How to Fight (and Beat) Trump in Court

This month on Explain It To Me, we're talking about all things wellness.

We spend nearly $2 trillion on things that are supposed to make us well: collagen smoothies, and cold plunges, Pilates classes, and fitness trackers.

But what does it actually mean to be well?

Why do we want that so badly?

And is all this money really making us healthier and happier?

That's this month on Explain It To Me, presented by Pure Leaf.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians.

These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds.

Visit progressive.com to see if you could save.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Potential savings will vary, not available in all states or situations.

Welcome to Raging Moderates.

I'm Jessica Tarlove, and my guest today is Skye Perryman.

She's the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a national nonprofit legal and public policy organization, which has been actively filing suits against many of the actions taken by the Trump administration.

Skye took the helm shortly after January 6th, 2021, and the organization has expanded its scope and reach since then.

And earlier this year, she was named to Times magazine's list of the 100 Most Influential People of 2025.

Skye, thanks so much for joining the show.

Welcome.

Thanks for having me.

It's great.

I'm excited.

I want to start off, and you probably have to do this all the time, but can you tell us about Democracy Forward, what the organization does, and a little bit of what's been going on?

Absolutely.

So Democracy Forward, we're a nonpartisan, nonprofit.

We're a legal organization.

We have a lot of lawyers on our staff, and we go to court on behalf of people and communities around this country, including, by the way, people who don't agree with each other, communities that may not always be in lockstep with each other, but when the government, whether that's the federal government or state governments or local governments, are overstepping in a way that could really harm people's rights and that endanger our democracy.

overall.

We also, in addition to our lawyers, have phenomenal policy experts, communicators, and researchers.

And we do a lot of work to also educate the public through reports, through showing up at Congress, through helping people engage in their own communities locally at this critical, critical time.

And you were recently just in Congress last week, right, with the three Democratic governors and Skye Perryman.

I was there.

I was there for the whole eight hours.

And it was a busy news week last week.

And we should note for our listeners, we're recording this on Monday, but tell us about your testimony and how you ended up being the one non-gubernatorial guest on the panel.

Well, the committee members get to invite who they wish, and they ask if we would come and join the governors for the hearing.

This was a hearing where the Republican, the majority of the oversight committee brought in three governors that they claimed are quote sanctuary state governors.

What we know is actually there's no one definition of sanctuary states and some of the governors that were there have states that don't even claim to be sanctuary states, but they wanted to have a hearing around immigration.

And one of the concerning trends we've seen in this time, regardless of what people's views are on how to solve the immigration crisis, is that there's a lot of targeting of specific communities, whether they're immigrant communities, people of color, trans people, you name it, you know, targeting a community, that is actually something that we see in societies where there's a democratic backslide, right?

Where our democracy is really, where there's a lot of concern.

And so I was asked by the minority staff and the minority members of the committee to come and just provide some context about where we are, what's been going on the last 130, 40 days or so, what we're seeing in the course and what this means for our democracy as a whole.

So it it was an honor to get to do that, but it was a long day.

A long day.

And can you rehash a little bit of that for us?

Sure.

You know, so I started out with a few just general points to remember, which is that we are really in a time that I think really transcends traditional politics.

I mean, we have a president, and I said this on the House floor last week, you know, we have a president who has, without irony, claimed that he is a king in the last 130 to 140 days since inauguration, what we have seen is an administration that has sought to ignore due process, that has sought to strip away protections that are available to every American under the Constitution.

We have had to go into court to stop a national funding freeze that endangered funds and services in red communities, by the way, and blue communities and big cities and small towns.

So I went through some of what we've seen.

I went through the fact that just in under 200 days, the courts have had to rule against this administration more than 170 times.

And these are not just courts that people might call liberal courts.

These are judges of all political affiliations, those appointed by the president himself, those appointed by Republicans and appointed by Democrats.

So we talked about that broader piece.

And then when I spoke about immigration, we talked about how this administration's tactics truly shock the conscience of most Americans in this country, even people who don't see eye to eye on how to solve the issues surrounding immigration in our country right now.

And so in our cases alone, and we highlighted this for Congress, we have had to go to court to prevent the government from prolonging the detention of children away from their family members.

We have had to go to court on behalf of clients who've been removed from the country without any process at all, any due process.

We've had to go to court on behalf of groups like the Baptists and the Quakers who are just trying to keep ICE from entering their houses of worship and in conducting enforcement operations indiscriminately.

So these these are really things that transcend whatever the political debates are of the day.

And so I highlighted that and then highlighted the real concern that we see in countries where you have people that are in power that are using their power to target and demonize particular people groups.

That should concern every single American, whether you're in that people group or not, because it's a use of power that is an abuse of power that can really endanger our national community and our democracy as a whole.

So those were some of the highlights of what I was able to highlight last week.

I hear the argument made a lot.

And we had Mark Elias on the podcast.

And I talk about this on Fox all the time, that it seems like the courts are holding the line.

And you highlighted how these are bipartisan rulings.

You know, you have Reagan appointees, the same as Trump appointees as.

Bush, Obama, Biden, et cetera.

Yeah.

Do you feel confident that the courts can sustain us?

And I say this in a nonpartisan way because you highlighted some cases that would be protecting folks who don't vote the same as I do.

Are you confident in the courts?

So I am both confident in the courts and also believe the courts are not the institution that is going to save us.

So let me say where I'm confident.

What we have seen since inauguration is something that a lot of people doubted that we would see.

So I want to talk about what we've seen.

We have seen judges of all backgrounds, judges who were appointed by presidents of all political backgrounds, check this president.

We have seen judges, even when attacked, continue to be clear about the Constitution, that they expect their orders to be followed, continue to be clear.

And we have seen the Supreme Court, which is a court that many of us take issues with the way the majority has decided a range of cases.

And I'm one of the first people there on that.

We have seen the Supreme Court also check this president.

The Supreme Court has not rubber stamped everything this administration was trying to do.

Maybe they've rubber, maybe they've approved of a little more than what people would want, but they haven't.

And so that is good.

That is a good indication that in this country right now, our courts are doing the job that they are supposed to be doing.

And by the way, the lawyers, including the ones on my staff, but the ones in lots of different places across the country, are also showing up.

The president's attempt to target lawyers has backfired, I think, on many of the firms that capitulated and has not deterred the legal community writ large from doing its job and showing up to defend the Constitution.

So that is like, I have confidence there.

And we're not seeing that shift.

We might, but, but we're not seeing that shift right now.

But the courts are not going to save the American people or our democracy.

The people are.

And the reason that we are so focused on the courts at Democracy Forward is not just because they're a critical institution in being that backstop.

I mean, they are.

And we got to go in.

And without court orders, we would have a lot more harm since inauguration than we've had.

But we also focus on the courts because they are a front line in the people's voices.

Going to court is a way that the American people can make clear.

in no uncertain terms that they are going to be there.

They expect their rights to be protected.

And the courts have a role in that work too.

And then, of course, over the weekend, we saw the million, and I'm sure we're trying to talk about it.

We saw the millions of people

marching.

Right.

So it is, the strategy is courts plus people.

And fundamentally, it's going to have to be the people that say no more, but the courts are going to have a huge part of that rescue plan.

And that's really a lot of our role at Democracy Forward.

Yeah, since you brought it up, I do want to touch on the No Kings protests that took place over the weekend, estimates between four and six million people across the country.

I have friends that live abroad who went in Barcelona, in London.

I don't know the technical name for the rule, but something like when 3.5% of the population voices concerns or protests against an administration, that's when you can really get the ball rolling.

Do you feel like the ball is rolling?

And what does that actually mean?

Because

I'm an elections analyst, a political analyst.

So I'm looking at the midterms, right?

And hoping that everything is free and fair and that the Democrats can perform well so that at least we have bipartisan bipartisan checks on each other.

We need some system of checks and balances.

But can you talk about what you see the impact of things like the No Kings protests?

And I imagine this is going to keep happening because the organizers of it have said so, and people seem genuinely angsty about what's going on.

Yes, we were proud, you know, our organization, along with so many others, were proud to co-sponsor and be engaged in this.

So, let me say a few things.

One is if we remember how we got here, okay, the vast majority of the American people and and poll after poll rejected the extremism that was in Project 2025, conservatives, liberals, and moderates.

It is why on the election path, the president and those associated with his campaign, you know, disavowed their association with the extremism that we've seen in Project 2025.

And so when the president came into office, he had a choice.

He could say, wow.

You know, against a lot of odds, I'm here and I'm going to actually take this seriously and govern for people.

Or he could do an about face and start rapidly accelerating what most Americans reject, including people, by the way, in his own base.

Most Americans reject, which is the extremism in Project 2025, and really seek to be a dictator or a king or what have you.

By the way, he has called himself a king.

We don't have to call him that.

He has said that without irony.

He chose that path.

He chose to rapidly accelerate a playbook that they disavowed on the campaign trail, putting key architects of Project 2025 in administration positions, doing things that we've had to stop in court, like seeking to dismantle the Department of Education, which is broadly unpopular among the vast majority of Americans.

And so we have seen Democracy Forward since day one.

We have seen the people showing up because we have been in court every single day.

And we are not in court on behalf of ourselves.

We are in court on behalf of communities across the country, teachers, veterans, educators.

We've been seeing this.

It just doesn't look like individual people on the streets.

Now, starting in April and now, we're starting to see now millions of people on the streets.

So we are very encouraged and we think it has, it's more than just people on the streets that could mobilize in a midterm.

I mean, that is important to make sure folks stay engaged.

But this is an administration that has changed course when they face pressure, when they face pressure in the courts, which is, by the way, why they want no one to go to court and they want to say they're not going to deal with the courts because they want to deter people from going to court.

And they have changed course when they have faced broad political and public pressure.

And so I think what we're seeing is we're starting to see the American people demand a whole lot more of this administration, start asking uncomfortable questions of their elected representatives in Congress.

What are you doing?

How and why are you backing a president that is doing the kinds of things that are disastrous to our communities in red states or blue states or communities.

So I'm very encouraged, and I think it has a lot of impact even beyond the sort of midterms that we look to next year.

Are some of those about faces that you're talking about, like the return of Kilmar Obrego-Garcia from El Salvador?

Yeah, I mean, look, there's a range of them.

The funding, let's start with the first two weeks where the White House, Project 2025 folks, just came out and announced that the following day they were going to cut off all federal funding paused.

The administration was not planning on the fact that they were going to face pushback in the courts.

We were able to get into court in a matter of hours, stop it in the courts.

And at the same time, people in communities across the country were working the phones because all of a sudden they were concerned, are my Meals on Wheels program going to be discontinued?

What's going to happen in our diaries?

And all of a sudden, the White House in their first national press conference, it was a disaster.

Now, we have to keep the injunction in place because there's a range of ways where behind the scenes they're trying to actually facilitate that funding freeze, but we have that court order in place.

To some degree, you saw these reports over the weekend about how all of a sudden the administration has decided they don't want to conduct raids, ICE raids, on farms and in certain industries.

It shows the arbitrariness, by the way, of how they're operating.

And you'll hear more about that from us in the courts.

But you'll see that this pushback does matter.

The tariffs, I think you've seen them gain a lot of heat and they've sort of flip-flop there.

And then, of course, the courts have required that there be a facilitated return of Mr.

Garcia.

And fundamentally, the administration did have to follow what the courts were saying.

So I think in a lot of those ways, we have a lot of examples.

We see in our work every day, by the way, there's a lot of cases that don't make the headlines where we go into court and the administration agrees almost quickly, okay, we're going to pause this while this litigation is pending.

So it's a real testament that these voices and showing up matters.

And I think we're just starting to see the beginning of it from the American people.

Yeah, it's good to know.

I try to pay as much attention as I can or as closely, but obviously the big headline cases are the ones that you end up talking about.

But you and other organizations are in court literally every day trying.

Every day.

I want to stay on immigration for another question.

Can you talk about the balance between federal and state immigration policies?

I know it's a very delicate dance and that the federal government is claiming, obviously, that the state government is violating federal immigration policies in states like Illinois and California.

And the president put out a statement that he's going to be conducting raids exclusively in blue states, ignoring the fact that Texas and Florida are the second and third biggest populations of illegal immigrants in the country.

Right.

Well, this is something where the Constitution is like really clear.

And it's a place where the administration and their allies, you know, find misinformation to be their friend here, to sort of spread misinformation.

So immigration is a national, it is a federal enforcement issue that is the federal government's job to regulate immigration.

It is the federal government's job to enforce our immigration laws.

Now, our federal government has failed in a range of respects.

I think everyone agrees with that.

People on the, you know, people on the opposite ends of the political spectrum agree that our immigration system is broken in this country.

There's a report from the Cato Institute that goes through the many ways in which it is, and everyone, I think, has called for or wants to see some type of real comprehensive immigration reform.

But this is fundamentally a federal issue.

States under our Constitution

cannot be conscripted and forced by the federal government into engaging in the federal government's sort of enforcement priorities, especially with respect to immigration.

States and local communities have to make decisions in their states about where they're going to put public resources, public safety resources.

I mean, we are today filing a case to restore funds that this administration has cut to programs that aid the survivors of domestic violence, right?

I mean, these are the kinds of community-based things, public safety things that are happening in communities across the country.

And our Constitution recognizes that states have a lot of power in determining how they are going to use their resources.

There is now a conflict over the fact that this administration, at least, expects the states to be conscripted in to their enforcement operations, which is not something that states are required to do.

Some states may choose to do that and other states may not.

But that is sort of what a lot of this conflict is.

And I'll just say, and I said this in Congress last week, at Democracy Ford, we have had to go to court since inauguration to protect communities that are receiving federal funds to actually help enhance public safety that this administration, if left to their own devices, wanted to freeze or cut for people.

So we don't really think the public safety, some of this is like, this isn't about immigration policy.

It's not about public safety.

If we want to have serious discussions about that, I think there's a lot of good discussions to have.

But this is an area where I think there's been a lot of labeling and finger pointing and a lot of misinformation.

And so there's no silver lining to any of this.

But hopefully the amount of attention that people are now paying to all of these things, the fact that this administration is doing things that totally shock the conscience, including, by the way, of folks that don't see eye to eye, hopefully this is a moment where folks can sort of see beyond the attempts to polarize, see beyond these misinformation attempts and really kind of focus on what we expect the country to do.

Yeah, it's not a particularly fun activity to actually read budgets, but I always say look at the actual budget because that's the clearest way that a government is going to tell you what their priorities are and who is adding more money for public safety and who's taking money away.

And it's usually not what you think it is, or at least it hasn't been in the past.

We're going to take a really quick break.

Stay with us.

Attention, all small biz owners.

At the UPS store, you can count on us to handle your packages with care.

With our certified packing experts, your packages are properly packed and protected.

And with our pack and ship guarantee, when we pack it and ship it, we guarantee it.

Because your items arrive safe or you'll be reimbursed.

Visit the upsstore.com slash guarantee for full details.

Most locations are independently owned.

Product services, pricing, and hours of operation may vary.

See Center for Details.

The UPS Store.

Be unstoppable.

Come into your local store today.

At blinds.com, it's not just about window treatments.

It's about you, your style, your space, your way.

Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's it's done right.

From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows.

Because at blinds.com, the only thing we treat better than windows is you.

Visit blinds.com now for up to 50% off with minimum purchase plus a professional measure at no cost.

Rules and restrictions apply.

Hello, Daisy speaking.

Hello, Daisy.

This is Phoebe Judge from the IRS.

Oh, bless, that does sound serious.

I wouldn't want to end up in any sort of trouble.

This September on Criminal, we've been thinking a lot about scams.

Over the next couple of weeks, we're releasing episodes about a surprising way to stop scammers.

The people you didn't know were on the other end of the line.

And we have a special bonus episode on Criminal Plus with tips to protect yourself.

Listen to Criminal wherever you get your podcasts and sign up for Criminal Plus at thisiscriminal.com/slash plus.

welcome back.

Can you talk a little bit about what it's like to be a lawyer right now?

Is it just feels like such a perilous time to be doing this kind of work with the attacks on the law firms and all the firms that have capitulated?

Now, of course, he's just dragging them even further, and people are losing top talent, folks who want to go over to firms that are not going to be doing pro bono work for the government.

And then, a place like where you are that doesn't fit into one of those categories, but but has definitely got to be atop the list of annoyances for the administration.

Look, I think this is the time to be a lawyer in that the skills that the legal profession affords, the role that lawyers play in our society is incredibly important in this moment.

I mean, our obligation is to the Constitution, it's to the rule of law.

It's representing people, our codes of ethics.

You know, you represent people even if they are unpopular or not favored by those that are in power.

You do it zealously and with a duty of loyalty.

And those types of fundamental principles are so important in this time.

And they really are one of the things that I think are holding the fidelity to the Constitution and respect for the Constitution in this moment.

But it is a hard time.

Our team at Democracy Forward, our team of lawyers, I mean, they face, you know, at times that we face threats.

We put our names publicly on court filings that are going up against the administration every day.

In the first days of the administration, we sued Doge and we saw tweets from Elon Musk and others about the lawyers and about the cases that we were litigating.

And this is not just something that our organization is facing.

A lot of organizations and lawyers are facing this.

And then you also have the judges facing it as well.

But I think that what our team sees every day is that the work that we're able to do on behalf of people is stopping some of the most callous and harmful actions that this administration is taking.

And without lawyers willing to go to court and without the brave people willing to be part of those lawsuits, the last 130 days would be much worse than it's been.

It's been very bad and very taxing for people, and a lot of people have gotten hurt.

And we've got clients right now that are being held in El Salvador in prison without any process.

So I'm not saying that this is something, this is a really dire situation, but what we see in our work every day is the difference that the law is making, which of course is why the president and his allies are now trying to come for the courts and come for the lawyers.

And by the way, the very courts that they had a real role in shaping.

I mean, again, we're winning before judges of all ideological backgrounds that were appointed by all presidents.

I realized that I hadn't brought up the tragic shootings in Minnesota over the weekend of two Democratic lawmakers, one passing away with her husband, and then hopefully everything will be fine with the other lawmaker and his wife.

They now have the assailant or the alleged assailant in custody, but it feels to me like the Tinderbox has actually exploded now.

And to see this going on, to have the protests in Los Angeles, last week, some rioting, then the No Kings protests and also these shootings in Minnesota at the same time.

It not only feels like a tough time to be a lawyer, it feels like a really tough time to be in public office.

And I worry that not only will people lose their lives, but there will be no way to recruit top talent to want to go and do these jobs.

Cause we're talking about state legislators.

We're not talking about Nancy Pelosi anymore.

Yeah.

Look, I mean, I have a lot of concern about that.

And over the weekend, there were confirmed reports in Texas, my home state, that there were threats on lawmakers in that state legislature that were going to attend No King's peaceful protests.

And then there were a range of reports on healthcare professionals, which, of course, is something in the reproductive health care space and the abortion space.

We've seen for some time, people that have been killed or shot just by virtue of doing their jobs.

And so, this is, you know, I think this is a scary time.

And there are no words to make that not true.

There's no court cases that are going to make that not true.

But what

I am taking heart in

is that people are showing up and people are saying we're better than this.

People are looking at what a scary time it is, and they are showing up to run for office.

We can't, I mean, the amount of lawyers that want to come be part of our work at Democracy Forward, it's outstanding, even as there are threats.

And so I think that there is a grave concern, and there's no question that what's happening right now is going to fundamentally alter the course of how we rebuild back in the future.

But over the weekend, I think the other way to look at what we saw happen is that the American people are not going to stand by and allow the worst of our country.

They're not going to stand by and allow that.

And I think we saw a lot of people coming together, people that don't agree on everything, people of all different backgrounds saying there are red lines that we are not going to allow this country to cross.

And it was such a tragic weekend.

We have folks on our staff who worked for the former speaker in Minnesota.

And of course, we were just with Governor Waltz and Congress a few days earlier.

So it is just, I know it's something that's really so incredibly tragic for their families and communities, but also for everybody watching this and that is feeling so shaken in this time.

Yeah, it's quite palpable when you hear people talking about them.

Yeah.

And, you know, hopefully the end of it, but not surprising that there were threats also in Texas.

And I think it took a lot for Governor Walz to actually say that he didn't want people to go to the No Kings protest.

I'm sure that was a decision he did not take lightly in making that recommendation,

especially since managed to be peaceful, you know, millions of people who are feeling so upset and so much unrest, pulling this off peacefully is quite the achievement.

You mentioned reproductive health.

That was the other direction I wanted to go in.

Democracy Forward was instrumental in the court cases surrounding the Dobbs decision.

I know that this is ongoing with access to medication, abortion.

SCOTUS has upheld access for now to Mifupristone.

But can you talk about the state of play when it comes to the women's reproductive health space?

Yes.

I mean, you know, first of all, let's just...

remember that many of the tactics that we're seeing now that are being advanced towards other issues or people groups or tactics that are being advanced by the president and his allies with respect to our democracy overall.

If you go back and you study the reproductive rights and reproductive justice movements, you're going to find every single one of those tactics that have been

used with respect to trying to prevent people from accessing reproductive health care, including, by the way, for decades and not just recently after the ballot initiatives and not just after Jobs.

For decades, the research has been there to suggest that the vast majority of the American people believe in some type of legal access to abortion and reproductive health care.

This is only polarizing because we've allowed, you know, extreme groups to make it polarizing.

But the data of where the American people are, when you actually sit down and talk to people, where they are, has been consistent for some time.

And now, of course, you see that in places like Missouri, Red Missouri, that have passed reproductive health care initiatives, places like Florida, got over 50% of the vote, et cetera.

So that's, I think, part of it is like grounding ourselves in what the people need and know about reproductive health care in this country.

And then what we're facing, which is a Supreme Court that has rolled back for a generation privacy rights of people seeking to terminate a pregnancy or needing to terminate a pregnancy, combined with an administration that has now quietly, they've not been as loud about abortion in the last 100 and so days as they've been about immigration, but that has installed all of the players who are going to make this care less accessible.

You see that in the bills that are being debated in Congress.

You see that in statements that are being made at the Food and Drug Administration and Secretary Kennedy suggesting that, you know, utilizing junk science to try to create doubts around safety and efficacy of a medication methopristone that has been studied for decades.

And so that means that our work is really cut out for us.

And at Democracy Forward, we will do a range of things.

One, we will continue to represent our clients in the cases that exist that are seeking to curtail reproductive health care access in order to try to stop those efforts in the courts.

We will continue to work at the state level, both in states that are acknowledging and affirming the rights of people to access health care and in states that are continuing with a range of policies that also truly shock the conscience to try to deprive people of reproductive health care.

There's needs for representation in all of those states, and you'll see us doing that.

But I think you'll also see, and I think one thing we all need to be very focused on and vigilant about, is it's not just about abortion and it's not just about reproductive health care and contraception, and it is about all those things.

But this is an administration that fundamentally does not want to affirm or have any type of fidelity to facts and information and data and science.

And moreover, it is an administration that has shown, and we saw this in the first Trump administration, that has shown that not just do they not want to have anything to do with facts and evidence, they will actually take efforts to create misinformation and junk science in order to be able to change a narrative for the American people.

And so this presents really generationally profound threats, not just for reproductive health access, but for health care and lots of services and essentials in our country.

And so we are really watching that.

And we see and are concerned about some of the trends that we know we're going to see on abortion and reproductive health care spilling over into other areas like vaccines or cancer treatments or cancer research and lots of other things.

Yeah, it's alarming to say the least that RFK Jr.

is exactly who he said he was.

I don't know how Senator Cassidy is feeling these days since we're hearing again about how the polio vaccine has killed more people than it saved or whatever nonsense the Secretary was saying last week, but it's concerning across the board.

Right.

I wanted to ask you quickly about the Big Beautiful bill.

What role is Democracy Forward playing in the deliberations about the bill?

Obviously, the attacks on health care are, I assume, a major focus, the implications there, but

talk me through it.

Yeah, I mean, you know, we represent clients that really make up the vast expanse of the American public.

And so we have a lot of concerns.

Our clients have a lot of concerns around access to health care, Medicaid, of course, the defunding of Planned Parenthood, so many issues in the bill.

We are very concerned that Congress has slipped in a provision in the bill that would essentially try to make it harder for people to be able to go to court and hold their government accountable.

There was one version of the bill that would seek to require bonds that individuals pay money in order to be able to go into court and to defend their rights against the government and would even go so far as to suggest that if you don't pay that money and the president or the administration violates a court order, that you can't hold the president or the administration accountable or in contempt for that.

That is not how the courts are supposed to function.

It is an affront to the separation of powers, but it's also affront to the American people and to the notion in our country that all of us, every single one of us, have to have some fidelity to the law, including, by the way, the president and the administration.

Another version of the bill would just require these bonds sort of across the board and government facing litigation.

It's something that the administration has been trying to do in court unsuccessfully, and now they're trying to do through legislation.

So, we are really focused at Democracy Forward on making sure people understand the critical nature of these access to court provisions, making sure that that doesn't get lost in the shuffle while there are so many focuses on lots of other really highly concerning things.

And then, of course, we're going to stand by.

We don't lobby at Democracy Forward.

We really are mostly really focused on the courts, but we are going to stand by to be able to take any legal action that may be necessary to help people in communities whose rights may be violated by the bill, but also to help those communities who the administration or their allies may try to target in their attempts to use their voices to oppose the bill.

So we're watching all of those things.

Wow.

Busy bees over there.

We are busy.

Yeah.

One last question.

We ask all our guests this.

What's one thing that makes you rage and one thing that you think we should all calm down

Hmm.

I think

the thing that makes me rage the most right now

is if you just look at the textbook of how, and I'm going to use the word like autocratic actors operate, they do the things that we're seeing.

So, you know, on the Hill last week, there were these posters of people that have been accused of terrible crimes.

I mean, everybody wants people that commit horrific crimes to be held accountable.

Like that's not a debate among any large swath of the American public.

And the sort of polarization and the utilization of these tragic human circumstances to try to use them for political purposes and then to pin and to create sort of demonizing, whether you're demonizing, you know, immigrants, whether you're demonizing LGBTQ people, whether you're demonizing women, I mean, whoever they decide to demonize.

I think that just makes me rage because if you study what happens in these other societies with democracies backslide, this is like exhibit A.

And yet, in America right now, we're treating this like it is a sort of real political issue and debate.

And so, I think that is something that really enrages me.

I probably am more enraged after sitting eight hours through that hearing last week.

Um, you know, the things that I think people should calm down about

on some level, I do think we're in a fundamentally changed paradigm where we are trying to combat a really rapidly accelerating autocracy.

I'm just going to say that.

And so, what that does mean is that you do have to use your voice on lots of different issues a lot of the time.

You can't just pick one or two issues when that means that, like, you're going to see this rapidly accelerating autocratic threat.

But I do think that there are some places where we could just take a beat.

and say, you know what?

If this is like what someone thinks good policy is,

okay, let them go have their policy on that.

It's not going to be helpful to people.

It's going to backfire.

They're going to get a bunch of pushback.

That's not what we are in court about every day, which is like the

continued high volume of actions that are really fundamentally redefining this country, the values in this country, people's rights in this country, and what we are about and what we are protecting.

And so we have to fight on all fronts in many ways.

There are some things that that they're truly policy disagreements.

Let's have a policy disagreement, right?

That's not a five-alarm fire.

The problem right now is, though, there is so many five-alarm fires.

They're not made up.

This isn't hyperbole.

It is happening right now before our very eyes.

And that's why, you know, we and others are having to work on all fronts, you know, every single day to try to protect as much of our country and as much of our people as we can.

Thank you so much for your time, Skye.

It was great to have you, and we'll continue following your work.

Thanks so much.