as these abstract, two dimensional things. Now, this is despite nine years [00:02:30] working at civics 101. We throw around names of people and places like they mean something, which they do, just maybe not what you [00:02:40] thought.

Ken Burns: [00:02:40] So it's very much a steep learning curve for us. And then what that translates into is less an arrogance of me telling you, Sarah, and I telling you what [00:02:50] you've got to know is sharing with you our process of discovery. And the whole thing is a process of discovery. And it's not so much additive as it is subtractive. We [00:03:00] collect as much stuff as we can and then try to keep in as much nuance. We've got a neon sign in the editing room that says it's complicated. Because [00:03:10] we always are looking for the destabilizing, not for the sake of it, but just because when you've got a scene that's [00:03:20] working and then you learn an important nuance.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:23] This reminded me so much, Hannah, of the many times that one of us has discovered a great anecdote from history that [00:03:30] seems to explain everything in this nice, neat, tidy little package. And then we do a little more research. And wouldn't you know, it's complicated.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:39] Yeah, that is [00:03:40] why I appreciate the term destabilizing so much here. Nice, neat and tidy is rarely the whole truth, but it sure is easier to swallow. And [00:03:50] when you're making a documentary about the Revolutionary War, you're butting up against so many assumptions and myths and tidy Heidi boxes that make the story [00:04:00] seem less complicated. Our story.

Ken Burns: [00:04:03] You know what I tell groups of people, not just kids like. And the kids always know the answer to this. The [00:04:10] first part of it is, how were the colonists, both rich and poor, all men who dumped the tea into Boston Harbor, dressed. And the kids all go. And some of the adults [00:04:20] go dressed as Native Americans. And then you say, why? And there's a big silence. And you get a few people very understandably, saying to deflect the blame, to [00:04:30] put the blame right. Which is, what if we're honest with ourselves? That's probably what we thought, if we'd even gotten that far in thinking. But as the scholar Phil Deloria [00:04:40] tells us in our film, no, it's a way of making you yourself distinct, however ironic the undertow of that is making you distinct. We're no longer, he says, [00:04:50] of the motherland. We're Aboriginal. So all of a sudden, how their dress becomes a gigantic statement, given the fact that the last 150 years [00:05:00] has been about the displacement of native peoples from their lands, and the next 150 years will be the completion of the job all the way to the Pacific. But there how do [00:05:10] they distinguish themselves in this moment of great, not just symbolic, but real protest is to say we are no longer connected with the mother country. Now, that's something [00:05:20] that, for me, was as big a thing as anything I've ever come across.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:29] So I have to admit here, [00:05:30] Hannah, this directly contradicts what I learned reporting on my own episode on protest. The idea that the colonists were trying to pass the blame on to a group, that they were actively [00:05:40] displacing, a group they saw as the other. Like that makes sense. That's a dichotomy. That's, as you put it, easy to swallow.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:50] And [00:05:50] the true story reveals this complex rationale and perspective. The colonists appropriation Procreation is this strange paradox. I think it says a lot about [00:06:00] Boston colonial hypocrisy, romanticism mindsets before the war began, what at that moment, these protesters thought would best project [00:06:10] independent Americanism. Regardless of the irony that's clear to us today, the true story forces us to consider these coexisting, contradictory elements [00:06:20] of a story we thought we knew pretty well.

Ken Burns: [00:06:22] Having a little fact and every little place. If you if you spend the time we've spent working on this working and engaging in the [00:06:30] scholars, everything has a little bit of undertow, has a little bit of quicksand, has a little bit of the opposite, as well as the other opposite being true [00:06:40] at the same time. And that's exhilarating if if you're open to it.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:44] I love comparing these complications to Undertow in Quicksand. Hannah, you know, you're swimming along. [00:06:50] You're walking along. La la la. This is the path I know. And then all of a sudden, whoosh, you go under. And [00:07:00] you can either avoid the ocean, avoid the fire swamp, or you can say, wow, now I can draw the real map. Now I know what's really [00:07:10] going on here.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:11] Yeah. And we're going to come back to this piece soon, because Ken has a lot more to say about holding both the good story and the unsavory story in your mind at [00:07:20] the same time. And there's a good reason to do that. But to get all those little pieces calm, surface and undertow, Sara and Ken had to find [00:07:30] those pieces. They had to ask many, many people what they knew about the story.

Sarah Botstein: [00:07:36] Take Maggie Blackhawk. She's a very well renowned legal [00:07:40] scholar. Take Vince Brown. He's a specialist in the Caribbean experience of the war. When we started, if someone said to me, oh, are you going to have a Caribbean scholar, I would have gone, [00:07:50] ah, I have no idea. But the more we read and learned, the more we realized realize how important the Caribbean is to the history of the American Revolution. And [00:08:00] then there are more generalists like Alan Taylor and Jane Kaminsky. And then there's, you know, the British side of the struggle, the British perspective. And that's Christopher Brown, [00:08:10] who's a wonderful scholar, teaches the American Revolution, but is really interested in the British piece of it, along with Stephen Conway. And then, [00:08:20] you know, the writers Rick Atkinson, Nathaniel Philbrick, Stacy Schiff, Bill Hoagland, add something that the academics don't.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:28] It actually reminds me of the [00:08:30] parable of the five blind men and the elephant. Except this elephant is many years long and thousands of miles large, and you need the person who sees [00:08:40] the wall of it, the person who sees the snake, the one who sees the tree, etc. and you've got to put all that together to see the elephant.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:48] And the documentary [00:08:50] examines these many pieces over and over again. Some of the strange truths of the revolution are difficult to internalize. For example, the [00:09:00] fact that this was a war fought amongst ourselves. We think Redcoats versus revolutionaries, British versus American. But that distinction was new [00:09:10] and often murky at the time.

Sarah Botstein: [00:09:12] It's a world war. It's a civil war. It involves all kinds of people from all different backgrounds, who make all kinds [00:09:20] of really interesting choices that have a lot to learn from why they made those choices. So, you know, you're asking the viewer to think a, [00:09:30] what does this have to do with me? Can I find myself in this history? How does it inform my idea of being an American citizen in 2025? What is the responsibility [00:09:40] that I have?

Ken Burns: [00:09:41] I had an experience sitting right where I am of sharing the introduction to this film with a dear friend, and at the end of it she said, I wonder what side I'd [00:09:50] be on. I wonder whether there would be a cause that I would fight for. Would I be willing to kill someone [00:10:00] for that cause? Now, you'd think somebody had been working on this film for seven years, would go, yeah, [00:10:10] I think about that every day. And I went, I don't think I'd thought about it that way. I thought about like, you know, could I have been a loyalist? I just every [00:10:20] American would like to assume they'd be a patriot. Could I have been a loyalist? Yeah. I do have an ancestor that was a loyalist and signed an oath of allegiance and ended up in New Brunswick.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:30] Have [00:10:30] you ever thought about this, Hannah? Whether you could have been a loyalist?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:34] Only ever since I read that loyalists existed in the colonies in the Felicity American Girl doll books. But [00:10:40] I cannot emphasize enough, Nick, how much growing up near Boston influences your understanding of the American Revolution and which side you should be on. And we [00:10:50] romanticized it. In my mind, the words American Revolution were surrounded by glittering stars and flags, and there was inspirational music playing in this feeling [00:11:00] of this rightful victory. But really, we're talking about a long and bloody war against friends and neighbors. And Ken and Sarah are not here [00:11:10] to keep that romantic vision up.

Sarah Botstein: [00:11:12] It was a really terrible war, and a lot of mothers lost their sons and sisters lost their brothers, and people died and families were divided. [00:11:20] And it took almost a decade for that to happen.

Ken Burns: [00:11:26] They fought each other. They killed each other. The lesson is the collective lesson [00:11:30] that we can take, that violence doesn't work. When do human beings decide that their an impasse and skip the fighting in the killing part and jump to the negotiation part? That's a huge thing, because [00:11:40] I think what we think is we have these great thoughts. And then there was Lexington and Concord, and then the British surrendered at Yorktown. That's six and a half years later. And the Treaty of Paris is not until eight years later. [00:11:50] And the British don't leave until eight and a half and two months later from New York City, their big stronghold for most of the war, from September 15th, 1776 [00:12:00] to November 25th. This is an occupied nation. So there were pacifists and many of them were loyalists, right? There was a pacifist, Nathanael Greene, who turns [00:12:10] out to be our second best general in the course of things, and he decides that pacifism is a little kind of not quite to the point right now, given what's going on. Meaning he [00:12:20] wants to be in on the fighting.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:25] So we've been talking, Hannah, about holding both the good and the unsavory, [00:12:30] the glittering and the tarnished in your mind at the same time when it comes to the American Revolution. That's how you actually get to a real understanding. Right. And [00:12:40] hand in hand with this bloody war are these glorious ideals of liberty and equality. And what's remarkable to me is the fact that despite [00:12:50] these being goals written by white land owning men. For white land owning men, it was not just white land owning men fighting this war, and it was not [00:13:00] just white land owning men who believed in these ideals, who wanted them, expected them.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:05] And this is something that you and I talk about a lot, right? Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration [00:13:10] of Independence, famously writes, all men are created equal. Now, he may have meant all white, land owning men like me, but [00:13:20] he wrote.

Sarah Botstein: [00:13:22] All the American Revolution isn't just, you know, fancy guys in Philadelphia duking out great thoughts and [00:13:30] leaving a lot of people out from their original thinking. But maybe they weren't really leaving people out. They just it was going to take us a while to actually get there.

Ken Burns: [00:13:38] We had an experience last week [00:13:40] with the conservative scholar Yuval Levin. He just said, you know, among many, many startling and wonderful, wonderful things. And we were so pleased that he had loved [00:13:50] the entire film and had watched it. But but more important, he said, when you say all men are created equal, once you say the word all.

Sarah Botstein: [00:13:59] It's there you go.

Ken Burns: [00:14:00] It's [00:14:00] all it's.

Sarah Botstein: [00:14:02] Might take us a while.

Ken Burns: [00:14:03] Now. He may mean only white men of property free of debt, but all is all. And that means that [00:14:10] the second that all comes out, slavery is over. It's going to take fourscore in nine years. But it's over in the United States.

Sarah Botstein: [00:14:18] A little while for Hannah and me to get the right to vote. [00:14:20]

Ken Burns: [00:14:20] Hannah and Sarah get the right to vote 144 years later.

Sarah Botstein: [00:14:23] 44 years later.

Ken Burns: [00:14:24] But it's it's done. Suffragists happen.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:33] I [00:14:30] got excited here because this is actually an argument that I have made quite a few times in my personal life when [00:14:40] I'm asked what makes me feel patriotic, what I love about this country, what's so great about democracy after all? Et cetera. Et cetera. To me, a big part of it is that a rich, [00:14:50] white, powerful man made a strong choice of words, and everybody kind of called his bluff.

Ken Burns: [00:14:56] It wasn't until the slave owners [00:15:00] were complaining that the British were treating them like they were slaves, and that concurrent with that is the release of this document that all men are created equal, that is not just heard [00:15:10] by George Washington. And Thomas Jefferson said, oh, whoa, boy. That's good. Tom. Yeah. Thanks, George. You know, it was like heard by the people who were serving them food. Everybody [00:15:20] heard it as Maggie Blackhawk, the scholar says in our film. It's deeply significant to people at the margins who don't have that and won't have that for [00:15:30] a significant amount of time. And so Bernard Bailyn, he said, you know, after the revolution, there wasn't a moment when we weren't talking about slavery. And so the cat is out of [00:15:40] the bag. So what? There is this democratic spirit that is released, both intended and unintentional. And the unintentional is as important as the intentional, like democracy [00:15:50] itself was not an intention of the revolution. It's a byproduct. They imagine a kind of Republican aristocracy that would rule things of white men, of property free [00:16:00] of debt. And that's what he meant when he said, all men are created equal.

Ken Burns: [00:16:06] But the people who won the revolution for those people were [00:16:10] teenagers and ne'er do wells, and second and third sons without a chance of an inheritance and recent immigrants and, you know, a whole bunch of people that they hadn't expected, freed [00:16:20] and enslaved black people and native people who were allies. I mean, this was a whole big, you know, like a World War Two bomber movie, you know, group of characters. [00:16:30] And they're going to need something at the end for what they did for the sacrifice they made. So democracy becomes [00:16:40] a consequence, perhaps unintended, a consequence of the revolution and not an intention. So, Hannah, that's the $64,000 [00:16:50] question. That's the grand slam home run of it is what happens when you create these conditions in which this argument between Englishmen breaks [00:17:00] out into, because we're in the enlightenment big, huge, big idea, natural rights, meaning everybody. And all of a sudden when you say all men are created equal, as [00:17:10] Yuval says, that all you know, it's all it means all. What part of all don't you understand? [00:17:20]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:27] And you know, you can look at these as these white, land owning, [00:17:30] powerful men slipping up and accidentally opening the floodgates for the teenagers and the ne'er do wells, and the third sons and the new immigrants and the women and the freed [00:17:40] and enslaved black people and the native people. You can look at it as greedy elites who barely saw the rest of the nation, who were often flawed and immoral. And [00:17:50] you can throw them out but keep their good ideas. But that can explained is not going to get us very far.

Ken Burns: [00:17:58] And you begin to realize, [00:18:00] as Jefferson is distilling this in the words that are both poetic and vague, that he's just he's left room for the rest of us to drive a truck [00:18:10] through it. So while we spend all of our time in a kind of false binary sort of, do we throw Jefferson out? Do we keep Jeff? You know, what do we do? [00:18:20] He's there. We just call balls and strikes. But, you know, as as Annette Gordon-Reed says, he knew slavery was wrong. And how do you do something if you know it's wrong? She says that's a question for [00:18:30] all of us. She's not letting Jefferson off the hook. She's keeping him on the hook, but she's putting the rest of us on the hook for not being as we are not true to what is right and true all [00:18:40] the time. And so you can take the experience of the American Revolution and turn it into a skull. Tisk, tisk and cancel somebody. You can elevate [00:18:50] other people who have the same flaws that Jefferson has, right? Or or different variations of of human frailty and flaws. Or you can accept them and understand [00:19:00] how we're going to take this recipe and continually improve on it, because it's a much richer recipe right now. The cake we got out [00:19:10] of it in 1776 was delicious, but it's a hundred times more delicious now.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:19] I feel Hannah, like [00:19:20] so much of our conversation with Ken and Sarah, was a reminder to hang on to both the bathwater and the baby.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:27] You learn a lot more about the supposedly glittering thing, [00:19:30] if you can see the mess that it came from.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:32] So it can be less messy in the future.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:34] So we can be less messy in the future.

Ken Burns: [00:19:37] Mark Twain said nothing so needs reforming [00:19:40] as other people's habits, right? Meaning we're always willing to tell Hannah or Nick what they need to do, right? [00:19:50] It's what I am responsible to do. This is. This is the great anxiety of atoms. How will I change myself? How will I participate in these fraught times? To be a better citizen, [00:20:00] to contribute to the progress, the pursuit of happiness and a more perfect union? What? What will that entail?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:08] What that entails after [00:20:10] the break.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:11] But before that break, it is no 12 hour Revolutionary War documentary. But Hannah and I did write a book. A book in which we share the story of America, why we're [00:20:20] here and what we are doing. It also includes the brilliant illustrations from our friend and New Yorker cartoonist Tom Toro. Check it out. It's called A User's Guide to Democracy How [00:20:30] America Works.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:50] We're [00:20:50] back. Today we are sharing a conversation with Ken Burns and Sarah Botstein, who together with their team and a host of scholars and writers in nearly ten years of work, [00:21:00] created a documentary, The American Revolution.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:03] And just before the break, we got to one of my favorite subjects from our conversation with Ken and Sarah, using our [00:21:10] understanding of our history and the flaws and mistakes and the victories and the glory of the past to make us more perfect, which is, incidentally, the only [00:21:20] way this is going to work.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:21] Yeah, to that point, there's this moment in the documentary, you've got Paul Giamatti reading a letter written by John Adams, and Adam says, basically, this [00:21:30] thing isn't going to work unless people put society above themselves.

Ken Burns: [00:21:36] And that's why we teach civics, which is to arm our our [00:21:40] young citizens with the tools necessary to continue the lifelong learning, the pursuit of happiness that they said was necessary in order to [00:21:50] keep up with stuff.

Sarah Botstein: [00:21:51] And make a virtuous public.

Ken Burns: [00:21:53] Yeah.

Sarah Botstein: [00:21:53] Virtue.

Ken Burns: [00:21:54] There's too much ambition and avarice, too much greed, too much lust for profit. There's not enough virtue [00:22:00] to create what we're going to need. And this is the anxiety we've always had. And this is a human thing he's worried not about. Like in this particular case, he's talking [00:22:10] about human nature everywhere. He's talking about Kazakhstan and Peru. Right. And Iceland. That's what he's talking about [00:22:20] as well, because these are you know, the great thing about the declaration is, he says, we hold these truths to be self-evident. There is nothing self-evident about these truths. Actually, he wrote, [00:22:30] we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable. That's actually more accurate to the thing. Meaning we're telling you something new, self-evident says [00:22:40] everybody's always believed this, but it's not true. But it's it's Franklin who adds the self-evident and scratches out in the first draft, which you can see [00:22:50] in in our film twice, you know, the sacred and undeniable. Just terrific, terrific editing on the part of Franklin of Jefferson's, you know, beautiful, beautiful [00:23:00] prose. And the most important word is not happiness, which they meant was like learning, learning, learning and virtue. Virtue, virtue, as Sarah would say. But [00:23:10] it's pursuit. Right. It's we're a process, and we're all the way through this. And then in the Constitution, which is, you know, many [00:23:20] years later. Right? Right. A dozen years later, we're, we're saying a more perfect union. So we're always putting [00:23:30] the goalposts ahead of us. The perfection is impossible, right? The happiness is unattainable. But we are [00:23:40] obligated as citizens, not subjects. Subjects can just remain ignorant in a kind of superstitious peasantry, right? But as a citizen, [00:23:50] you don't give up. You just keep learning and you just figure out a new way to sort of parse the complexity, even the impossibility of these [00:24:00] sentences, these phrases.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:04] The American Revolution can be, and often is told to us as a story of ideal [00:24:10] union of collective America, the United States. But that, as Ken says, [00:24:20] is the goalpost that we never actually reach. We weren't there then. We are not there now. We're moving toward it, and [00:24:30] looking back and seeing just how far we've come is integral to the project.

Sarah Botstein: [00:24:36] I was born in 1972. I have very little memories of [00:24:40] the Bicentennial, and in my imagination When we started the film, I was like, oh, the country was totally united then and we had parades and people [00:24:50] were flying the flag and daughters of the American Revolution. Okay, well, some of that happened, but the country was wildly divided. It was the fall of Saigon. People couldn't [00:25:00] agree about anything. There was huge social upheaval. So as Ken was just saying, we have always been divided. We need to listen to each other. We need [00:25:10] to think about where our divisions lie. We need to inspire people to be engaged in their local communities. I think that's where we [00:25:20] have a lot to learn from the revolution. They were not. First of all, they didn't know how it was going to turn out right. So Ken always says George Washington doesn't know he's going to be George Washington. [00:25:30] Thomas Jefferson is 34 years old, 33 years old, 33 or 34 when he writes the declaration, they're just like really smart revolutionaries duking it [00:25:40] out amongst themselves. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson couldn't agree. But they love each other at the end because they can't agree, right? And we've watched [00:25:50] in 250 years so much of their debate play out.

Ken Burns: [00:25:57] We've been doing this for a long time, making films about American [00:26:00] history for 50 years. And, um, you learn a lot of things. And what the revolution really reminds us is how divided we were back then. [00:26:10] Really divided. Way more divided than we are now. We kind of think of it. Oh, it's an argument, as we say in the introduction, it's not just a clash between Englishmen over Indian [00:26:20] land and taxes and representation, but a bloody struggle that would involve more than two dozen nations, European as well as Native American, that somehow came to be about the [00:26:30] noblest aspirations of humankind. So all of that stuff exists. We were divided when we began this. We're obviously divided now as we finish it and share it with the world. [00:26:40]

Nick Capodice: [00:26:42] This conversation with Ken and Sarah was such an important reminder to me of what history is for Hannah and [00:26:50] how we can and should use what happened 250 years ago to get through the next 250.

Ken Burns: [00:26:56] And what we do know is that history, as you guys know, is [00:27:00] the greatest teacher. And so we just know that it helps to have that kind of perspective. It may make you less of a chicken little. The sky is falling. It may give you more confidence [00:27:10] to reengage with those noble aspirations of humankind in a way that you hadn't really thought of. It may make you understand George Washington a little [00:27:20] bit better. Or what a ten year old girl? What's happening to her in 1775, when the war begins, all of these things are possible. And that's where history just opens up. You know, [00:27:30] I've given a few commencement addresses, and I remember the first as approaching the first one with great anxiety. And someone said, well, whatever you do, don't tell them their future lies ahead of them. That's [00:27:40] such a cliche. So I said, okay, and I admitted that somebody had said that. And so I said, I want to talk to you today about how your future lies behind you in the history you don't know. [00:27:50] And that's I still firmly that was, you know, in the mid 80s. I still firmly believe that. And, and I think that we have this opportunity [00:28:00] to sort of Lincoln says it in a message to Congress. He first says, fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us [00:28:10] down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. Then he changes courses and he goes. The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. [00:28:20] As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves. That means don't be a slave to and then we can save our country. So he's not [00:28:30] contradictory. He's understanding that it is both true. We have to gather the threads of our past, but we also have to see this as a completely new situation.

Nick Capodice: [00:28:43] Disenthrall [00:28:40] ourselves really got to me, as Lincoln often does. I think it can be difficult to understand [00:28:50] what really happened before. Understand that we are a product of that. Keep that history in mind as we look to the future, but also know that the past is not [00:29:00] some transparent blueprint. You can just lay over the present.

Ken Burns: [00:29:04] Are there federal troops in US cities? Yes. Is this like the standing army that everybody got [00:29:10] so upset about? When General Gage sent the regiments from Halifax, Nova Scotia, into Boston not to protect them, but to police them? Yes, but it's really different set of circumstances. [00:29:20] So if you take the reaction of the colonists to this and apply it to now, you've missed the boat, you have to both disenthrall ourselves because our case is new. [00:29:30] And at the same time, you have to realize the inescapability of history. And if you can hold those two seemingly contradictory things just as he does, Lincoln does in the second inaugural [00:29:40] when he's very Old Testament, you know, if if it's going to take 500 years with every drop of blood drawn by the lash, it'll be drawn by the sword. Meaning, you know, you want to keep this up, we will keep this [00:29:50] up. And then he pivots and goes from Old Testament to New Testament with malice towards none, with charity for all. This [00:30:00] is what we have to do as citizens. We are required. This is what the declaration also says. Pursuit of happiness is lifelong learning, [00:30:10] not acquisition of stuff. It's lifelong learning is the ability to tolerate these contradictions and to learn and grow from them and work from them. And the reason [00:30:20] why history is for so many people boring is because it's always one dimensional when it has dimension to it, when it has story to it, when it [00:30:30] isn't just an argument, a one thing or another, then it blossoms. And like a garden, it just continually bears fruit.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:41] Over [00:30:40] the course of watching this documentary, I gasped, I sobbed, I laughed, I furiously texted my friends asking if they [00:30:50] knew the whole story of Benedict Arnold. They definitely didn't. And for me personally, gaining a new level of understanding, standing [00:31:00] in the multidimensional garden of complex stories and people from one of our most mythologized eras, it's like getting to be Ralph [00:31:10] Waldo Emerson's transparent eyeball.

Nick Capodice: [00:31:12] You're gonna have to give me a little bit more there.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:31:14] Okay. Emerson was actually talking about dissolving the ego and seeing everything becoming one with nature. [00:31:20] You're this transparent eyeball that sees it all. Right. But my point is, there are these boundaries and biases that, at least for me, [00:31:30] fall away when you open history up, when you see how flawed and complex people were and are messy. Blood and bone. But [00:31:40] with these astonishing, glittering ideals, those were humans back there, fighting and arguing and working toward a goal so spectacular [00:31:50] that it is still ahead of us. And the reason we're here today is because we are still fighting and arguing and working toward [00:32:00] that goal. And you can either call that madness or you can go out and be a part of the tussle.

Sarah Botstein: [00:32:07] The inspiration I hope people take [00:32:10] from the show is that you do have a voice that our founders wanted us to be involved, that our founders wanted us to debate our neighbors civilly [00:32:20] and with virtue, and to try to figure it out. So I don't want that to sound naive. I truly mean it. I mean, we were I was just thinking [00:32:30] we were making this film as we were finishing a film that came out three years ago on the US and the Holocaust. And one of the things that that film studies is how quickly [00:32:40] the world descended into a world war and how America changed, and also stayed exactly the same through [00:32:50] the depression. And what you know, what America was like in the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s. And in that film, there is an enormous amount to celebrate [00:33:00] about the American military achievement in the Second World War, and a lot to be very discouraged about when it comes to America's history [00:33:10] of antisemitism, nativism, isolationist tendencies. And both those things happen in that film. And here we are talking about the American [00:33:20] Revolution a few years later, and there are so many pieces that those two films can learn from each other in thinking about the past. But the thing that's the same at [00:33:30] the end of both of them, you should vote. You should care about your local library. You should care about your local school board. Politics starts locally, and John Adams [00:33:40] and Thomas Jefferson knew that in their own 18th century way.

Ken Burns: [00:33:43] Sarah's absolutely right. Let's just pull something out from the revolutionary period, which we can agree on. [00:33:50] So we win the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. We have a Treaty of Paris in 1783. The British leave at the end of November of 1783, [00:34:00] and things go to hell in a handbasket. The Articles of Confederation are toothless and ineffective, and we then in 1787, decide we need to have a constitutional [00:34:10] convention. George, will you please come out of retirement and chair this? Be the president of this? Okay. They make phenomenal compromises, some genius, some unbelievably tragic, [00:34:20] and they work out a system. But then, as Annette Gordon-Reed says, what follows is one of the greatest periods of public debate in the history of the world. [00:34:30] There's not a Shays Rebellion that's not old soldiers killing each other [00:34:40] over taxes in Massachusetts or this or that. It's people engaging. And what they all want is they want this new blueprint. But the blueprint is without poetry, [00:34:50] except for the preamble. It's code. And they said, we need to append to this code what we actually just spent all this time fighting for [00:35:00] which we call the Bill of rights.

Ken Burns: [00:35:02] It is an itemization of everything they think that they've earned. And all of this takes place with vigorous public conversation [00:35:10] and revision. We got to the tent almost simultaneously with the various new states of the United States ratifying this [00:35:20] unusual document. Never before in the history of humankind and then said, we enshrine these things, right. Just the first one alone is like [00:35:30] the whole stuff. No, the government will not establish a particular religion. They saw that religion was at the heart of most of the struggles that had taken place in [00:35:40] the world, or the excuse used to as a cudgel against your enemy will make no religion. It gives you the chance to have the free expression of whatever your religion [00:35:50] is. There's freedom of the press, the freedom of speech to articulate what they want, and the freedom to address one's grievances peacefully. Address one's grievances. I mean, you just just [00:36:00] in the First Amendment alone, you have the biggest package of happiness that human beings have ever tied and put a bow on to just amendment [00:36:10] number one.

Nick Capodice: [00:36:15] So remember, at the end of our conversation with Ken and Sarah Hannah, we asked them about community, [00:36:20] specifically what it takes to put down the individual personal things that we cling to, the things we hold up as shields or swords [00:36:30] against those who have different shields and swords. Because a question you and I are asking ourselves all the time is how do we talk to one another [00:36:40] and combine our efforts? How do we live as the all instead of the one as the Pluribus? Not just the Unum. [00:36:50] And how is the story of the American Revolution the true story? I mean, a piece of the answer.

Sarah Botstein: [00:36:57] Really at the heart of for me. I'll just [00:37:00] say for myself, any film I've worked on over the 30 years of working with Ken, I think that humility. I think [00:37:10] we almost want our viewer to subtly put that hat on. Please come on. This exploration of [00:37:20] this subject, that is the American experiment, that is American history. And this is it's our origin story. So there's more in this to [00:37:30] a be humble about B to think very seriously about see to be deeply patriotic about for very [00:37:40] complicated reasons, patriotism. To me personally, I feel like I've learned a lot about patriotism and thought a lot about patriotism in making this particular film. [00:37:50] And to your first question, talking to the scholars that have thought about it, watching our country go through the last two big election cycles that it's gone through, seeing what's [00:38:00] happening on the world stage, understanding over 250 years where I personally think America has done well and been a beacon of hope and example, and [00:38:10] where I think we haven't done well, and how both those things together give me energy and optimism to fight for a better future, the [00:38:20] more humble we become. No question about that. The more we listen, the more we experience, the better we become. The [00:38:30] healthier we are. Our families are. Our communities are, our Republic is. And that's I mean, speaking for myself, that's at the heart of the work that we do.

Ken Burns: [00:38:41] What [00:38:40] is worth fighting for, if it if it comes to that? What is worth killing for? Maybe you'd [00:38:50] hope that humanity would be at a place where it didn't do any of that. That it found a way to solve it. But I also think I mean, you think about D-Day. [00:39:00] And you've got farm kids from Iowa [00:39:10] or Nebraska who are landing at Omaha Beach, the worst of all of the landing spots. They're not getting paid anything [00:39:20] to speak of. There is no territory that the United States is gaining. There's no looting. [00:39:30] There's no profit. They are there because of an idea and it's so powerful [00:39:40] an idea born or at least articulated on July 4th, 1776. It is so powerful that nearly 200 years [00:39:50] later, people are willing to sacrifice. So maybe [00:40:00] not so much. What would I be willing to kill for? But what would I be willing to die for in the service of these ideas? And it is our collective [00:40:10] failure. I mean, the four of us, that we have a system around us that is often ignorant even of the [00:40:20] essential ability to ask these questions of themselves. A lot of it has to do with our failure to teach our history well, or to understand the centrality [00:40:30] of civics, which isn't just, you know, 100 senators and 435 representatives and three branches of government. But it's I live in a tiny town in New Hampshire. And, you [00:40:40] know, it's whether we buy this fire truck that costs $350,000 or $450,000 this year. And what do we do about this little problem [00:40:50] about parking over here? All of that? Things are part of this bigger, bigger thing that we've said by virtue of being an [00:41:00] American, that we're going to be part of. And so it's now how do we how do we shout to every Middlesex village and farm the alarm? You know, not that the British are coming. They didn't say [00:41:10] that. They said the regulars are coming out. The regulars are coming out. But if you don't use it, you lose it. That's our message.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:41:36] That [00:41:30] does it for this episode. Now go shout it to every Middlesex village and [00:41:40] farm and also all of the other counties outside of Middlesex County, Massachusetts. This was produced by me. Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. [00:41:50] Marina Henke is our producer. Music in this episode by Mr. You know you missed me Chris Zabriskie. A reminder again that Ken Burns's Revolutionary War is available to stream [00:42:00] on PBS.org, as well as several other streaming services. If you watch it and you have thoughts or questions and you want us to answer them in a civics 101 episode, well, that's [00:42:10] what we're here for. Email us at Civics 101 at nhpr.org. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Billionaires

In sixty years, we have gone from 2 billionaires in the United States to just under 2,000. How on earth did that happen?

Today, Timothy Noah from the New Republic takes us all the way from our framers fearing excessive wealth to the country's first (potential) trillionaire. To learn about their proliferation, their desires, and their outsized effect on American policy, check out his article, How the Billionaires Took Over. 

---

Transcript

Nick Capodice: What was your first job that you ever had?

Hannah McCarthy: I was a counselor at the same theater summer camp that I attended as a child.

Nick Capodice: What did you make?

Hannah McCarthy: Uh, probably like $6 an hour. Maybe $6.50.

Nick Capodice: That's not good.

Hannah McCarthy: What was your first job?

Nick Capodice: I was a dishwasher at Hermanos Cocina mexicana. With the firm wage of $4.25 an hour.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Yeah, [00:00:30] it adds up. You know.

Nick Capodice: I served Steven Tyler nachos once.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, well, that's your payment.

Nick Capodice: So I calculated how long I'd have to work at Hermanos to make $1 billion.

Hannah McCarthy: It's really not, hermano.

Nick Capodice: No, no, it's it's in New Hampshire. It's hermanos.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. How long?

Nick Capodice: Nonstop. No sleeping. 30,000 years.

Archival: Shareholders [00:01:00] are currently meeting to vote on Musks new pay package. It could be worth nearly $1 trillion in stock.

Archival: Wedding bells are ringing in Venice for billionaire Jeff Bezos and fiance Lauren Sanchez with a smooch on a yacht. Its a modern take on the ancient city's history of power and opulence.

Archival: We make the rules now. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price of a paperclip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat where everybody sits out there wondering how the [00:01:30] hell we did it. Now, you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you, buddy?

Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: And today we are talking about billionaires, how they happen, what they do and how many there are.

Timothy Noah: Yeah. Well, when when when? Uh, I'm 67 years old. And when I was born, there were in the United States. One, maybe two billionaires. [00:02:00]

Nick Capodice: This is Timothy. Noah.

Timothy Noah: My name is Timothy Noah, and I'm a staff writer at The New Republic and also author of the book The Great Divergence, about the rise of income inequality in the 20th century.

Nick Capodice: Now, I reached out to Timothy because he wrote the most in-depth breakdown of the rise of billionaires in America, and I have a link to the full article in the show notes.

Hannah McCarthy: Wait, he said when he was born, there were only two billionaires.

Nick Capodice: Two?

Hannah McCarthy: Who [00:02:30] were they depending on?

Timothy Noah: When you kind of looked at the numbers, there was H.L. hunt, the oil billionaire, and there was John Paul Getty, benefactor of the Getty Museum in Los Angeles. And I think when Getty died in 1976, he was the richest person in the world.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, well, there are a lot more billionaires these days. I can name about ten right off the top of my head, But how many are we up to now? Like how many billionaires are in the US [00:03:00] now?

Timothy Noah: There's kind of not quite 2000 billionaires in the country. They've been proliferating, uh, especially fast in the last 20 or 30 years as government policy has become more and more friendly to the accumulation and concentration of wealth.

Nick Capodice: So, Hannah, before we get into how we have so many billionaires, I think it's important to just sort of stop for a second and [00:03:30] just think about it and really understand what a billion is. Do you know what a billion is?

Hannah McCarthy: It's a number. It's a one with nine zeros after it. It's a thousand millions.

Nick Capodice: Did you know that in France a billion is a million millions?

Hannah McCarthy: What?

Nick Capodice: Really?

Hannah McCarthy: Uh, it's a number.

Nick Capodice: Different countries have different meanings of the word billion. It was not until World War two that England started [00:04:00] to use billion to mean a thousand millions. And I bring all this up because the reason we're all so slippery on what a billion is, is because it is so gosh darn big.

Timothy Noah: No human being can count to a billion. You would be dead before you got done counting to a billion. You can count to a million if you really want to. I don't recommend it, but you cannot count to a billion.

Hannah McCarthy: How long would it take me to count to a million without sleeping? Sure. [00:04:30]

Nick Capodice: Uh, 11 days.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. What about a billion?

Nick Capodice: Well, 1,000,000,000 seconds ago, Hannah, you were three years old.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, man.

Timothy Noah: So if you have $1 billion, you literally own more money than any human being will ever be able to count. And that's $1 billion we will probably see in our lifetimes the advent of the first trillionaire. So yes, billion is just an unimaginably large number. Through [00:05:00] its sheer existence, it generates an unbelievable quantity of money and interest.

Nick Capodice: Just for fun, I want to add here that if we do indeed see a trillionaire in our lifetimes, 1,000,000,000,000 seconds ago was 35,000 years ago. Saber toothed tigers prowled the plains. This was when the very first cave paintings were made. And you know what? I'm not going to stop there, Hannah, because I love visualizing large numbers. Let me try this one on you. Do you remember when you held your first $100 [00:05:30] bill?

Hannah McCarthy: I'm still nervous to hold $100 bill. Um, probably not that long ago. Nick, it's basically $1 million.

Nick Capodice: Really? Was the median personal income in the United States is about $45,000 a year. And if we took that whole year's salary and we put it in $100 bills, that is 400 and $5,000 bills right there on the table. Are you with me so far? Yeah. Okay. That stack is about two inches high. It's like a deck of tarot cards, [00:06:00] basically. That tarot deck of cards is a year's salary. Uh, now, if we were to stack a trillion hundred dollar bills, that stack is 670 miles high. Tight stack of $100 bills all the way from New York City to Cincinnati. Well, we are not a weights and measurements podcast where civics podcast. So I'm going to get back to it. Where were we, Hannah?

Hannah McCarthy: There used to be [00:06:30] two billionaires, and now there are just under 2000 billionaires.

Nick Capodice: Right.

Hannah McCarthy: And how did we get to this point?

Nick Capodice: Well, let's go to a time in our country when we didn't have any.

Timothy Noah: The founders were very concerned about this. They were very concerned about the creation of a wealth aristocracy. Thomas Jefferson in particular was very concerned about this, and enacted measures intended to do things like outlaw the [00:07:00] giving of aristocratic titles and going after the entail, which was a, uh, a legal provision intended to preserve family wealth by outlawing the breaking up of large estates. You know, this carried over for, you know, uh, many generations. It was understood that for the United States experiment to work, you could not have an aristocracy of wealth. Louis Brandeis, [00:07:30] I think, went so far as to say, you know, you can have democracy or you can have extreme concentration of wealth, but you can't have both. And we did manage to avoid oligopoly, uh, except in the South, which was an oligopoly from colonial times onward.

Hannah McCarthy: Hang on. Can you explain what an oligopoly is? Is that different from an oligarchy?

Nick Capodice: Absolutely. An oligarchy is a system of government where a small, wealthy, connected group of people have all the power and [00:08:00] make all the decisions. A monopoly, like the game, is when one company controls an entire industry, and an oligopoly is when a small number of companies control an industry.

Hannah McCarthy: And when Timothy says that the South was an oligopoly at the time of our founding, this was because a small number of enslavers had an enormous amount of wealth and power.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, and I think W.E.B. Du Bois put it best in 1935. He wrote, quote, even among the 2 million slaveholders, an oligarchy of 8000 really [00:08:30] ruled the South.

Timothy Noah: But nationally, we did manage to avoid having, um, a strict oligopoly until the end of the 19th century, during the Gilded Age, when so much wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few that, um, it completely corrupted Washington. And Washington was an absolute cesspool of corruption in the, uh, for the last 30 years of the 19th century, [00:09:00] focused particularly on Congress. Members of Congress were were bought and sold.

Hannah McCarthy: And that's the era of the robber barons, right?

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: Railroad companies flagrantly bribing politicians to get laws passed that benefited them.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. And it wasn't just the rails, Hanna, when Timothy calls it a cesspool of corruption, that is an understatement. There were scandals involving whiskey distillers. There were wealthy people cornering the gold market, uh, even postmasters, the people who sold stamps, making a [00:09:30] fortune through cheating the system. About 4000 people owned 20% of all the wealth in the United States.

Timothy Noah: We had an oligopoly at the end of the 19th century. Then we had the Progressive era, um, which was a reaction against that. Then we reverted to oligopoly in the 1920s. You know, once again, you saw the, the, uh, build up of vast fortunes, even though the United States had enacted an income tax, [00:10:00] the tax policy was tamped down by Republican presidents during the 1920s. So in the 1920s, we got a a dry run for the presidency of Donald Trump in the Treasury secretary, who was Treasury secretary for about a dozen years, Andrew Mellon. Who was not a billionaire, but pretty close and certainly one of the absolute richest [00:10:30] men in the United States. And he kept taxes low. Like Trump, he kept tariffs high. You would think that the advantage of having a very rich man, uh, in power would be that you can avoid financial calamity. This guy's supposed to be smart about money, right? Except he was caught completely unawares by the 1929 stock market crash and had absolutely no idea what to do.

Nick Capodice: So [00:11:00] we had a strong reaction to that. Then after the crash, after the Great Depression, policies were enacted to strengthen unions and to tax the super wealthy at a super high rate. Incomes around the country started to become more equal. But then the pendulum started to swing back in the 1970s.

Timothy Noah: We started in the late 70s, seeing incomes become more unequal. And that trend has continued [00:11:30] to this day. And the end result was the presidency of Donald Trump.

Nick Capodice: Now we are singling President Trump out here because he is indeed our first billionaire president.

Hannah McCarthy: Do we know his net worth?

Nick Capodice: Yeah, we kind of do. It vacillates a lot very quickly. The most recent estimate I could find was about $7 billion. And Donald Trump is not alone when we are talking about the executive branch. The combined wealth of Donald Trump's cabinet is $14 [00:12:00] billion.

Hannah McCarthy: Is that including Elon Musk?

Nick Capodice: I'm not including him. Even though the white House has said that Elon Musk would continue to advise the president after he left his special government employee post in May 2025. If I did include Musk, we would add another $500 billion.

Hannah McCarthy: How does that compare to former cabinets? Did others have far less wealth?

Nick Capodice: Significantly, the people in Joe Biden's cabinet had about $188 million, all told, and President Barack Obama's [00:12:30] was about 2 billion, though most of that was due to one single billionaire, Penny Pritzker, who served as the secretary of Commerce.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, Nick, so you have told me sort of how the rise of billionaires happened in broad terms, but can we talk about some specifics? What is happening here? What specific laws and policies have made this possible?

Nick Capodice: I'll get into that, as well as the kinds of political power a person has when they happen to have $1 billion right after this break.

Hannah McCarthy: But before that break, a reminder [00:13:00] that we are not billionaires.

Nick Capodice: Do you think any billionaires have ever listened to our show.

Hannah McCarthy: On diamond headphones? I don't understand billionaires at all. Maybe I have no idea.

Nick Capodice: I mean, if they liked it, if you're a billionaire out there and you like our show, you could fund not just us, but pretty much the entirety of public radio in the United States.

Hannah McCarthy: And if you are not a billionaire and still would like to support our show, which, by the way, is what we depend on entirely to keep going, you can make us a gift in any [00:13:30] amount. No aliens at all at our website civics101podcast.org.

Speaker7: Airway. And hey, the auntie made the ice caves. Ronnie say old man d dish and cry. We are three. One day.

Nick Capodice: We're back. We're in the money today on Civics 101 and we're talking about billionaires. [00:14:00]

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so can we talk about how billionaires become billionaires in 2025?

Nick Capodice: The first part of this is something I think everyone knows or understands at a base level, which is that it's a lot easier to make money when you already have money. You can just make money by having it just on the interest alone. And for this, I'd like to use a billionaire we haven't mentioned yet. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, has $242 billion. [00:14:30] He makes about $9 million an hour. So if we're talking about interest, Hannah, do you know what the percentage rate of return is on? Like a savings account? A typical one you could get from a bank.

Hannah McCarthy: I know that it differs. There are high yield accounts, and then there are, like, standard savings accounts.

Nick Capodice: It's like a really good high yield savings account that's going to have a 5% rate of return. So if Jeff Bezos just had his money in that he would be earning $12 billion a year just by having [00:15:00] it sit there.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm going to guess, though, that Jeff Bezos keeps his money somewhere else. He's getting more than 5%, exponentially more.

Nick Capodice: And this brings me to the second way billionaires make more money. Here again is Timothy Noah.

Timothy Noah: Well, you see it in tax policy. You see it in the difficulty Democrats have had in passing legislation to reverse the anti-labor Taft-Hartley act of 1947, which sharply reduced union power after unions had [00:15:30] gotten very strong starting in the 1930s. And you see it in things like the, you know, the pass through provision in the in the recent, uh, big beautiful reconciliation bill.

Hannah McCarthy: This was the spending bill passed in July of 2025 that, among other things, did not increase tax rates for the wealthy.

Timothy Noah: Yeah, there was a lot of focus on the top rates not going up. And that was significant. But I think [00:16:00] even more significant for the billionaire class was this very complicated pass through provision, which I won't even bother explaining here, but it had great value to the rich.

Hannah McCarthy: But how much value how did it pay off?

Timothy Noah: Well, it paid off in one way. To look at that is to look at the taxation of capital versus labor. Um, it used to be that we taxed capital in the United States more heavily than we taxed labor. And [00:16:30] those lines crossed about 6 or 7 years ago. We now tax labor more than we tax capital.

Nick Capodice: There's a very famous book that came out a few years ago by an economist named Thomas Piketty. The book is titled capital in the 21st century, and central to this book is one equation. R is greater than G.

Hannah McCarthy: R is greater than g.

Nick Capodice: R is greater than G. His name is Robert Paulson. [00:17:00] And because my brain sometimes shorts out when we talk about economics, I had to read what it meant a dozen times, which means that our listeners are going to have to learn about it as well. So, Arianna, R is capital. That is the money that people are making from the money they already have, like the interest we were talking about before. Now G on the other hand, G is labor. You and I go to work, we make a podcast, we get a check every [00:17:30] two weeks, a baker sells a hundred loaves of bread. Apple sells 3 billion iPhones. Whatever it is, the money made from labor, from working. So traditionally, gee, labor was responsible for more wealth in the country than are. But relatively recently, this is no longer the case. And now R is greater than. Gee.

Timothy Noah: Basically, money makes money faster [00:18:00] than people make money. And um, that's a process that is driven by government policy and tax policy.

Hannah McCarthy: So earlier Timothy said that if you are a billionaire, you have more money than you will ever be able to count. What are billionaires spending their money on?

Timothy Noah: How much can can you really spend? How much can a person say, I just want to live like a ridiculous rich [00:18:30] person. You run out of things to buy pretty quickly. It's hard, you know, to spend even as much as $100 million in a year just on stuff for yourself. You know, the mansion, the butler, the private plane. There was a wonderful piece in Yahoo Finance did last year and found that the billionaire lifestyle could be maintained with, I think it was something like 50 or $60 million a year, which [00:19:00] if you're a billionaire, your investments are throwing off at least that much annually. So you reach for, well, what am I going to spend my money on? I can't buy more stuff. All I can do is buy power. So that's what they do. They buy power. And they've been, you know, buying their way into our political system at a rapid clip.

Hannah McCarthy: We've [00:19:30] talked about this a few times on the show how after the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, we have an episode on that case, by the way. You can find it on our website. The super wealthy can spend unlimited funds on campaigns. So it's possible to conceive of, you know, a campaign speech where a candidate is really giving that speech to one person who cares about a handful of things, right? Are most billionaires involved in politics?

Nick Capodice: Many are. The most recent data I read on this was from 2013, which polled the top 1% [00:20:00] of wealthy people in the United States. So 47% of these people reported that they had directly contacted someone in Congress in the last six months. And when asked what it was about, the most common answer was it was about something of, quote, a fairly narrow economic self-interest, end quote. People with money can and do steer policy to make them more money. And I asked Timothy [00:20:30] for an example of this in practice. And he brought up President Trump.

Timothy Noah: There was a fantastic story in The New York Times, uh, a few weeks ago. It was the lead story in the New York Times. Didn't stick somehow, but the United Arab Emirates wanted to buy some AI chips from the United States. And the Biden administration had said, no, you can't have them because you've been doing military exercises with China. Trump comes in and the United Arab Emirates buys $2 [00:21:00] billion worth of world liberty. Financial stablecoins and World Liberty Financial is controlling the bulk of it. At the time, anyway was owned by Donald Trump and the Trump family.

Nick Capodice: Real quick world Liberty Financial is a cryptocurrency company. We have got to do a breakdown on crypto. One of these days, and in brief, Donald Trump owns a lot of it.

Timothy Noah: So the UAE in fact, put $2 billion into the pocket of Donald Trump, and two weeks later, they [00:21:30] were they got the go ahead to get the, um, the AI chips that they wanted.

Archival: By the way, did you know that the Trump family is set to benefit from a $2 billion deal with a foreign government? I did not, but the New York Times broke this story, and this is what the story is.

Nick Capodice: Currently, President Trump alone, not including his family, owns $5 billion worth of World Liberty financial crypto.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, billionaires may be new, but we are talking about an old, old [00:22:00] story here, Nick. From presidents to robber barons to kings to Roman emperors, people with wealth have power and people with power accumulate wealth. Now, for those who might want to change that, is this something that could change?

Nick Capodice: Yeah, that was the last thing I asked, Timothy. Is a change to the system Possible.

Timothy Noah: There's always something that can be done. I mean, this is a this is a status quo that was created by our [00:22:30] political system. And we live in a democracy. And the political system can change. The existence of an oligopoly makes it difficult, but it doesn't make it impossible. I think that the most essential thing to do is to build up union power, because it is the only organized sector that can compete with capital and with conservatives and the status quo. The problem is it's very weak right now. But [00:23:00] it was, you know, it was not weak 60, 70 years ago. And it can be made strong again with passage of legislation to encourage union organizing. I think that's the most important thing. But it's also true that that, uh, you know, we can we can go out and organize. Organized. We can organize communities. We can we can educate people. Uh, the polls show that people really don't like when they're told [00:23:30] about these facts. They don't like them. It is not the oligopoly is not popular in the United States, and therefore a, uh, a skillful marshaling of that outrage can yield political results.

---

Why are so many voters sitting out this week?

Off-year elections -- as in, not a presidential or a midterm -- have fairly dismal voter turnout. Yet they matter a great deal. Most of our lives are lived at the local, not the national, level. So why do so many skip their state and local elections?

We spoke with Luis Lozada, the CEO of Democracy Works, to understand why people don't show and why they should.

Democracy Works is a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to helping America vote. Click here to access their free tool, TurboVote, to help you check your registration, find your polling place, get personalized reminders for every election, and more.

---

Transcript

Nick Capodice: [00:00:00] Did you vote already? Or is it like you're still waiting to do it?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:02] Yeah, I voted on Monday. Um, per usual. It made me emotional and nostalgic, though I'm not sure what for. [00:00:10] Did you vote already?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:11] Nah, I'm more of like, a day of guy.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:13] Yeah, I am gonna be out of town. So it was an absentee ballot, baby.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:18] Is this your first one? Your first [00:00:20] absentee?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:20] It was. And I'm happy to report it was a breeze. Now, I did have to go to town hall, but I like, really love going to town hall. I would go to any town [00:00:30] or city hall, I love them.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:31] So, Hannah, this is an episode about why people don't vote. And I feel like you're already very much alienating all the nonvoter non town hall lovers [00:00:40] out there.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:40] Yeah, sorry. Um, this is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:43] I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:47] Now, uh, if you are listening to this on November 3rd, when it comes [00:00:50] out, tomorrow is election day. Not the presidential election, not the midterm. This is what some people call an off year. And most people [00:01:00] take it off.

Luis Lozada: [00:01:00] If you subtract states that have a gubernatorial election in any odd numbered year, you're probably looking at sub 20 sub 15% [00:01:10] turnout.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:11] This is Luis Lozada.

Luis Lozada: [00:01:13] I'm the CEO of Democracy Works, and Democracy Works is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that makes voting easier [00:01:20] and more accessible for Americans.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:22] And again, tomorrow is Election Day. If you are feeling disempowered or underrepresented or maybe even unrepresented, there's a magical tool you have [00:01:30] called voting. So make sure you're registered. If you can't get to the polls, try to figure out if you can vote early or absentee. And if you want help figuring out how to do that, keep listening to us. So, Nick, today's episode [00:01:40] is in large part about why people don't vote. And I talked to Lewis about voter apathy.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:48] Apathy, as in, people who don't [00:01:50] vote because they're indifferent or disinterested.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:54] Yeah, but from Lewis's perspective, that's not really the problem.

Luis Lozada: [00:01:57] I think it's almost a different version [00:02:00] of apathy. When you're participating in something, and your lot in life doesn't change you. You tend to check out. And I think that just the state that we're [00:02:10] currently in, especially for young people in this country, they're failing to see how participating in democracy actually has an additive effect. I mean, you know, if you're concerned about [00:02:20] student loans or if you're concerned about whether you're going to be able to purchase a home or build a family or, you know, any of the things that folks value in this country. And [00:02:30] you're seeing that, you know, election over election, nothing's changing. Or alternatively, it's getting worse. You have the tendency to check out. There's [00:02:40] a lot of negative partizanship out there, too, where, you know, when you're receiving messaging in the places where you're seeing information about how [00:02:50] both sides are equally as bad or everything is wrong, or it doesn't matter who you vote for, It's tough to turn away from that stuff and not internalize it and say, you know what, maybe [00:03:00] they're right, because I'm seeing how it's happened with my parents and I'm seeing how it might happen to me. I'm seeing how these elected officials are all of a particular [00:03:10] age or a particular stripe, and it doesn't change.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:14] Now I have to guess that this rings true for a lot of people. Hanna. They're not seeing what they need or [00:03:20] what they want from the people who are ostensibly representing them.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:24] I know, and guess what? Lewis is pitch for changing that. It's the same as mine. [00:03:30]

Nick Capodice: [00:03:31] Of course it is.

Luis Lozada: [00:03:32] So until you know groups that want to get folks out and voting really reckon with the fact that [00:03:40] folks need to see examples of democracy working for the things that they aspire to. You're going to have a challenge with apathy. And I think, [00:03:50] you know, you can say apathy, I don't care Air or what we're really dealing with is I care. But I don't see this as the solution. And I think that in a representative [00:04:00] democracy, that's even more pernicious. It's votes and money. And, um, as we've seen traditionally, young folks [00:04:10] don't have either of them for elected officials, um, whether it comes in the form of campaign contributions or, you know, concerted, consistent participation [00:04:20] in the voting process, you know, um, cycle over cycle, young people, you know, have been traditionally, historically easy to ignore for many [00:04:30] candidates for office. I think more and more we're seeing it, but not enough on the national level. You'll hear local examples, for example, in New York with the Mamdani mayoral [00:04:40] campaign, where they're tapping into some energy and in some other discrete races around the country. But by and large, when you're talking about statewide candidates or even [00:04:50] national candidates. You're talking about the same old, same old. And I think that until there is repeated concerted activity and participation [00:05:00] by younger voters, and we have all evidence that that is a possibility, but until it actually manifests itself, you're going to get more of [00:05:10] the same.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:10] Oh, there it is. From someone who actually knows the data, no less.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:16] I think all the time, Nick, about the party realignment that happened [00:05:20] between the 60s and the 80s. And I actually think that that is an example of what happens when you do actually vote.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:26] How so?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:29] Well, you had all of these lifelong [00:05:30] white Southern Democrats in southern states. They vote. And the way that they feel about racial integration and civil rights does not seem to be reflected [00:05:40] by their party.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:41] As in, they're opposed to.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:42] It. Right. So candidates like Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater, they started campaigning opposed to school bussing desegregation. [00:05:50] Lo and behold, Southern Democrats start defecting to the GOP. And then Ronald Reagan's campaign comes along and throws in opposition to gun regulation [00:06:00] and legal abortion. And that works like a dream as well. The GOP saw a large voting bloc with specific values, and they made those values central to their campaigns. [00:06:10]

Nick Capodice: [00:06:10] So when it comes to younger people, and this is assuming Hannah shared values among younger people, which might not be the case. Um, but if they actually voted, their values [00:06:20] would make their way into politics.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:22] I think it's possible, I say, if you look at politicians as, you know, value agnostics who prioritize the stuff that powerful aka rich and well connected [00:06:30] people want, and you are neither rich nor well connected. Why don't you do the one thing you can to assert your power?

Nick Capodice: [00:06:36] Vote from your lips to young ears, Hannah. So [00:06:40] all right, that is one nonvoter demographic. But can we get back to this off year thing Lewis mentioned that when it comes to these off [00:06:50] year elections that are almost entirely state and local, like this year, for example, turnout is pretty low across the board.

Luis Lozada: [00:06:57] I don't know that we do a good enough job [00:07:00] in the country. In the news of of highlighting the importance of the local election, the local issue, as opposed to the national election and the national candidate. [00:07:10]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:11] Can you imagine, Nick, if television and radio and social media was flooded with information about your city Council elections in the way that it is a senatorial or presidential [00:07:20] election?

Luis Lozada: [00:07:21] If the election isn't framed by either a national party or national news outlets, folks tend to disengage. [00:07:30] And that's where I see the concern here, because, you know, local elections and that sort of local democracy has far more weight on our everyday [00:07:40] lives than many of the elections that we are led to pay attention to that occur every 2 or 4 years.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:47] Like this year. Nick, I voted for people who will, [00:07:50] for the next two years, pass all of the ordinances in my town, as in appropriating money, approving of appointees like the fire chief, passing tax rate changes. People who for [00:08:00] the next four years I'm thinking about, you know, the school committee and the housing board. These are people who will make major changes to school and housing in my town. I [00:08:10] mean, I voted for the people who will be in charge of electricity.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:13] What?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:14] My town has a municipal electricity company. It is a real thing. Look it up. There are thousands of them in the US. [00:08:20] And often you are voting for the board members. But my point is, I might be affected in some direct and plenty of tangential ways by my national government, but [00:08:30] my town's government affects my daily life.

Luis Lozada: [00:08:32] So many of the things, whether it's your school or your library, it's all being funded, administered, [00:08:40] and the decisions about its existence are made at the local level. And, um, it just cannot be overstated how important it is for us [00:08:50] to understand as citizens where our dollars are going, where our resources are coming from.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:56] Every year, I am more convinced that while it is definitely important [00:09:00] to crane our necks up and see what Washington is up to, we are Civics 101. After all, that's what we do. We are leaving a lot of money on the table. Literally. If we don't [00:09:10] look sideways and see what's going on next door.

Luis Lozada: [00:09:16] You know, the term dog catcher, for example, is almost used derisively [00:09:20] in the election context. But, you know, let's assume that there is an animal in the middle of the road and you don't know who to call. You know, there [00:09:30] are agencies and employees that are run by people that run for elected office, that staff men and direct that, you know, that bridge that you drive over [00:09:40] every day when you're trying to get to work, that's probably something that's funded by local taxes.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:47] All right. Now I want to get into the other reasons [00:09:50] people don't vote. Apathy and off. Years aside, you know, Hannah, I love telling people about voting in Australia. So it happens on a Saturday. [00:10:00] They serve democracy sausage.

Archival: [00:10:02] Well, a record number of Australians chose to vote early this year, but that didn't prevent huge lines at polling booths today. In [00:10:10] true Australian tradition, there were democracy sausages sizzling four legged friends at the polls.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:16] And yeah, it is compulsory. You have got to pay a fee if you [00:10:20] don't have a good reason for not voting. But Election Day, it's like a festival over there and here. Not so much.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:29] Yeah, Australians [00:10:30] give a new meaning to political party and we will get into how we don't. After a quick break.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:35] But first, before that break, are you a big reader greeter, or maybe even [00:10:40] a little reader, or maybe more of an audiobook person. Well, Hannah and I have something for everyone. We wrote a book. It's called A User's Guide to Democracy How America Works, and we [00:10:50] recorded the audiobook ourselves. If you'd prefer the not quite dulcet tones of us getting really excited about democracy. You can find it wherever you get your books or your audiobooks. [00:11:00]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:17] We're [00:11:10] back. We're talking about why people don't [00:11:20] vote in a thinly veiled attempt to get people to vote. And Nick, before the break, you brought up one of the many differences between the United States and Australia. Election day. Over [00:11:30] there, it's democracy sausage. Over here. It's sometimes illegal to hand out water bottles to people in polling lines. Here's Luis Lozada again.

Luis Lozada: [00:11:38] There are any number of things [00:11:40] that exist out there that either make it inconvenient for you to vote because it still happens on a Tuesday, and you might have to work or, um, you know, impacts [00:11:50] your confidence in the result because, you know, Florida, they count all their votes by 8:30 p.m. on election night. But California, New York, um, [00:12:00] could take three weeks a month. So I still think that there are many things that states, and we have to recognize that states administer elections on the local [00:12:10] level. And that's why the rules and procedures and counting, um, measures and all that stuff differ from locality. Locality. But there are still things that states can do [00:12:20] to improve on a situation that's improved significantly.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:23] I'm thinking about the fact that you love going to a town or a city hall here, Hannah, and the fact that maybe not [00:12:30] every American gets amped up to go request an absentee ballot in person.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:35] I mean, to be fair, I had missed the by mail deadline.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:38] But you love a process that many [00:12:40] people would find inconvenient at best, loathsome at worst. So what does Louis think in terms of the old fashioned errand ness of [00:12:50] it all?

Luis Lozada: [00:12:51] The availability of online voter registration should be table stakes. The days of making someone print out a form and fax it somewhere, or [00:13:00] mail it somewhere who has a printer in their home anymore? You know, I think that that's a bit much. Again, early vote is just so helpful. There's so many folks that just [00:13:10] have jobs that do not. If you're working in the retail sector, it is very difficult to break away on a particular Tuesday. You know, vote by mail is great. Ballot drop [00:13:20] boxes. Voting can be characterized or felt by some as an inconvenience. Those states, jurisdictions that make it as easy as possible [00:13:30] to participate, respecting all of the needs around security and ensuring that folks are eligible, but then making it a pleasant experience. It could go all [00:13:40] the way to the design of your I voted sticker. Just make it make it fun and just reinvigorate it and make folks feel part of something greater. And the way you do [00:13:50] that is like any other customer service initiative. Have people feeling, you know, pleasant and good about the process when they're done with it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:01] I [00:14:00] did not get a sticker this year and it made me genuinely sad.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:06] Do you know that in 2024, in Durham, North Carolina, [00:14:10] they had stickers that said no bull, I voted.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:14] Did you ever see the Ulster County Spider?

Nick Capodice: [00:14:16] The what?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:17] It's a 14 year old drew this big, bright, bizarre, [00:14:20] awesome spider with a human face and it won an I voted sticker design contest in Ulster County, New York. And then that sticker went viral online.

Archival: [00:14:29] The winning sticker will [00:14:30] be distributed to all Ulster County voters who participate in the November 8th, 2022 general election.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:36] If you want the viral merch, you gotta do the deed.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:39] Exactly. [00:14:40] And honestly, it's just fun and makes people feel like they're part of a trend, which I think might actually be a shared cultural value across the political spectrum.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:49] All right, now we have to dig [00:14:50] into some sharper barriers to voting beyond the apathy, beyond the inconvenience, beyond the off year. Did you ask Louis about security [00:15:00] and privacy concerns?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:01] I sure did. Let's start with privacy. The Trump administration has twice requested voter roll information from states, once in 2017, again in 2025. [00:15:10] And this has caused privacy concerns among not just voters, but election officials as well.

Archival: [00:15:15] I am always concerned about anything that discourages people from [00:15:20] voting. There is the potential that people will be fearful of voting.

Archival: [00:15:25] The request came from the Trump administration and has been sent out to several other states, but [00:15:30] so far.

Luis Lozada: [00:15:32] I'll start with I don't know what the actual goal is of requesting this voter data from the states. And when I [00:15:40] say what the goal is, what the goal of the current administration.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:43] The Department of Justice has said that it wants this information in order to enforce the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration [00:15:50] Act, even though both of these laws put voter roll maintenance in the hands of the states and states have an information sharing system already. Kind of.

Luis Lozada: [00:15:59] I can [00:16:00] say that in the past there have been projects or programs like Eric, the Electronic Registration Information Center, which was a data sharing relationship [00:16:10] amongst the various states to ensure that folks were not registered in more than one state at a time. And projects like those, um, you know, were effective for a long time. [00:16:20] And then 3 or 4 years ago, there was Partizan attack, and they've kind of been, um, you know, Kneecapped to a certain extent.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:28] The Partisan thing started with a false conspiracy [00:16:30] theory that Eric was not a bipartisan, state run program to improve election security and voter registration across the spectrum, but a far left plot funded by George Soros to register Democrats [00:16:40] and win elections. Again, very much not true. But the states that pulled out of Eric, in large part because of this conspiracy theory, are now essentially having to figure [00:16:50] out a new way to properly maintain their voter rolls anyway. Why the federal government is requesting this voter roll information, as Lewis said, is not entirely [00:17:00] clear. But for those concerned about what that means for privacy.

Luis Lozada: [00:17:05] I don't know that people should automatically opt out of the process because of concerns [00:17:10] about personally identifiable information. Um, a little known secret is that voting history for most individuals in the country is public as well as [00:17:20] your party affiliation, so there is a fair amount of data out there. Um, I think that, like most things, there's a reasonableness standard, and I hope that the folks [00:17:30] making these requests are using the information responsibly.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:36] So a lot of your information is already out there. The [00:17:40] concern is more how people use it and what specifically they're getting, including the DOJ.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:47] Some states have only shared publicly available information [00:17:50] with the DOJ. Some states have shared all of it. Some have refused to share any. They are now going through lawsuits. And for those who want to follow the status of their state and their information, I will [00:18:00] put a link to the Brennan Center's Tracker of Justice Department requests for voter information in the show notes.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:05] All right. Now, what about the security thing? President Trump has said he [00:18:10] will send local law enforcement to polling places on Election Day. The DOJ announced it's sending federal personnel to polling places.

Archival: [00:18:17] The Trump administration has instructed the [00:18:20] Justice Department to monitor polling sites in California and New Jersey during next week's elections.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:25] And California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that people should expect to see military [00:18:30] Ice and Border Patrol at polling locations this year.

Archival: [00:18:34] And you're going to likely see members of our military in and around polling booths and voting [00:18:40] places all across this country. Well, I would say the same about Ice and Border Patrol.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:45] So I can imagine how some people could see that as a reason not to vote. [00:18:50]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:50] Yeah. And we should say that President Trump's claims that he will send local law enforcement. Legal experts say that is not legal. Uh, Governor Gavin Newsom's claims that people should [00:19:00] expect to see military ice, border patrol, etc. polling locations. We do not yet have any information that confirms that when it comes to immigration officials. However, [00:19:10] to your point, Nick, in September, the Latino Community Foundation polled 1200 Latino voters. These are citizens of the United States. Two thirds of them expressed [00:19:20] some level of concern that Ice would show up at their polling place.

Luis Lozada: [00:19:24] I mean, at worst, we've been concerned about someone being handed a water bottle in line. [00:19:30] Now, what we're considering is whether someone might be intimidated by law enforcement while they're in line to vote. Election [00:19:40] offices around the country, their mitigation plan, in the event of a disruption is to work with local law enforcement. But what happens when local law enforcement [00:19:50] is forced to face down with federal law enforcement? And that's something that we've not yet encountered in modern times in this country. So [00:20:00] as I and we prepare for November, because we've got local elections in places like New York, new Jersey and Virginia, populations [00:20:10] that have a lot of folks that are on the Ice radar. We're considering how do we best support election protection organizations. [00:20:20] And I think that the challenge here is going to be about understanding where voting locations are, being able to identify hotspots of activity, [00:20:30] and getting information out to groups that in some cases may not be law enforcement but will need to step in to assist because [00:20:40] election officials, especially folks that are working on polling locations on Election day, they're committed citizens, but they're not going [00:20:50] to get into a fight for you about, you know, whether or not you're going to vote and they're not going to get in between you and federal law enforcement.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:57] You know, being pro voting, pro enfranchisement [00:21:00] for all citizens is a nonpartisan yet heavily politicized thing that we stand behind here at Civics 101. And you've already admitted it, Hannah, you [00:21:10] hope that listeners feel encouraged rather than discouraged to vote after listening to this episode. So did Lewis have any tips for [00:21:20] citizens who might feel intimidated by that?

Luis Lozada: [00:21:23] We don't want a situation in this country where folks are scared to show up. That is when democracy [00:21:30] really begins to fall apart. I think the best thing folks can do is avail themselves of ways to vote, not on Election Day. You tend [00:21:40] to get sparser crowds to the extent you have vote by mail options. You should exercise those. Use a ballot drop box. Drop your ballot off at the Election office [00:21:50] prior to Election Day. It's almost, you know, mitigate in ways that you can, because what we're describing or discussing right now is something that is unprecedented, [00:22:00] unexpected, and we don't have a straightforward solution for it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:09] So last items I [00:22:10] want to share here because, yeah, I'm not just going to give the why people don't vote poison without the how and why to vote antidote. Lewis is the head of Democracy Works. [00:22:20] He wants democracy to work. So here is what he and his organization do.

Luis Lozada: [00:22:26] We power Google's election resources, [00:22:30] for example, voting location information, you know, rules and deadlines for voting. We do the same thing for TikTok. We've done it for Facebook. Um, we do it for [00:22:40] colleges and universities. We are trying to find people where they are. But we also understand that the media landscape is is changing rapidly. So we've [00:22:50] begun to experiment with making our tools available to influencers, folks that are talking on social media about, um, these sort of political [00:23:00] electoral issues and ensuring that they have a vanity site where they can send their audiences to to find the very information on when, where, how to vote, [00:23:10] what's on your ballot. Because, you know, while this is entertainment, this is also important. And we want to make sure that folks are not consuming information about the times [00:23:20] without getting the tools necessary to act on the times.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:23] That sounds kind of like adding a do something about it option to doomscrolling.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:28] And in terms of the practicalities [00:23:30] of the do something about it part.

Luis Lozada: [00:23:32] We've got everything you need to vote. As long as you know your home address, because your home address is going to place you in your respective congressional district or whatever [00:23:40] applies to you on a local election perspective. Um, it's dates and deadlines around registration, making sure that you're you're on the rolls in time. It's the when not [00:23:50] every election is in November and primaries are scattered through the spring and early summer, where voting locations, you know, they change, especially in the era of redistricting, [00:24:00] especially in an era where there's poll worker shortages. So we've got you covered there. And then what's on the ballot? You know, there are so many election sites that, [00:24:10] you know, don't pay wallet, but they require a fair amount of personally identifiable information in order to access a sample ballot. You just give us an [00:24:20] address and we're just using it to localize you, but we'll get you set up with all the candidates and relevant measures. And if you're accessing one of our products like Turbovote via [00:24:30] your employer or brand or PAC or union, you know, those partners may be giving you additional information about what a particular [00:24:40] measure might mean. So we're really trying to wrap the voter or the potential voter with as much information as possible so that they can confidently vote, and we do it in a nonpartizan fashion. [00:24:50]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:53] So finally, I asked Lewis for his elevator pitch to the person who believes that voting doesn't matter the [00:25:00] voter who doesn't plan to vote. He started with one more reason. We haven't mentioned that people don't vote.

Luis Lozada: [00:25:07] Here's a common reason over the past month [00:25:10] or so that people might say voting doesn't matter. The redistricting that's happening in Texas, California, Missouri, all places, all around [00:25:20] the country.

Nick Capodice: [00:25:21] Yeah. You know, this one is pretty compelling. Hannah, if your district lines have been drawn in such a way that your red vote is in a sea of blue, or vice versa, [00:25:30] that can definitely make it feel like voting doesn't matter.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:34] Yeah. Guess what? The answer to that one is?

Luis Lozada: [00:25:37] Those decisions, except for California, which [00:25:40] is being brought to the ballot, are being made by state assembly people. Folks that are elected as a result of a local contest that you probably [00:25:50] didn't participate in because you didn't think it mattered. But now you've seen on TV that national outcomes representation in Congress, [00:26:00] which may impact your health care, which may impact any number of things, are going to be dictated by a legislative branch and [00:26:10] a house which is no longer representative of your community. And why? Because that local election didn't go your way [00:26:20] and it didn't go your way. I'm not going to say because you didn't vote, but it's probably because you and a whole lot of your friends didn't vote. So, you know, when I think about civic activity, [00:26:30] you know, I include protesting, I include boycotts. There are any number of ways that people can mobilize, but there's only [00:26:40] one true measure of accountability. A politician can survive a protest. A company can survive a boycott. But once you're elected out of office, with [00:26:50] very minor exception, it's really difficult to get back in. And, you know, so I think that the importance of exercising the franchise [00:27:00] and understanding that as a collective, when you use that lever, it can change outcomes. That would be my elevator pitch.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:22] That [00:27:20] does it for this episode, but not for your voting rights. Go use them. This episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick [00:27:30] Capodice. Marina Henke is our producer. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. Music in this episode comes from Epidemic Sound. If you want to get into those resources that Lewis mentioned, you can go to [00:27:40] democracy.works. And if you want all of our resources, per usual, they can be found at our website, civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR. [00:27:50] New Hampshire Public Radio.

---