Altruistic World Online Library

We got him.
Adam Mockler
Dec 9, 2025 The Adam Mockler Show



Transcript

All of these far faright losers hate
women. They hate themselves and they'll
never touch power because we are going
to be here to push back. I've been
talking a lot on this channel about the
rise of these far faright movements.
Obviously, we have far-right populism
inside the White House and the Trump
administration right now, and Steven
Miller and the people around Trump are
very far-right, but I've been talking a
lot about the Nick Fuentes movements
because this is something that's been
sprouting up online and is a new strain
that's been normalized and emboldened by
Donald Trump, but it's a new level of
anti-semitism and hatred that is out
there openly. Well, Pierce Morgan, Piers
Morgan, who, you know, I've been on his
show. I've disagreed with him before,
but overall, he's a pretty good
interviewer. He's good at holding
people's feet to the fire. He had an
interview with Nick Fuentes where he
exposed all of his worst deficiencies,
bigotries, flaws, the hatred of women,
hatred of himself. And honestly, if you
guys ever have any questions about the
entire Nick Fuentes movement, hit me up
because I've spent a lot of time over
the past two years studying the rise of
this dude. And this is the this is the
most I've seen him at the ropes. Piers
Morgan genuinely had him looking like an
absolute nerd, just admitting that he's
misogynistic. He doesn't like women.
He's never really touched or kissed a
woman or slept with a woman. This is a
loser who basically hides his beliefs
when he does these more sitdown
interviews. And then he goes on his
podcast and says this extreme extreme
[ __ ] about women, about black people. He
has these extreme views that he is
trying to hide and mask. But Pierce
Morgan had this uh strategy where he
said, you know, I'm gonna play a clip of
you and then I'm gonna ask you about it
and not let you wiggle out of this clip
because there's so many clips of Fentes
saying racist stuff, misogynistic stuff.
Let's watch this clip of Nick Fuentes
admitting that he just doesn't like to
be around women whatsoever. I mean, it's
really telling. I I'll break this down
after, but I remember talking to my
friend a few months back and we've
always been watching the rise of people
like Charlie Kirk, people like Nick,
we're young dudes. We grow up in these
spaces and we've seen this all, you
know, explode while we're living in
these spaces. And I said to him, I think
Nick Fuentes genuinely might just be
gay. Like the way he speaks about women,
the way he speaks about waking up next
to a woman being the grossest thing you
could possibly think of or like going to
sleep next to a woman wanting to make
him puke. I just if you're gay, just say
it.
To clear up one of the many theories
about you. I have no idea what the
answer is and you haven't got an answer.
But are you actually attracted to women?
I am attracted to women.
You're not gay.
No. But I will say that women are very
difficult to be around.
Okay.
So there's that.
And do you think they should have the
right to vote?
I do not. No. Absolutely not.
They should stay at home.
Well, yeah. Absolutely.
So basically, you're just a misogynist
old dinosaur, aren't you? For a for a
young guy. I mean, I know I'm the
boomer. I know I'm the boomer here, but
actually you're a 27y old dinosaur,
aren't you? Aren't you, Nick Fuentes?
All women, all women are annoying. All
women grow old. They all get fat.
Says the guy. Have you ever had sex?
No. Absolutely not.
Wow. Says the guy who's never got laid.
I mean, that actually explains a lot of
his views on women. He has a lot of
antisocial behavior that can be embodied
in a lot of young men. Never slept or
probably even touched a woman, which
people have problems. I get that. But
then he uses that to channel it into
hatred. uh to his audience every single
day. Here's the thing about Nick
Fuentes. I think a lot of people
underestimate how seriously we should
take him, but at the same time, these
folks are so incredibly beatable because
of how much of a loser they are. They're
all just losers. For example, so here's
why you shouldn't underestimate him.
Remember that young Republican group
chat about 2 months ago when all of
those 20 to 30year-old uh Republican
operatives and state senators were
caught in the group chat saying they
love Hitler. Some of them were even 35,
36 years old. They were saying they love
gas chambers. Nick Fuentes is trying to
create that at scale. He's telling his
followers to gain positions of power
within the Republican party to go into
universities, to go to Turning Point
USA, the Heritage Foundation, any sort
of law school, law firm, top board at
these companies and hide what they
actually believe. Hide their white
supremacist Nazi belief so they can all
sort of activate one day. I mean, we saw
this in the Young Republican group chat.
These are beliefs that are genuinely
actually growing. So, we need to be
combating this on a daily basis. But on
the other side of that, these people are
kind of losers. Like, this isn't an
actual popular ideology among young men.
Young men don't actually on mass just
hate women in this fashion and not want
women to vote. This is not a popular
ideology. At the same time, there are
reports that a lot of Nick Fuentes's
popularity is boosted by bots online.
And don't get me wrong, like white
supremacy is something we actually have
to combat. This is a real ideology. But
he is boosted a lot by bots. He's then
asked and pressed about him talk like
loving Hitler
jokes. Although I haven't ascertained
yet whether you are joking when you say
that Hitler was very [ __ ] cool. Are
you joking or do you actually think he
was very [ __ ] cool? The the most
genocidal monster of the last 150 years.
Yeah. The the thing is my generation
we're just done with the pearl
clutching. You know,
you might be, but then your generation
hasn't gone through what Danny
Finkelstein's family went through. So
maybe maybe the pearl clutching has a
way to go for families whose whose
family members go.
Yeah, we we got all that. We you know me
me mom me mom like we're you know I
don't even know who this person is. Why
is this person talking to me? This old
British guy is saying me mom got killed
by Hitler. He doesn't find it funny when
you say Hitler's very [ __ ]
I don't care. I know you don't care.
That's fine. You don't have to care.
And Nick Fuentes came across is really
immature and skittish during this
interview. In prior interviews, he's
done a few things. Either he hides his
true beliefs and tones them down to try
to appeal to a broader audience and then
he goes back on his real podcast and
says racist [ __ ] or he just trolls his
way through it. But in this one, he kind
of tries to take on this troll demeanor.
He kind of tries to troll Pierce Morgan,
but it doesn't really come across that
clean. He just seems like a racist,
petulant, misogynistic child. And it
doesn't seem like anything he's saying
is landing.
But he does care.
Does that guy care about America? Does
that guy care about me and my country
and my family? No.
He cares what you, a prominent
conservative in America, has to say
about Adolf Hitler. Now, what do you
mean by Hitler is very [ __ ] cool?
Because I think he's very [ __ ] a
monster. Oh,
that and that's a clip. I think he's
very [ __ ] a monster. Do you hear
yourself? I mean, can we all grow up? I
do. Can we all grow up?
He murdered 12 million people.
He murdered 12 million people. What is
very [ __ ] cool about that?
Tell me.
Uh, the edits. It's just cool. The the
uniforms, the parades, the it's it's
cool. as a guy, you look at World War II
and it's fascinating and it's
interesting and it's compelling and it's
cool and you know, we're just tired of
saying these kinds of things. We want to
talk like real people and give our
honest opinions. Real people don't talk
like this. Real people don't believe
that Hitler was cool. Real people don't
believe that women shouldn't vote. He
does not represent a real massive
movement that is swelling up in the
United States. He represents a fringe
group of young men, somewhat mainly just
young men who are antisocial, who are
isolated and who are now trying to grow
their movement. So again, don't
underestimate him, but at the same time,
the the movement is made of mainly just
like antisocial losers.
And then we and then we literally get an
old Jewish guy from England who's going
to say, "Oh, that very funny, mate. Me
mom." And it's like, "Shut up." Like,
you know, no one is in favor of
genocide. So, let's just get that out of
the way. We're not
Didn't you just say Hitler was really
effing cool? This is me warning
Republicans on CNN about Nick Fuentes.
Take a look.
He targeted his anger was to have him on
his podcast.
Wait, so he was so enraged he decided to
have a friendly interview with Nick
Fuentes. The problem, listen, the
problem is not that he held the
interview. It's that he normalized this
type of ideology. I think the Republican
party is for the first time being forced
to face the monster that they've created
in Nick Fuentes. Throughout my entire
youth, I've watched Donald Trump
normalize not Nick Fentes's rhetoric,
but a type of extremist rhetoric that
the US has never seen before. Now, that
is manifesting in the GOP, or at least
Tucker Carlson and big wings of the GOP,
welcoming in Tucker Carlson is welcoming
in somebody who believes the Holocaust
didn't happen, or he thinks if it did
happen, it was a good thing. He thinks
that black people deserve less rights.
Women deserve less rights. You can't say
that about Donald Trump.
The Republicans do not
about Jewish people with Donald Trump.
That's what I'm saying.
He wore a yamaker at his daughter's
wedding. The way that Donald Trump
speaks about the Democratic party, the
way that Donald Trump speaks about
people who disagree with him has
normalized this extremist rhetoric. He
said that we were gnats who need to be
taken care of in front of the military.
But the point is a lot of young people
are being sucked into this Nick Fentes
pipeline. I don't think the Republican
party, the old guard is ready for what's
about to smack them in the face.
That is that is very true. Continue.
Not in favor of a holocaust or genocide.
Do you think if half your family you
think if half your family had been wiped
out by very [ __ ] cool Hitler, you'd
still think he was very [ __ ] cool? Or
would you think that actually he was a
despicable monster who murdered 12
million people who targeted people
because they were disabled or Jewish or
Romany Egypy or whatever it may be and
that he systematically destroyed people,
incinerated them in gas chambers. Do you
think that you would find it very
[ __ ] cool if your family had been
through that? Or do you think you would
find it very [ __ ] disgusting and
perhaps moderate the number of times you
you laugh about it or want to joke about
it?
Yeah, Nick Fuentes just comes across as
a sniveling little kid. There's nothing
substantive or convincing here, unless
you're like 14 years old. Even then, you
can see that he's clearly losing the
debate the entire time. I mean, the
Holocaust is uniquely important.
Throughout the interview, Nick Fuentes
keeps asking why why should I care about
the Holocaust? Why is it any different
than any other tragedy? The Holocaust is
uniquely important because number one,
it's pretty recent, like 80 years ago.
And it was a it was a developed country
committing an industrial level genocide
with actual built up like ovens and
actual builtup industrial machines.
There have been genocides throughout
history, but not a machinery conducted
genocide in a developed country at a
scale of that level. That was new and
that is recent. And it was targeting
mainly one ethnicity, which is not good.
So, I'm going to leave it there. If you
appreciate these breakdowns, drop a
like, subscribe. I'll see you all in the
next one. Peace out.

Rep. Al Green makes case for impeachment with warning from former Republican VP
Rep. Al Green
Dec 5, 2025

Washington DC, U.S. House of Representatives, Thursday, December 4, 2025. Rep. Al Green highlights warning about Trump’s threat to the Republic from former Republican Vice President as support for case for impeachment



Transcript

MR. GREEN: THANK YOU.
AND STILL I RISE, MR. SPEAKER.
A VERY PROUD, LIBERATED
DEMOCRAT.
UNBOUGHT.
UNBOSSED.
AND UNAFRAID.
AND I RAISE TODAY, MR. SPEAKER,
TO ADDRESS A QUESTION THAT MANY
ARE POSING.
AND A QUESTION THAT I THOUGHT I
SHOULD ANSWER PUBLICLY SO ALL
WOULD UNDERSTAND.
THE QUESTION IS, WHY AM I MOVING
TO BRING IMPEACHMENT, AGAIN,
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
THE ANSWER WILL BE BETTER
EXPLAINED WHEN THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT ARE PRESENTED.
HOWEVER, I DO BELIEVE THAT IT IS
NECESSARY TO GIVE SOME
INDICATION TODAY AND POSSIBLY AT
A LATER TIME AS TO WHY THIS IS
SO IMPORTANT.
WHY WOULD I DO SUCH A THING?
MR. SPEAKER, I -- I AGREE WITH
VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY.
I AGREE WITH HIM, I AGREE WITH A
STATEMENT HE HAS MADE.
YES, VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY
REPRESENTS THE REPUBLIC PARTY OR
HE DID WHEN HE WAS VICE
PRESIDENT.
AND EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I'M A
DEMOCRAT.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE
CAN'T AGREE ON SOME OF THE
IMPORTANT AND GREAT ISSUES OF
OUR TIME.
ONE OF THE GREAT ISSUES OF OUR
TIME IS BEFORE US NOW AND I'D
LIKE TO READ THE WORDS OF VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY, WORDS THAT I
AGREE WITH, MR. SPEAKER.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY HAS
INDICATED, AND IF I MAY USE MY
POINTER, HE HAS INDICATED ON
SEPTEMBER 6 OF 2024, THIS WAS
PUBLISHED, HE INDICATED, IN OUR
NATION'S 248-YEAR HISTORY, THERE
HAS NEVER BEEN AN INDIVIDUAL WHO
IS A GREATER THREAT TO OUR
REPUBLIC THAN DONALD TRUMP.
LET ME PAUSE FOR JUST A MOMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THIS
LANGUAGE.
AN INDIVIDUAL.
ONE PERSON.
WHO IS A GREATER THREAT TO OUR
REPUBLIC, IMPORTANT STATEMENT,
REPUBLIC, THAN DONALD TRUMP.
IN 248 YEARS.
I'LL COME BACK TO THESE IN JUST
A MOMENT.
HE TRIED TO STEAL THE LAST
ELECTION.
NOW THIS WAS SEPTEMBER OF 2024,
SO IT'S THE ELECTION PRIOR TO
SEPTEMBER OF 2024.
HE TRIED TO STEAL THE LAST
ELECTION.
USING LIES AND VIOLENCE TO KEEP
HIMSELF IN POWER.
KEEP HIMSELF IN POWER AFTER THE
VOTERS HAD REJECTED HIM.
HE CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED WITH
POWER AGAIN.
I AGREE WITH THIS.
AS CITIZENS, WE EACH HAVE A DUTY
TO PUT COUNTRY ABOVE
PARTISANSHIP, TO DEFEND --
ACTUALLY HE SAYS TO PUT COUNTRY
ABOVE PARTISANSHIP.
TO DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION.
NOW LET'S WALK BACK THROUGH THIS
WITH EMPHASIS ON CERTAIN THINGS.
ONE INDIVIDUAL, DONALD TRUMP, IS
A GREATER THREAT TO THE REPUBLIC
THAN ANY OTHERS.
NEVER BEFORE A PERSON WHO HAS
BEEN A GREATER THREAT THAN
DONALD TRUMP.
WHY IS HE A GREATER THREAT?
WELL, YOU FIRST HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND IF YOU DON'T, THAT WE
HAVE A REPUBLIC.
A REPUBLIC IS GOVERNMENT BY THE
PUBLIC.
BUT IT IS DONE BY AND THROUGH
REPRESENTATION.
REPRESENTATIVES.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
REPRESENTATIVES.
THE SENATE.
THE REPUBLIC SPEAKS THROUGH
REPRESENTATIVES.
WE HAVE A REPUBLIC AND HE
INDICATES THAT THIS PRESIDENT IS
A GREAT THREAT TO
REPRESENTATIONAL GOVERNMENT.
TO THE REPUBLIC.
WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THIS.
HE, DONALD TRUMP, DOESN'T
RESPECT THE SEPARATION OF
POWERS.
HE BELIEVES THAT THE JUDICIARY
SHOULD AGREE WITH HIM AND THE
JUDICIARY DOES NOT AGREE HE HAS
AS MUCH AS SAID THEY SHOULD BE
IMPEACHED.
SO EMPHATIC WAS HE ABOUT THIS
IMPEACHMENT, THAT THE CHIEF
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAD
TO CALL HIM OUT PUBLICLY.
DIDN'T USE HIS NAME BUT WE ALL
KNEW THAT HE WAS SPEAKING TO THE
PRESIDENT AT THE TIME, PRESIDENT
DONALD TRUMP.
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT REMINDED THE PRESIDENT
THAT IN THIS COUNTRY WE HAVE A
HISTORY OF APPEALING DECISIONS
OF THE COURTS.
WE DON'T IMPEACH JUDGES BECAUSE
WE DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR
DECISIONS.
WE APPEAL THESE DECISIONS.
HE DOESN'T RESPECT SEPARATION OF
POWERS.
HE OWNS THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
HE OWNS THE SENATE.
THE SENATE, THE HOUSE, WILL NOT
MAKE A MOVE WOULD HIS CONSENT
AND PERMISSION.
AS OF LATE, HOWEVER, THERE ARE
SOME INDICATIONS THAT SOME
INDEPENDENTS -- SOME
INDEPENDENCE IS STARTING TO
PRESENT ITSELF.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE
PRESIDENT DOESN'T RESPECT
SEPARATION OF POWERS.
IF A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
DISAGREES WITH HIM, HE
IMMEDIATELY CALLS UPON THE
CONSTITUENTS OF THAT MEMBER TO
DO WHAT IS NECESSARY WITHIN THE
LAW, GENERALLY SPEAKING, TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT MEMBER GETS PHONE
CALLS.
TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT MEMBER IS
INTIMIDATED.
TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT MEMBER
HAS TO RECONSIDER WHATEVER THE
DISAGREEMENT WAS.
THIS IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
THE INTIMIDATOR IN CHIEF.
HE PRIDES HIMSELF ON HIS ABILITY
TO INTIMIDATE, TO GET PERSONS TO
COOPERATE.
SO HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN
SEPARATION OF POWERS.
HE DISRESPECTS THE HOUSE AND THE
SENATE.
THE MEMBERS WHO DON'T GIVE HIM
WHAT THEY -- WHAT HE DESIRES.
DESIRES.
HE'S ALSO A PERSON WHO THINKS
THAT HE CAN LITERALLY DO
WHATEVER HE PLEASES GIVEN HE HAS
THIS MANDATE FROM THE SUPREME
COURT.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS
INDICATED -- I SAY MANDATE, HAS
GIVEN HIM AN INDICATION THAT HE
IS ABOVE THE LAW.
IN CERTAIN AREAS.
THE SUPREME COURT DIDN'T USE THE
LANGUAGE "ABOVE THE LAW" BUT THE
SUPREME COURT HAS GIVEN HIM THIS
BELIEF HE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
THE SUPREME COURT TALKED ABOUT
IMMUNITY.
HE'S TAKEN IT AS AN INDICATION
HE'S ABOVE THE LAW AND TAKES IT
AS HE CHOOSES.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT VICE
PRESIDENT CHANEY MADE THESE
COMMENTS, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
THESE ARE MY WORDS, NOT VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY'S BUT THE VICE
PRESIDENT INCITED THE
INSURRECTION.
THERE ARE PEOPLE USING OTHER
TERMINOLOGY, BUT THE
INSURRECTION THAT TOOK PLACE
AFTER THE ELECTION WHEREIN HE
WAS DEFEATED.
HE INSIGHTED THE PERSONS TO COME
OVER TO THE CAPITOL OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE
CITADEL OF DEMOCRACY AS IT IS
CALLED AND KNOWN AS.
HE INSIGHTED THEM TO COME OVER
HERE TO INVADE THE ALCOHOL
ITSELF.
AFTER THE INVASION TOOK PLACE,
THEY WENT THROUGH THE HALLS.
THEY DID SOME VERY UGLY THINGS
ASIDE FROM CALLING FOR THE
LYNCHING OF PEOPLE.
THEY HAD THE GALLOS ASIDE FROM
THESE THINGS, THEY DID OTHER
THINGS.
SOMETHING AS DEMEANING AND VIAL
AND AS DEFECATING IN VARIOUS
PUBLIC PLACES WITHIN THE
CONGRESS, WITHIN THE BUILDINGS.
THESE WERE SOME VERY VIAL,
MEAN-SPIRITED PEOPLE WHO
INNOVATED THE CAPITOL AND THEY
DID THIS AT THE BEHEST OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA.
AFTER ALL OF THIS WAS DONE, THE
PRESIDENT BEING SWORN IN ON
JANUARY 20TH OF 2025, AFTER ALL
THIS HAD TAKEN PLACE AT A PRIOR
ELECTION, THE VERY FIRST ACT THE
PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN, IT SEEMS.
AFTER HE RAISED HIS HAND TO BE
SWORN IN, UPON LOWERING HIS
HAND, HE SEEMS TO HAVE RUSHED
OVER TO SOME PLACE THAT HAD A
DOCUMENT THAT ALLOWED HIM TO
PARDON THE PEOPLE THAT DEFECATED
IN THE CONGRESS, IN THE
BUILDING.
THE PEOPLE THAT MARCHED THROUGH
LOOKING FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
AT THAT TIME INDICATED THAT THEY
WANTED TO DO HARM TO IT.
HE PARDONED THESE PEOPLE.
THIS WAS HIS VERY FIRST ACT, IT
SEEMS.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER BEING SWORN
IN.
THIS IS THE PERSON WHO IS
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE
MANY PEOPLE WHO JUST BRUSH ASIDE
WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 6,
2021.
THEY JUST BRUSH IT ASIDE AS OH,
THAT HAPPENED BUT IT WON'T
HAPPEN AGAIN, SEEMS TO BE THE
ATTITUDE AMONG THE MINDS OF
MANY.
IF HE DID IT ONCE, WHAT MAKES
YOU THINK HE WON'T DO IT AGAIN?
WHERE IS THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT THE
NOTION OF THE PERSON WHO INCITED
THIS, THE VERY FIRST ACT HE HAD,
THAT HE ENGAGED IN AFTER BEING
ELECTED PRESIDENT AGAIN, ON
JANUARY 20TH, THAT'S WHEN THE
PRESIDENT WAS SWORN IN IN A VERY
RAMBUNCTIOUS WAY, A DEMEANING
WAY, IN FACT, PEOPLE DIED AS A
RESULT OF THIS.
HE INSTIGATED THIS.
WHAT CAUSES PEOPLE TO THINK HE
WON'T DO IT AGAIN.
I BELIEVE THAT HE WILL P. I
BELIEVE THAT HE WILL FIND GREAT
DIFFICULTY IN STEPPING DOWN FROM
OFFICE, AND AS A RESULT OF HIS
NOT RESPECTING THE SEPARATION OF
POWERS AS A RESULT OF HIS NOT
UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE SHOULD
BE SOME INDEPENDENCE IN THE
JUDICIARY, THAT THE JUDICIARY IS
NOT FOR HIM TO SUPERVISE, I PUT
ALL THIS INTO MY COLLECTION OF
THOUGHTS, AND AS I DO SO, I HAVE
TO AGREE WITH VICE PRESIDENT
CHENEY AND IN OUR NATION'S
48-YEAR HISTORY THERE'S NEVER
BEEN AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A
GREATER THREAT TO OUR REPUBLIC
THAN DONALD TRUMP.
YES, HE TRIED TO STEAL THE LAST
ELECTION, THE ELECTION BEFORE
SEPTEMBER 6, 2024, WHEN THIS
STATEMENT WAS PUBLISHED.
HE TRIED TO STEAL THE LAST
ELECTION, USING LIES AND
VIOLENCE TO KEEP HIMSELF IN
POWER AFTER VOTERS, THE PEOPLE
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
THE VOTERS HAD REJECTED HIM.
HE CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED WITH
POWER AGAIN.
I WILL BE BRINGING ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT, BECAUSE WHAT VICE
PRESIDENT CHENEY, MAY HE REST IN
PEACE, WHAT VICE PRESIDENT
CHENEY SAID THEN, SEPTEMBER 6,
2024, IS TRUE NOW.
WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE TRUSTED
HIM.
HE HAS BEEN GIVEN A SECOND
CHANCE TO STEAL FIRE FROM THE
GODS.
WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED HIM
TO DO SO.
BUT THERE IS A REMEDY.
WHEN THE COURTS CAN'T CONTROL
HIM AND WHEN HIS PARTY WON'T
CONTROL HIM, THEN THE ONLY
REMEDY LEFT IS IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S ALL THAT WE HAVE.
AND THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO
WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS NOT THE
RIGHT TIME.
WELL, LET'S ADDRESS THE QUESTION
OF TIMING.
DR. KING SAYS THE TIME IS ALWAYS
RIGHT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT.
IF THE REPUBLIC IS AT RISK, THE
TIME IS ALWAYS RIGHT TO DO WHAT
IS RIGHT, TO MAKE SURE THE
REPUBLIC IS PROTECTED.
I WILL BE DOING WHAT I BELIEVE
IS RIGHT TO PROTECT THE
REPUBLIC.
THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO SAID TO
THOSE PERSONS WHO AT THE EDMUND
PETTUS BRIDGE ON BLOODY SUNDAY,
THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO
MARCH.
DON'T MARCH NOW.
LET'S DO IT ANOTHER DAY.
BUT THE HONORABLE JOHN LEWIS WHO
IS A MEMBER OF THIS VERY HOUSE,
A COLLEAGUE, HE SAID NO, WE
MARCH.
AND THEY DID MARCH.
AND THEY MARCHED KNOWING THERE
WOULD BE HARM THAT THEY WOULD
HAVE TO SUFFER.
THEY KNEW THIS.
THEY SAW THE CONSTABULARY AS
THEY APPROACHED THE CREST OF THE
EDMUND PETTUS BRIDGE.
THEY KNEW WHAT WAS GOING TO
HAPPEN BUT THEY MARCHED ON.
IF THEY COULD MARCH ON KNOWING
THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE
HARMED, AND THE HONORABLE JOHN
LEWIS TOLD ME PERSONALLY HE
THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO DIE ON
THAT BRIDGE.
THEY BEAT THEM ALL THE WAY BACK
TO THE CHURCH WHERE THEY
STARTED, CHURCH-GOING PEOPLE,
BEAT THEM ALL THE WAY BACK.
IF THEY WOULD MARCH ON FACING
THIS KIND OF DANGER, SURELY I
SHOULD MARCH ON AND BRING
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
I'M NOT -- I'M NOT REQUIRING OR
ASKING ANY MEMBER OF THIS HOUSE
TO VOTE WITH ME.
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE.
DO WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS RIGHT.
I'M GOING TO VOTE MY CONSCIENCE.
I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE TO TABLE
THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THOSE WHO VOTE TO TABLE ARE
INDICATEING THAT FOR WHATEVER
REASONS, THEY DON'T THINK IT
SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL VOTE, THAT
THERE SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL VOTE
ON THE ARTICLES THEMSELVES.
THEY'RE SAYING LET'S PUT THIS
OFF.
WELL, IF THAT'S YOUR OPINION,
THEN YOU DO THAT.
BUT THAT'S NOT MY OPINION.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A VOTE, NOT
ONLY ON THIS MOTION TO TABLE
THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED BUT ALSO
A VOTE ON THE ACTUAL ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THIS MAN IS A THREAT TO OUR
REPUBLIC.
HE CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY WAS RIGHT
THEN AND HE IS RIGHT NOW.
I'M GOING TO BRING THOSE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
AND I CAN ONLY ASSURE THE PUBLIC
WHO IS CONSTANTLY ASKING ME HOW
MANY VOTES DO YOU THINK YOU'LL
HAVE?
I CAN ONLY ASSURE YOU OF ONE
THING.
I WILL HAVE ONE VOTE.
THIS I CAN ASSURE YOU OF.
I WILL HAVE ONE VOTE.
WHY?
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IT IS
BETTER TO STAND ALONE ON SOME
ISSUES THAN NOT STAND AT ALL.
I WILL STAND.
I WILL PRESENT THE ARTICLES AND
WHEN I VOTE, IF I'M THE ONLY
PERSON TO DO IT, I WILL KNOW AND
POSTERITY WILL KNOW I HAVE DONE
THE

Trump SCREAMS as His Rally EXPLODES Into DISASTER
Adam Mockler
Dec 9, 2025



Transcript

The president of the United States is
quite literally hosting a hate rally in
Mount Poono, Pennsylvania after he
visited the great Commonwealth to sell
the people on the state of his economy.
The way that he speaks about the economy
being in a quote unquote golden age is
just inongruent with how the average
American feels when they visit the store
and when they look at their wallet.
We'll get to the economy in just one
minute, but Donald Trump early in the
rally begins attacking Ilhan Omar,
Representative Ilhan Omar, and her
turban, calling her a quote unquote
[ __ ] making fun of her turban. And by
the end of this clip, the crowd is
literally chanting and screaming to send
her back, send her back. These rallies
are becoming increasingly dark. And as
somebody who has been to about 40 maybe
50 Trump rallies and interviewed the
people there, I've seen the people get
increasingly angrier throughout the
years. So drop a like, subscribe. We're
going to commentate over all of this.
And let's start with this really dark,
disturbing clip.
I think that's a great like Somalia.
Welcome.
Do we have any individuals from Somalia
in the group? Please raise your hand.
That's for Minnesota. You know, that's
called the great big Minnesota scam with
one of the dumbest governors ever in
history.
[Applause]
I love this Elon Omar, whatever the hell
her name is, with the little king, the
little turban.
I love her. She comes in, does nothing
but [ __ ] She's always complaining.
She comes from a country where
I mean it's considered about the worst
country in the world, right? They have
no military. They have no nothing. They
have no parliament. They don't know what
the hell the word parliament means. They
have nothing. They have no police. They
they police themselves. They kill each
other all the time. I love she comes to
our country and she's always complaining
about the constitution allows me to do
this. The const we ought to get her the
hell out. She married her brother in
order to get in, right? She married her
brother.
Can you imagine if Donald Trump married
his sister? Beautiful. She's a beautiful
person. If I married my sister to get my
citizenship, do you think I'd last for
about two hours or would it be something
less than that?
She married her brother to get in.
Therefore, she's here illegally. She
should get the hell out. throw the hell
out. She She does nothing but complain.
Okay, that is a racist lie. But then
listen to how the crowd begins to chant.
[Applause]
And of course in the background I see
someone that I've debated like five
times at these rallies. His name is
Edward Young.
[Applause]
So now
disturbingly racist stuff. Look at this
guy. Look at the crowd. All sickopantic
cultlike with Trump hair at the back of
their head chanting send her back at a
congresswoman who is wellliked in her
district. Next you see Donald Trump
gaslighting about prices. He says that
prices aren't really high.
Hey, you know, and I said it the other
day and a lot of people misinterpret it.
They say, "Oh, he doesn't realize prices
are prices are coming down very
substantially." But they have a new
word. You know, they always have a hoax.
The new word is affordability.
So, they look at the camera and they
say, "This election is all about
affordability."
Now, they never talk about it. They
never talk. Thank you very much. They
say, "I'm not allowed to run." I don't
know what the hell that's all about, but
that's okay. They said four more years.
You've seen the new hat. We have four
more years.
These are like the deranged ramblings of
the homeless person who used to live
outside my apartment. I'm not even
joking. This is like when I used to
visit my friend in high school and his
racist scenile grandpa would be ranting
and raving. It's worse than that. It is
legitimately worse than that. Trump
claims that he saved Christmas.
Remember when I started in 2015, I made
my first speech and I said, "We're going
to bring back Christmas." Remember they
wanted to the radical left wanted to get
rid of the they wanted to get rid of the
word Christmas. I said I don't think
that's going to work out and we did it
and now everybody's saying merry
Christmas again.
First of all, I'm as liberal as it gets
and I have always said Merry Christmas.
Secondly, this rally so far is the
definition of fascism and it only gets
worse. It is one center figure who acts
as a, you know, populist ideologue who
stands there and spouts hyper
nationalist stuff like send her back,
send her back, makes fun and tries to
crush the opposition and tries to paint
himself as the sole savior of the
country, of the economy, of Christmas,
of all of this. You can see him painting
the forces of good versus evil. the
people who want to take away Christmas
versus him who wants to save Christmas,
save the economy, chant quote unquote
send her back because she wants to take
Christmas away from you. You can see how
he connects all of these things and it's
disturbing. He then goes on to uh talk
about how great Caroline Levit's lips
are. I don't
We even brought our superstar today,
Caroline.
Stand up, Carol.
[Music]
Isn't she great? Is Caroline great?
You know, when she goes on television,
Fox like I mean, they dominate. They
dominate when she gets up there with
that beautiful face and those lips that
don't stop like like a little machine
gun. She's got no fear. You know why she
has no fear? Cuz we have the right
policy.
Something about that is very very odd.
just knowing the way he's abused power
dynamics with previous women and he
always has these blonde women out there
in front. He then has multiple cognitive
misfires where he calls Susie Wilds
quote unquote Susie Trump.
Haven't made a speech in a little while.
You know when you win when you win you
say I can now rest.
So Susie Trump, do you know Susie Trump?
Sometimes referred to as Susie Wild.
Susie Trump. She's the great chief of
staff at the They don't use the word
chief of staff anymore because of uh the
Indians got extremely upset.
This guy is I don't even know what this
guy's talking about. So on his
affordability tour, he gets the crowd to
cheer for tariffs and boo the quote
unquote fake media for being against
tariffs even though he's rolled some of
the tariffs back conceding that they
don't work. You
know they the word remember when I said
tariff? My favorite word is tariff.
True. But then I got a lot of heat from
the fake news. Look at all of them back
there.
I took a lot of heat. I got up early on.
I said my favorite. It's turning out,
you know, tariffs are bringing us
hundreds of billions of dollars. I just
helped our farmers out because they're
starting to do really well.
I mean, I think I'm going to return to
some of these Trump rallies and ask his
supporters before and after the rallies,
hey, when he talks to you about
affordability, do you actually feel this
on a day-to-day basis? Because Trump has
spent a lot of this rally claiming, and
I quote, u they said he doesn't realize
prices are high, prices are going down
substantially. They always have a new
hoax. He then said later on, rent prices
are down. You know what you did during
the buy error for Thanksgiving? It was a
rotten Thanksgiving. He continues to go
on about how prices are down across the
country. It is just in congruent with
how people feel. I mean, check this out.
Midas Touch says, "Trump is a disaster
on the issue of affordability, and he
keeps making it worse for himself and
the entire GOP. Lying to Americans about
the economy and prices is objectively
the worst possible way to handle this
crisis, and it will backfire bigly."
Biden did something kind of similar near
the end of his term where he was saying
prices everything's fine, everything's
fine. And while technically some
indicators were recovering compared to
their worst point, at that point
inflation was embedded and people were
just feeling the pain. So they weren't
liking it. But Trump is repeating this
issue 10 times worse by saying,
"But that's our message. They gave you
high prices. They gave you the highest
inflation in history. And we're giving
you we're bringing those prices down
rapidly. Lower prices, bigger paychecks.
You're getting lower prices, bigger
paychecks. We're getting
the price of orange juice is up 31%. The
price of bread up. The price of beef up.
The price of chicken, the price of
everything other than maybe eggs, which
is down like 12 cents over the past year
after a huge spike in the interim. So
everything is going up mainly due to
tariffs, mainly due to inflation being
baked in. And Trump continues to say
it's down.
Uh inflation, we're crushing it and
you're getting much higher wages. I
mean,
dude, this is some gaslighting [ __ ]
Lower prices. Where where are the lower
prices? As the economy continue to
source and heading into the midterms,
he's not going to be able to gaslight
like this. He's going on a tour around
the country. And if you want to see us
follow it, if you want to see us debunk
the lies and hit the ground, then make
sure you're subscribe below. I'll see
you on the next one.

Part 1 of 3

‘What a CROCK of S***!’ Piers Morgan vs Nick Fuentes | Full interview
Piers Morgan Uncensored
Streamed live on Dec 8, 2025 Piers Morgan Uncensored
For several months now there’s been no avoiding the subject of Nick Fuentes - and accordingly, Piers Morgan has spent a lot of time talking about him.

And it doesn’t make much sense to spend all this time talking about Nick Fuentes - but not TO Nick Fuentes. And on that basis, he was invited to appear on Uncensored, and accepted.

Piers Morgan asks him about his most controversial past comments, on race, religion, women, Hitler, the Holocaust and his real thoughts on his conservative peers, from Tucker Carlson, to Candace Owens to the late Charlie Kirk.

Editor’s Note: On this platform only, we decided to cut out two short uses of the n-word - after the livestream ended - to ensure the interview remains accessible.



Transcript

Introduction
Whether you're a New York Times reader, an NPR fan, a Daily Wire subscriber, or an avid consumer of all things Tucker
Carlson, for several months now, there's been no avoiding the subject of Nick Fuentes. And let's be clear, the main
reason you're hearing about him is because he's popular. A large number of people, especially young men, are
interested in what he has to say. What that says about our society and our culture is the subject of ferocious
debate. For many people, it's a grave indictment of an insidious immorality. For others, he's a product of a culture
which has turned on its own and left many young people feeling listless and bitter. He's either a litmus test for
right-wing hypocrisy on free speech or a walking talking manifestation of where the line should be drawn. And a frankly
preposterous amount of air time has been spent on debating everything from his ideology to his sexuality and whether
anyone should actually talk to him at all. If I were writing a glossery entry on the Streryand effect, I wouldn't put
a picture of her next to it. I would put a picture of Nick Fuentes. They have
opted to not do so when it comes to Nazis like Nick Fuentes. Fuentes takes this guy apart brick by
brick. It's a full takedown. My concern is that people who are a bit more moderate are deeply alarmed by Nick
Fuentes. I I was very happy to see that like Nick Fuentes really passed that test with flying colors.
That fragmentation is being caused purposefully by a splinter faction of people led by a young man named Nick
Fuentes. That's the war. Can you get the beef prices down, not crazy things that Nick
Fuentes or these other loons say on social media? Well, it looks like all the screaming
about Nick Fuentes on the internet is finally dying down a little bit. So now
we had on this guy, this Fuentes guy, and never challenged him. Um, you should have Nick Fuentes on your
show and you could ask him questions about that. The truth is it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend all this time talking
about Nick Fuentes, but not actually to Nick Fuentes. People who say you shouldn't give him a platform overlook
the very obvious fact that he already has a platform of his own which is often bigger than most of the people
complaining and he uses it to speak unchallenged to his many followers. It's on that basis that I've invited him to
appear live and uncensored on my platform and Nick Fuentes joins me now. Nick Fuentes, welcome to Uncensored.
Hi. Great to be with you. I don't know you. I don't think we've ever met. You can correct me if that's
wrong. Um, I know about you. I know that increasingly people are talking about
you in a more mainstream environment uh than you may be used to. So, for those
who know nothing about Nick Fuentes, I want this to be an opportunity to get
to the real person. I don't know who that person is, but I do want to use
this opportunity to get there. I've seen you talk as we prepared for this in exchanges with people and on your show
saying if you fear it's going to be very hostile, it's going to be an ambush, all those kind of things. I don't intend it
to be overtly hostile. I don't intend to ambush you. I intend it to be an
examination of what you said on the record, an examination of what you believe or what you say you believe. Uh,
and an examination of what your rising popularity says about the state of the
conservative movement in America. So, those are my goals from this interview. What are your goals? Why are you doing
it? I thought it'd be interesting. And you know, you've talked a lot about me on
your show over the years, and this is the first time you actually extended the invitation. I think it might be the
second, actually. I think we we talked about doing it during Y24 a few years ago, but you've talked a lot about me
with the panel, and now you've extended the invitation to talk to me, and I think it'd be interesting uh for me to
maybe clarify some positions and maybe get to know you a little better as well. So, I'm looking forward to it. There is
a belief um that you have two personas. There's one that you roll out now for
podcasts and for shows like mine where you come across as reasonable
and then there's your show on Rumble where you often come across as having
Nick Fuentes responds to Coleman Hughes' claims he plays the “double game”
you know a very unreasonable view on things. This is what Coleman Hughes said about you.
Nick Fuentes knows exactly what he's doing. He is consciously playing this double game as part of a long-term
strategy to become popular enough to take the reigns of power at which point
he plans to pivot towards the extreme and unpopular policies that he advocates
daily on Rumble. So first of all, what is your response to that?
Well, first of all, I would say that Coleman Hughes is a propagandist. He works for the free press which is run by
Barry Weiss. So, I think that's you have to consider the source and Barry Weiss is a pro-Israel partisan. Free Press is
just bought out by CBS for $150 million uh by Larry Ellison or his son David
Ellison. And so, I think that's coming from a particular point of view. We can't pretend like that's coming from a
vacuum or from some fixed position. That's coming from a propaganda outlet that's in favor of Israel. That's first.
But second, I would say he is right about the two personas. And I think that
everybody understands this on some level. On my show, I make jokes and I use rhetoric and I'm hyperbolic. Uh
because for a long time, I had an audience that was small on these like dissident platforms. I was on dive for
many years. A lot of people don't even know what that is. And so I had a small following and we had sort of like an
in-group sense of humor and memes and things like that. And you talk about it
one way on a freewheeling live stream when I'm by myself and I'm ranting and we make jokes and um we play devil's
advocate. We play with different positions. But then when you sit down in an interview like this one and people
ask me a good faith question. What do you actually believe? Well then I clarify and I say well here I'm not
joking. Here I'm not being hyperbolic. I'm not being rhetorical. I'll tell you precisely what I believe. As far as this
idea that I'm going to get power and then turn into Hitler, that just sounds totally insane to me. I'll be honest. It
just sounds insane. Do you have aspirations for political power?
Uh, not really. I I think that uh if I wanted to run for office, I wouldn't say a lot of the things that I say. I don't
know that a lot of people would vote for me. I tend to offend everybody, even a lot of people that like me. Uh, so no, I
I'm a trutht teller. I like to tell the truth. I like to do my live stream. Who is Nick Fuentes? Tell me about your
Nick Fuentes on how his background has shaped him
upbringing. I know you grew up in in the suburbs of Chicago. Uh tell me about
your early years or early how like my childhood or a
little bit later? Early childhood. Yeah. Well, I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago in Lraange Park as you say. Uh
my parents are ethnics. Um you know, my father's half Mexican, half Irish, my mother's Italian. and they both came
from a pretty rough upbringing themselves. They both were raised by single mothers, not because of divorce,
but because both of their fathers had died. Uh they endured a lot of dysfunction and I think that's one of
the reasons they came together and they related to each other and they wanted to create a normal upbringing for their
children. They wanted to have a normal family life and so uh they moved out to Lraange Park away from the city and uh
they raised me and my sister and really put us first. I think that's a big reason why uh I tend to have a lot of
these family values or Christian values. My mother quit her job and stayed at home to raise us. Um and so I have very
close relationship with my parents, with my sister. We're a very tight family and we grew up in a pretty idyllic town. Uh
and maybe we can sort of get into a conversation about politics from this. I loved my upbringing. My mom stayed at
home. My dad was working. We're in a mostly white suburb in Chicago. Everybody was I was maybe half Catholic,
half Protestant. It was a baseball town. I played baseball for many years. Um, in
Chicago, we love our hot dogs. We have our baseball parade and get a hot dog. And so, I love where I came from. I love
the city. It's a working-class city. I love the people here. They're very good, humble, downto-earth, decent people. And
I guess I had my political, not to jump ahead, but this is a big part of where my political awakening came from. I sort
of left this bubble, if you could call it that, when I went to college in 2016.
I went to Boston University and I read a lot of things online and I realized the country does not look like Lraange Park.
It doesn't look like Western Springs or Hinsdale or Elmherst. It looks very different. The country is undergoing a
radical transformation because of immigration. And so I saw that and I said, "This is not really a desirable
change. I don't like the south side of Chicago or the west side or LA or
certain parts of Boston as much as I like where I came from. And I guess that's what made me an American
nationalist. I said, I want to preserve my home and the things that are familiar to me and the things I like about my
home, what makes it America. Uh, so that's a little bit about my background. And I don't know where you want to go with that, but
well I suppose my first my first obvious question is were your parents immigrants to the United States or were their
parents or were they grandparents? In other words, at some stage I presume there there were immigrants in your
family who came to the US. Is that correct? There were there were uh I believe my
mother was fourth generation and my father was third generation. So, their
ancestors came here on my mom's side in the 1860s, I believe, the first wave of
Italian immigration. My father's ancestors, I think they came around at the turn of the century uh in 1900. So,
so your view of immigration, and we'll get to the specifics about your views on immigration,
are they not affected at all by the fact that if it wasn't for immigration, you
wouldn't exist as an American? Well, I would certainly exist, but like
you said, maybe not as an American. Certainly, uh, certainly that's influenced in some measure. Um, but I
think that the kind of immigration that we had for a long time in the country, it's different than the immigration that we have now. And let's just say for
openers, it's different immigrants. They're coming from a different place with a different culture, a different
religion. Uh, it's not the same as it was. So, first, you have a qualitative
difference. My ancestors for the most part, I have three European grandparents from Ireland and Italy, one from Mexico.
They came from Europe. They came from a society where there's a common ancestry. There's a common religion, common
civilization. The people that have come in since ' 65, since Heart seller, they're coming from China, India, the
Northern Triangle, Mexico, Venezuela. And so, first, they're just different people. Secondly, it's a quantitative
difference. There's way more. And it's an unceasing, always increasing wave. For the first
three or four waves of immigration, you would have a major influx of immigrants and then it would stop and then you'd
have another wave and then it would stop. This one, it just keeps going up for 35 years and it's too many. So that
that's really where I would draw the distinction between maybe where I originate from. I would even just simply
call that immigration. What this is is an invasion. It's a completely different policy.
You mentioned Mexico in that list. Um, and your father is is half Mexican. So,
yeah. I mean, by your criteria, part of the invasion would include your father presumably and his immediate descendants
who came from Mexico. Not really true because when my father's
ancestors came here, it was a small fraction of the total immigrants that came from Mexico. I don't believe that
we should have zero immigrants forever or even zero immigrants from non-white countries. But you have to draw the
distinction. My my father's father, he was here in the in the 40s and 50s. It
was his parents or I believe either his parents or grandparents that came here even earlier. Up until 1965,
90% of the immigrants were coming from Europe. I have no problem with that. If we have 10% of them coming from Mexico
or Latin America, maybe that's reasonable. But that's not what it is now. Now you've got 10 million illegals
in four years under Joe Biden. Uh and you got millions more legal immigrants from China, India, Venezuela, El
Salvador, and it's so many with no break for assimilation. And they're all from
non-white countries. It's transforming what America is. And and again, that's the distinction. That's what makes it
unacceptable. I I always believe everybody is a product of their environment, right? I've interviewed
thousands of people. I I mean it maybe three, four, five thousand people from all different walks of life, but the one
common theme I would say is everyone's a product of their environment. And I I
was reading some stuff about you in the last few days. There was an episode of of your podcast where you talked about
your father, Bill Fuentes, and how he wouldn't take the family, including you, to certain restaurants because he
believed they were associated with African-Americans. We would be deciding where to go to eat, you said. What are we going to do for
dinner tonight? It was a running joke. Me and my sister would say, "Applebees." And my dad would say, "We would never
eat at Applebee's." "Not in a million years should you be caught dead," Fuente said about Applebees. go to a different
restaurant, a local restaurant, no Applebees, no Red Lobster that is commonly known as Black Fair. Uh, and
you also share another story about your family and restaurants said, "Before me and my sister were born, my family had a
saying about Olive Garden that contains the nword that we're not allowed to say."
So my question based on that anecdote that you say on your own uh podcast is
do you think you grew up in a racist environment that your father was inherently racist and that that thought
process move to you? Well, I would say it's a new low. I I've
been attacked for being a racist many times, but to attack my father, to attack my parents based on anecdotes, I
would say that's that's sort of It's your Hang on. It's your anecdote. Yeah, but he's not here to defend
himself and my parents are. You told the story and I will and I and I'll just I'm not trying to ambush you. As I said
at the start, Nick, to be clear, no, it's not an ambush. To be clear, I think everybody I'm not ambushing you. I'm literally reading an anecdote that
you revealed on your podcast. It's you that's put it in the public domain. Now,
I'm simply asking you whether my assessment of that, which is that your father didn't want to take you to
certain restaurants because of what you refer to as they were commonly known as black fair, whether that whether that
attitude to African-Americans in in that instance permeated to you. It's a
reasonable question. Yeah. No, like I said, I think everybody knows what that is, but I'll address it.
I'll engage with it and I'll defend my father from the charge of racism. It's true. No, my parents my parents are not
racist and they've never been racist. I'll tell you about my parents. They used to have a school in Chicago in the
South Loop where they instructed people on how to shoot firearms. It was a security school and most of the clients
were black. Um, and I believe actually one of their clients was Larry Hoover's son at one point. Sort of a funny story.
And so most of their clients would come in from the south side of Chicago. My grandmother, she grew up in the projects
in the city. And so my family being in Chicago being ethnics uh being Italian,
Irish, Mexican in the west side, uh on Taylor Street, all over the city, my
family for many generations have lived near and around black people. And look, my views about black people and their
views about black people are shaped with experiences with black people. Uh and and what they will tell you, what my
parents would say if they were here is that for many many years, the older
generations of black people were very respectful, very humble, very decent. In
fact, my grandma used to have an anecdote. She grew up in a lot of dysfunction. her mother was mentally ill
and they would be having dinner in the projects and there'd be so much chaos and dysfunction and disagreement and
fighting and she would look across the way out the window at a black family in the other apartment and they'd be
holding hands around the table saying grace. And this is sort of the culture that used to prevail. But now what you
have in the city is that there's no accountability for the black people. And now Chicago has become a complete dump
because these teenagers go out and they take over the city. They call them teen takeovers. Uh that's the euphemism for
it. They're teenagers, but they all come from the same neighborhood. They drive up there and they mug people and attack
people and they destroy cars and destroy shops. We had the Festival of Lights a couple of weeks ago. It's supposed to be
a family event and they light up the trees and they, you know, there's a big parade. I was in the parade one year and
you had a bunch of black people there shooting each other. Seven people shot, a 14-year-old killed in the Magnificent
Mile. And and I know there's a lot of black people that feel the same way about this. They say, "We've lost
control of the city, and we're looking for accountability." We have a lot of black people that are always outraged
about racism, outraged about attitudes from white people, but they're never ashamed of some of these behaviors,
never ashamed of some of the things that go on. And that's why I think there's a lot of negative attitudes these days.
And so, you know, again, I think those attitudes, you say, "I'm a product of my environment." I I am, and so are my
parents and my grandparents, unlike you, because you're not even American. In Chicago, we have to live in a in a big
diverse city where there's a lot of different kinds of people. And um I don't think anybody tell you the same.
I live in I live in London. It's one of the most of the biggest and most diverse cities in the world. But it's not the same.
Well, actually, it's a big it's a big diverse city. The only difference is we don't have the gun violence because we don't have guns. That's a whole
different story. I don't want to get into that with you. I have got into that before. We got a knife problem. He got sword problems.
We have we have problems. We have problems with violent crime. I make no pretense of it. So the idea that somehow
I'm causeted in London because I'm not in Chicago. Say that. Well, you kind of implied it, but I guess my point about the environment,
I'm not saying you are a product of your environment. I'm saying most people are in some capacity. When I read that
anecdote, it's just to remind you is it's not something I have put out there. You told this story, right? And you said
Piers Morgan asks Nick Fuentes if his father's views made him racist
that you said this. We're looping. You said this. No, but you haven't really directly, I think, responded to it, which is whether
your father would not take you to certain restaurant chains because he associ associated them with black
Americans. Is that true? No. Well, see here, if you're in America, you
would say that Olive Garden is not real Italian food. Applebee's, TGI Fridays,
this stuff is a load of crap. My dad was just a food stop, but no, it's got nothing to do with that. My best friend in first grade was a black guy. We are
not we're not a racist family. So, okay. So, when you told the story, I'm just curious. So, when you told that anecdote, which clearly on the face of
it is racist, right? You're you're basically saying your father made racist
decisions about where you would go as a family to eat. Are you saying Well, well, I'm just going to ask you a
question. Are you saying that when you told that story, you didn't mean to infer that he was racist? And do you
understand why when somebody like me reads that anecdote for the first time, as I did this week, I reach a different
conclusion? Well, I understand what you're doing, which is a sort of making of a murderer.
How did he become racist? Well, his father didn't read because he said that's not real Italian food. Hang on.
Can I read? Can I explain? I'm literally reminding you of something you said on your show which led me which
led me to conclude a certain thing. I'm wrong. Tell me. Yeah, it it was said and just as a humorous anecdote and now you're trying
to spin it into a narrative which is his parents are racist. He comes from a long line of racist. Uh and I think everybody
knows our parents my parents are boomers. Mhm. and these people come. Well, you're a boomer, I guess, too in a way, right?
You were born in what, 19. Yeah. So, you're a boomer also. Or maybe you're a Gen Xer. I suppose it's sort of on the
cusp. Uh, but it's a humorous anecdote. These are kind of the attitudes of baby boomers in society. But you're trying to
spin it into a narrative which is you're a product of your environment. Your dad's racist because of this joke. Now
you're a racist. And I don't think that's a fair characterization. Okay. People can make their own minds up. They can they can go back and listen
to you say it. I mean the the beauty of what I'm going to talk to you about in this interview is that almost all of it
Nick Fuentes doubles down on his rant again ‘Jews, women and blacks’
is just going to be reminding you what you have said and asking you what you meant. Your position about that story is
that it was a joke. Okay. Um I want to come to to something else you said. Uh
this is where you talk about Jews, women, and blacks. Let's just take a listen.
They're always coming up with no it's not the Jews. No, it's not women. No, it's not blacks. It's actually really
complicated. No, it [ __ ] isn't at all. Jews are running society. Women
need to shut the [ __ ] up. Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part. And we
would live in paradise. It's that simple. Okay. Would you like to clarify what you
meant there? That's all true. That's 100% true. Everything I said in that clip is true.
Including that uh blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part. Uh yeah. Yes.
Well, all of them. No, for the most part. What does the most part mean? What percentage of American blacks would you
like to see in prison? Uh whatever the percentages of the murderers, I think it's one in 20 black
men will commit a murder in their lifetime. So maybe let's say that 5%. Oh, so you're talking about black people
who murder people. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. But you didn't say that. You just said blacks need to be imprisoned for the
most part. You didn't clarify that. You were talking about black murderers. Right. Right. No, you're right. That's a
good addition to that. That's a great point. You think it's Do you think it's funny or
I think Yeah, I do. I think it's hilarious. I think it's totally true. Do you think a black American would find it funny? You think that that blacks
should be imprisoned for the most part? Blacks are my biggest fans. I get high fives all the time. They say, "Nick
Fuentes, I love your show." They agree with me. And you want to know why? Here's the difference. Black people are
the most victimized by other black people. You think black people want to live in the hood and the ghetto and get shot all the time? That's what happens
in the south side of Chicago. You should come here. I'll take you there. We could go to Garfield Park. Went to Chicago University for a year
actually several years ago. Yeah. That's a bubble. That's a bubble. You think you're in Chicago and Hyde
Park? You don't know Chicago. Go a little bit west. see what it's like over there. And I'll tell you, black people
agree with me because they're tired of it, too. And maybe not most of them, but a lot of them agree with what I say about that because they know how it is.
That's why the first thing they do when they make a little bit of money is they go and leave to another neighborhood. Okay. So, what was Just Remind me again
the percentage of black men who commit murder in America? What was the
percentage you gave me? It's one in 20. One in 20. It's It's one in a 100red.
No, it's one in 20. No. No. Less than one in a 100red black US men commit murder. That's the most
up-to-date crime statistics in America. That's not true. I' I've seen other statistics. They say one in 20 will
eventually commit a murder. I Your rate means that you're you're saying that five times as many black men
commit murder as the official crime statistics say. Yeah. There's a report, I believe, on X
by Data Hazard. I'll have to go and double check that for you, but yes, there's some pretty shocking evidence that says that it's far more alarming
than you would think. Okay. But you you would accept that the official crime statistics are one in a 100 or you
wouldn't accept that statistic? I I don't know. I don't have it in front of me. But I've seen other evidence.
Like I said, Data Hazard on X, I believe, produced a report about a year ago. It said one in 20. But I mean,
whether it's one in 20 or one in a 100, that's a lot of people, peers. I mean, a lot of white people commit murder,
too. Well, they do, don't they? Okay. But it's about it's about proportionality. I mean, white people
are 65% of the population. Blacks are 13%. Mhm. And I think anybody would tell you that
more black people proportionally commit violent crime than white people. And people vote with their feet. People
would rather pay a much higher property tax. Most with the interruptions. I'm sorry.
Thank you. I appreciate that. You know, you look at in Chicago, in New York, these neighborhoods are so stratified.
People would rather pay a high tax rate. They'd rather pay a much higher property value to live in a less diverse, less
black neighborhood because they don't want to live around the violence. And I think that when you look at even on the
public transit, the subway, the blue line, you know, people don't want to go there because they know who occupies and
menaces the public transit, it is uh these people like Daniel Penny had to deal with. It's people like Arena
Zerutka had to deal with. And uh and that's just the uncomfortable reality. You you've also said you don't want to live
near black people. Well, let's take a listen to this clip. I'm a new generation of white person.
I'm not living around blacks. Sorry. You know, I want white kids and I don't
want my white kids bringing home black people to marry. It's racial for me.
And call me racist. Oh, very Christian to you. I don't give a [ __ ]
I mean, it couldn't be clearer really. Um, unless you want to say that's another of your jokes, but you're
basically saying, "Yeah, I'm a racist, aren't you?" Uh, yeah. Yeah, I'm fine with that.
Nick Fuentes: "Everybody except white people are racist"
You're fine with saying you're a racist. Totally. I think everybody's racist. I
think everybody, if we're being honest, is racist? I think everybody, the only people that aren't racist or or pretend
not to be are white people to their detriment. Everybody else is racist. But you spent you earlier in the interview
you you went really got agrieved at the idea that your father was a racist. You you wanted to make emphatic
my father's he's not because my father doesn't share my same views on that. So he's the exception to the everyone's
a racist. Well everybody's a little bit racist. You're right. So maybe everybody the
difference is you're attacking my father. You know he can get fired from his job. I'm not attacking your father. I No, I'm
not. I don't know your father. And to be clear I I have no knowledge about him at all other But let's leave him out of it.
Let's leave him out of it if you don't know him. Hang on, Nick. You put that story into the public domain on your show. I'm
simply reminding you of what you told everybody, millions of people, about your father. If you now want to retract
it, fine. If you want to say it was a joke, which is what your position was earlier, fine. But I'm allowed to put to
you things you said publicly. That's not unfair. That's not me targeting your father. You put that story about him out
there. You know what you're doing. You know what you're doing. I'm asking you about a pretty shocking anecdote which to me looked like you
were saying your father made decisions about where you as a family would eat based on skin color of people who worked
at these places. If you say or use them if you say that is not what you meant,
that's fine. You can respond any way you like. But the idea I can't ask you about it without you saying I'm attacking your
father is ridiculous. Well, you are and you know what you're
doing. And there's a political culture in America where if you have the wrong views, you get fired from your job. And my father has a job. And if you go on
here and say you charge him with racism or something and I'm put in a position where I don't look like I'm sticking to
my guns if I don't say my father's a racist, you're putting him in jeopardy and he's not here to defend himself or
explain his views. And it's very low. And uh and I think you know exactly what you're doing and people can see what
you're doing. I'll defend my views and I think that, you know, so let's leave him out of it. Let's just not talk about my
father because my father isn't here. I'm here. Well, then do you accept that you shouldn't talk about it? Listen, that's fine. But then do you
accept you shouldn't talk about your father on your show and you shouldn't tell? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. So, it's fine for you to put a story out
there which would make most people who listened to that story or watched it at
the time on your show conclude that he was racist. It's fine for you to do that, but if I then ask you about it,
I'm the one who's being unfair and I've crossed a line. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Yes. You're being malicious.
Okay, that's fine. That's fine. Listen, people are watching this live. They can draw their own conclusions about whether
what I just did. They will. Yeah. And I'm sure afterwards, by the way, you'll say, "He ambushed me with your
with your own with your own words." That's a little presumptuous. I'm not
going to say it's an ambush, but I think that's a low blow and I think you know what you're doing and and that's fine. You're a tabloid journalist. I expected
that. I don't think it's an ambush because I knew it would be like this. And people will see what you're doing and I think they'll say it's low. But as
far as you want to talk about racism, let's talk about racism. Let's leave my head. Look, you've admitted you're a racist,
correct? Yes. 100%. Own it. Okay, that's fine. You're perfectly
entitled in a free democratic society to stare down the barrel of his camera and
tell me you're a racist. People can judge you accordingly. Many people many people who have assumed that you're
racist will now have heard it from your own lips. That's fine. There you go. That's the point. The point of this
interview is to go over the things you've said which have led people to reach conclusions about you and to
ascertain whether those conclusions are fair and reasonable or not. That's it. I
want to play you another clip. This is where you talk about why white people are justified in being racist. Let's
take a listen to this. First, white people are every single bit
justified in being racist. Every single bit justified to the extent
that that means going out of your way to avoid black people when you see them.
Can you stand by that? Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely.
So, white people should go out of their way to avoid black people when they see them.
Absolutely. They would be wise. Why? Because it's a lose-lose proposition. If
you're Ireina Zerutska and you don't walk the other way, you get stabbed to death and you die.
If you're somebody else and you walk on the subway and you stand near a black
person or something, maybe it's fine. Uh it's a lose-lose proposition. Um so no,
I I think that white people I think that white people have been beaten into submission that were afraid to tell the
truth about it. And the truth is that when you go into these major cities like New York or Chicago, I believe she was
in North Carolina. There is a menace which is young black adolescent men. They're extremely
violent and we have been told that we have to pretend like they are every other person. We have to be colorblind
to that and we're supposed to go and and be in the midst of all this danger. And
I think that at this point it's gone out of control. You look at the BLM movement, they said that the reason that
black people um you know are violent or the reason there's crime is because of police brutality, redlinining or all
these other things. They said we need to get rid of the police. We need to defund them. And a lot of cities did. A lot of
cities like Chicago for example, the police change the rules of engagement. They don't chase them. It's not a
felony. If you steal a certain amount of merchandise, they won't chase them on foot. And now the city's totally up for grabs. And now whether you're in the
Gold Coast or whether you're on the Mag Mile or you're in the worst neighborhoods in the city, you might get
shot, you might get mugged, someone might run up on you. And and I tell my followers, it is better to be perceived
as racist or racist and walk the other way and maybe keep your life than to
say, I'm a good anti-racist. I don't mind that this person's making me uncomfortable. Maybe he's looking a
little froggy. I'm going to sit down because I'm a good person and gets stabbed, mugged, whatever. And by the
way, this is a strategy. They call it the friendly stranger. There's a crew of them. They do this in Chicago. They
stand outside bars, black people. They approach strangers. It's a robbery crew. And they pretend to be a friendly
stranger and then they mug them. And stupid white people say, "Oh, hi. Yeah, nice to meet you." You know, they grin,
they laugh, they put up with the nonsense, and then they get mugged or worse. Sometimes they get executed. And
so, as a white person, how do you feel? How do you feel about mass shootings at school?
I think they're bad. Who do you think commits mo the vast majority of the mass shootings?
I'm sure it's white people. Right. So, how do you feel about that?
I think that white people do more antisocial violence. I think black people participate in more gang
violence. I think that's the difference. What's the difference to the victims?

Part 2 of 3

Uh there's no difference to the victim, but it's a different kind of crime and it's a different proportion. Also, do you know what percentage of white people
are school shooters? Uh I know that the vast majority of mass shootings in schools in America this
century were perpetrated by young white men. And I'm just proportion of
proportion I'm curious I'm curious I'm curious whether your advice would be to
people who have kids working should they should proportion should they should they avoid
should they avoid white people at school? Should people with the kids at school avoid young
white men at school? No. Okay. Do you know do you know what per capita means? Do you know proportionality?
There are more black people proportionally that engage in violent crime or are involved in gangs,
especially in these major cities, than there are white people that are school shooters compared to the entire white
population. And everybody understands that. Two twothirds of mass shootings at
school perpetrated by white people. But what proportion of white men commit school shootings? That's the question.
I've just told you it's 60 to 65% of school shootings by white. You're telling me what proportion of school
shootings are committed by white people? I'm saying what proportion of white people have committed school shootings.
Are you playing dumb or you just not that What difference does that make to the to the children lying dead on the ground?
See, now you want to jump on the victims. The difference is you're asking would you fear white people
or black people? And that's the difference. No, I'm not. What I'm saying to you is by your by your logic,
if if we now have agreed that the vast majority of mass shootings in schools
are committed by white people and predominantly young white men, then
presumably your advice would be to avoid young white men because they betray
these massacres. But it won't be because they're white, right? So So are you playing dumb or are you
actually dumb? Maybe proportionality. You are. You are because you're well I don't think you are dumb. I think you're
smart actually. But you're deliberately avoiding per capita and everybody knows that's the difference. What proportion
of white men are school shooters? It's probably 0
1%. What proportion of black men have committed violent crimes? It's probably like 5%. I guess I don't know what it is
off the top of my head but it's very high. And I would add to that even as it concerns schools. Why do you think
parents pay a super high property tax to live in a school district where there's white people? Because they know that if
they go to the black school, it's going to be the Bloods and the Crips. It's going to be gangs. It's going to be, you
know, you talk about school shootings. Nobody talks about all the school shootings that are committed by gangbangers in and around the school and
all the other violence that's associated with that. I mean, these these schools in the south side of Chicago,
you know, it's just not I have another word for you, uh, Nick. So the proportion of the population who
carry out mass shootings is actually the same for black and white
for white people. The proportion of No Are you hearing it? No. No.
I think the problem with your statistics is a lot of them don't bear much scrutiny. We have a bunch of fact checkers checking all this in real time
because you do have a tendency to just come out with a load of old baloney and when you say, you know, okay,
well, it's true. And when you're confronted with We're not confronted with reality. You don't
like it. What's the figure? What proportion of white people have committed school shootings?
With white people as the denominator and white people that have committed school shootings as the numerator, what's that
percentage for both black and whites? The proportion of the population who carry out mass shootings generally is about
the same. No, no, tell me the number. And then and then and yet and yet your only the only focus
of your attention is the black shootings, the black crime.
You don't want to live around black people. You want to avoid black people. You don't want inter interracial
marriages or relationships that may produce black people. And yet when I point out to you that there are many
parts of crime in America where actually there's a majority of white people that perpetrate them, you don't care. You
don't have any interest in that. It doesn't exercise your mind. Maybe because no one's buying this
argument lost. No, no one is buying this. Everybody understands per capita. And people could even see what you're
you race ahead and say, "Well, we're comparing the proportion of white and black school shooters." I said, "No, no.
Compare the proportion of school shooters that are white versus violent criminals that are black." Because that was the basis of the monologue is that
you're very likely if you encounter black people or a young black man in the city that you're going to be the victim
of a violent crime of a a robbery, a mugging, a car theft, a carjacking or a
murder. That's the difference. And it's about proportionality and everybody sees past that because we all live in
reality. You want to talk about product of your environment, people that live in New York, Chicago, LA, we live in
reality. We live in this environment. we see what it's like and the threat the danger in terms of probability is not
it's not even comparable and I would add I would say this to your point if you're
in a high school and you and truly if you see a white person who looks like a little autistic he's got the SSRI stare
and he reaches for a backpack people joke and say run similarly if you see a
jalapy pulling up with a bunch of black people in it and they got their pants around the ankles you're going to run
also. And I'm saying the same thing. The difference is the latter happens much more often. It's much more common. You
know, in Chicago, there's like 10,000 carjackings and car thefts every day.
It's in the thousands. It happens all the time. How many mass shootings
committed by autistic SSRI white people? I don't even know. I mean, it's probably in the single digits in the last decade
in this city. That's the difference. And everybody knows that. But you're you're you're really just trying to carry water
for liberal ideology. It's an ideological No, I'm I'm really not. I can absolutely
say yes, there is way too much black on black crime, for example, involving guns
in Chicago white also. Yes, but there is way too much gun violence in Chicago, right? I mean, it's
there's no it's indisputable. I've got no problem saying that. The difference is I don't then lead myself into a
thought process where I have to avoid all black people in case they shoot me. And you've already conceded that you are
a racist. So when people hear you then say, "I don't want to be living anywhere
near black people." They already have heard you say, "I'm a racist." So they assume you're doing that because of
people's skin color. I don't think you would probably dispute that, right? Well, you you're separating two
different things. the monologue when I said I don't want to live around black people. That was after Ireina Zerutka got shot and it's true. I mean they are
they are a largely in this city in Chicago the southside the west side
huge criminal population and I don't want to live anywhere near it and and I do I want to live in a white
neighborhood. I I think that uh that's extremely desirable and I think even black people again Nick you're perfectly entitled to
that view but when you have obviously prefaced all this by saying I am a racist unashamedly then people will
assume that all your thought processes about all of these issues are driven by an aversion to people based on their
skin color which is the purest personification of racism. Well, it's not it's not an aversion. I
would say it's the opposite. Um, I I like my own people. My own people are
familiar to me. And I think that's true across the board. I think that uh people seek out other people that are like
themselves. And every other group does this, whether it's blacks, Hispanics, Asians. You know, I I get a lot of
attacks when I talk about that I'm against interracial marriage. And what's funny is that every other group is
against interracial or interthnic marriage. Jews, you're the product of you're the product of an interracial marriage.
Yeah, I mean that's debatable and for the sake of argument. No, no, you're the product of an
interracial marriage and your father is part Mexican. You're literally for the sake of the
very person you've just told me you want to avoid. What What race is Hispanic? Is that a
race? Well, what do you think it is? I'm asking you. What race is Hispanic?
Hispanic? Of of course it's a race. It's called Hispanic. It's a mix between two races. It's a mix
between indigenous Americans. It's not white, though, is it? It's not white. Well, you're apparently you're more of a
racial purist than me. You got like Oh, really? You just keep saying you only want to live in a white neighborhood, but you're literally from
a mixed race background yourself. You've literally thickened blood.
I know. And I live in a non-white neighborhood, too. I'm trying to get out of here, though. But I'm trying to get out. But here's the thing. Do
you have any non-white Do you have any non-white friends? genuine question. Most of my friends are non-white. Most
of my friends are And non-white people love my show. How many are the honest? How many of your friends are black?
Many of them. Like at least a dozen. Wow. Yay. Yay being one who you know, Sneo
being another who you also know. Um, so how do they feel when you say you just want to be away from any black
people? Walk away from them. Well, you know, you know what Yay told me? I'll tell you verbatim what he said
that it doesn't come from a place of and you use the word aversion. That's the first thing I'll I'll actually dispute.
Okay. It's not an aversion on the basis of skin color because that that would seem to suggest it's um like a stubborn
irrational bigotry. I don't consider myself a bigot. I consider myself a racial realist. I'm realistic about how
the races are and and I speak provocatively about it. And I speak provocatively about our tribalistic
instincts and tendencies as human beings and and I'm not a liberal ideologue that says that over time and with enough
education, we're all going to see this great brotherhood. We're we're colorblind and everybody's the same. You
know, I don't think that's ever going away. I think that race is real. It's not just skin deep. It matters to us and
it matters to each other. And I'm and black people know that. and Hispanics know that and Asians know that uh and
and people like me that that have partial Mexican ancestry, we know that too. And I think on that basis, we can
have mutual respect and understanding. Um not not aversion based on skin color.
The reason I use the word aversion is you literally said that you should walk the other way. If you see black people,
that is an aversion to black people based on their skin color. Oh, no. No. That's called economy of
information. That's economy of information. That's safety. And and I feel I said in the same monologue, if
you watch it, it's like I feel sorry, the problem is you clipped the 10 seconds. I don't know if you watch the whole show, but in that monologue I said
most black people are not violent or criminals. I said, "And it's unfortunate that we're going to offend them
when we turn and walk the other way." I said, "But the problem is we don't know. We can't tell." And someone like Ina
Zeruska, she sat down in front of a black man with her headphones in and wasn't paying attention because she was
being a good liberal and said, "I'm not uncomfortable by this. I'm progressive." Then she got stabbed in the neck. And I
said, "It's unfortunate that you you would have to sit behind the black man to be safe and if he's not violent or
schizophrenic, he might be offended by that." I said, but I would ask how many how many deranged how many deranged
white men have committed atrocious acts of murder in the last 10 years in
America? Proportionally far fewer. Far fewer. How many? Do you know how many? You have a research team. You pull it
up. You're very big on you're obviously extremely exercised by that one story which was horrific for the record.
Absolutely horrific and should never have happened. the person who perpetrated that evil act had a string
of previous offenses and should have been picked up more and it should have been amplified more. I completely concur
with all of that. But I don't I just suspect you have no idea how many white people have committed similar crimes. Do
Piers Morgan questions Nick Fuentes on black vs white crime statistics
you? No, because I know it's far fewer from experience because it's like you said
well and hang on and I would add to that you know Zerutuska wasn't the first one.
That was also after Austin Metaf was killed in Texas after How many times has it been perpetrated
by white people? Well, hang on. Let me finish my point. But you're implying that white people don't do this. And my point to you,
neglect, is of course, of course, I never said white people don't care. Of course, deranged white people commit
heinenous acts. But you don't either know you either you neither know nor care or maybe both. Maybe you do know
care. you only seem to be focused on black people who commit crimes. And
again, if you hadn't prefaced the whole debate about racism by openly conceding
you are a racist, I could read other connotations into what you've been
saying. But once you said, "I'm a racist," and then you only talk about black crime, I think people can watch
this and they can say, "Yeah, he is. He's a racist." And everything that he
says about crime is driven through the prism of being a racist who judges people according to their skin color.
Well, it's funny because it's quite on the contrary, and I said this in a similar monologue. You know, the problem
is not that I wake up and I walk down the street and I see someone that doesn't look like me and it makes me angry. The problem is there's a pattern
of behavior, which we've all seen. Blacks in America have become
narcissistic. and they become narcissistic because they've been told they're victims of racism. They're
victims of slavery. They've been told really there's no accountability. If they're rude, if they're inconsiderate,
if they're criminal, they are told that they have no agency for their actions. They're being told if if you act in this
way, it's because the white man made you that way. It's because the system's rigged against you. And so, we have been telling black people this for a
generation. And now there's no rules. Now they go and what we hate to see as as decent people, not even as white
people, but decent people, even black people, too. What we hate to see is rudeness, obnoxiousness,
inconsideration, criminality, violence, and and that's that pattern of behavior that we see all over social media on the
footage. You don't like you don't like black people who play the victim and are
rude. Is that your position? I don't like that pattern of behavior. And you are narcissists.
I see where this is going. Yeah. Are you going to turn this around on me? You're ahead of me, aren't you? Cuz you when I said, "What black friends have
you got?" You said, "I'm I am kind of black, aren't I?" No, not that. You said I'm not saying
you. I'm just saying your choice of black friend is yay, who is arguably the
number one black victimhood narcissist in America. Do you understand the
problem? So he's your friend. He's one of the very few black people you want to
be associated with, but he's the epitome of what you just said you abhore about
narcissistic black people. I disagree. I disagree with you. And I'll tell you why. Because yay, if
you've ever met him in real life, I have. Yeah. Okay. Well, then you know he's nothing but polite, considerate.
He was very rude to me the last two times I interviewed him. He's a supreme he's a supreme narcissist. And he's also
You keep interrupting me. You're very rude. Are are you black? Cuz you're being very rude by interrupting me right now to you.
I'm I'm giving you a hard time. But I look I do want to finish my point. I I do want to finish my point about
Yay. He is a guy who when I was with him wanted to make sure that everybody was heard,
everybody felt included. He's actually a very soft-spoken guy, very polite, and by the way, not violent. When you look
at all the rappers that are in the music game, many of them, especially from Chicago, drill rap, they're talking
about killing people, shooting people. They gang bang. He notably, if you know about him, he got his start because he
was a nerd. He wore a backpack and a polo and he wasn't a gang banger. He wrapped about his feelings and girls and
his dreams and his ambitions. So, no. And by the way, he would tell me all the time he doesn't even feel black. They
make him feel not black because he doesn't do those things. Because he's soft-spoken. Because he's artistic.
Because he's a bit of a nerd or likes fashion. So, I would disagree. He's he's actually not like that at all. What
we're talking about he's also he's also a Hitler loving anti-semite. And we're going to take a little commercial break here and we're
going to come back about and talk about anti-semitism and your views about Jewish people and indeed what Y said
about the same subject matter. Angel Studios are back with a new
must-see documentary. It's called Thank You Dr. Fouchy and you're going to hear a lot more about it over the next few
months. Award-winning filmmaker Jenna First digs into the origins of COVID 19.
A possible bio arms race with China and claims about history's biggest public health cover up. It's not a right-wing
AD: Angel Studios: Uncover the truth behind COVID-19
film or a leftwing film. It's a film about transparency, which is something we should all care about. First pulls
over documents and interrogates scientists, intelligence professionals, and whistleblowers. It's being described
as Oppenheimer meets outbreak. And if you've ever wondered what really happens behind closed doors, you'll want to see
it. Angel Studios is powered by his guild members voting on real stories. You can find out more at
angel.com/perseers. Become a member stream. Thank you Dr. Fouchy and be part of a conversation
demanding truth and accountability.
Okay, back with Nick Fuentes. Let's just turn to anti-semitism. Uh in your interview with Steven Crowder
last week, you answered emphatically that you don't hate all Jews. Is is that
Piers Morgan questions Nick Fuentes on antisemitism
correct? That's your position. Yes. Okay. Um, so I want to play you this clip. I don't hate any Jews. Let me just amend
that. I don't hate any Jews. Okay. Okay. Let's let's play this clip. The reason I've had it is because my
opposition to world jewelry and Israel is rooted in absolute uncontestable
fact. We have the truth on our side. That's why we're winning because we are telling
the truth about the historical antagonism between Jews and Europeans,
between Jews and Christians. The theological, historical, racial, cultural, and
political antagonisms between organized jewelry and the Christians. Organized jewelry
and Europeans. And the reason that we are winning that
argument is because it's real. It's true. I can prove it. I can show you. I
can name the names. I can show you the paper trail, the money. That is why
we're winning. That is why all of this is raising the consciousness.
When you say you have this opposition to world jewelry, I mean, it's one thing to criticize, for
example, the Israeli government over what it's been doing in Gaza. I've done that myself. When you talk about world
jewelry, I presume you're talking about the 15 million Jews in the world and you
are opposed to them. How does that square with your position that you don't hate any Jews?
Well, do you take issue with my use of the term world jewelry? Well, what do you mean by that?
Well, do you take issue with it? Do you have a problem with that? Clarify what you mean by it.
Well, it's funny you bring that up. The gaslighting is crazy because I use that expression on my show all the time. I
say organized jewelry, world jewelry. And do you know that for like 30 years,
the World Jewish Congress has an annual keynote called the State of World
Jewelry. Barry Weiss has given it. You can look it up. It's on YouTube. She gives the State of World.
But Nick, what do you mean by it? I mean you have to talk about you know there's a concept of Jewish peoplehood.
It's the sense that they are part of a common nationality, a common tribe, a
common people. And so where they reside in Israel, the United States or Europe or elsewhere, they see each other um
above or maybe on a different level alongside their their uh nationality,
their um you know, their state, wherever they reside. If they're in Germany, France, the United States, they see themselves as part of a transnational
nation, of an international nation. uh the Jews in America, the Jews in Israel, they they identify as Israeli or
American, but they also have something in common. They identify as part of a common nation, which I would say there's
a world Jewish population. It's World Jewelry. And World Jewelry has representatives. Uh there is such a
thing as the World Jewish Congress where they actually elect, it's democratic, all the local Jewish organizations elect
representatives to represent proportionally the Jewish population in their area at the World
Jewish Congress. And it's sort of like Davos. It's like the World Economic Forum, but it's exclusively for members
of the Jewish nation that exists across the world. And so, uh that's a real thing. And I didn't make that up and
that didn't come from 4chan. It's like I said in that clip, I read what they write. I read their books. I watch these
speeches. I watch a speech from Barry Weiss. I pay very close attention. So that's what I mean by that. There is
such a thing as it's a nation that exists across borders on a global scale.
They're organized and they have a a national self-interest as that nation,
as that tribe. So So if you don't hate any Jews, what do you like about them?
I like a lot of things about them. I think they're funny. I think they're smart. Um I I think that they're they're
pretty remarkable people. And as Christians, especially as Catholics, we say they're remarkable. Uh and this has
been adjudicated in in Catholic doctrine for thousands of years. We say that
they're a witness people. And so we actually, you know, there's provisions inside of Catholic doctrine that says we
need to give them special protections because they were a witness to Christ's passion. So uh you know, this is why you
can't clip the show. You have to watch the whole thing. I say this repeatedly in interviews. I do think they're
remarkable. I by definition they're exceptional people. It's just that there is there is a a sort of natural
opposition between them and Christians because of the theology. We believe that Christ is the Messiah. They don't. They
have been a minority in Christian lands for thousands of years. And they have been pushed around and expelled and
they've been persecuted and segregated. And that's why there's a lot of paranoia, there's a lot of distrust. Um
there there's maybe some sense of chauvinism among Jewish people. Um so there is, like I said in that clip,
there is an historical antagonism between these two peoples, between Christryendom and Jewry, and that has
always been the case in Europe. But I I don't hate them, and I think I actually sort of understand them in a weird way.
I think that because I've studied a lot of their politics, I think I really kind of know them in a way. It doesn't come
from a place of hatred. Do you have any Jewish friends? I do. I have many. Yes.
But that's weird because you said this. Jews and Christians have never been friends. Ever. Not since Jesus Christ
fought with the Pharisees. Have we ever been friends? Not since Saul was leading
the charge, persecuting the Christians. Not since the Roman Empire. Not since the Middle Ages. Never. We've never been
friends. We've never been allies. We've always been set against each other actually.
And even here in the United States, it was communist Jews who were the architects of both communism and the
civil rights laws that are dispossessing white Christians of their land and civilization. The Jews and Christians have never been
friends ever except for you and your Jewish friends. Yeah. So easy. As peoples, as peoples,
as nations. Got it. Not not saying every individual Christian and of course there have been
Christians in there have been Christian converts to Judaism Jewish converts to Christian you're nodding your head but
you're asking this I'm saying as peoples they've never been as a I'm a Catholic like you and I have many Jewish friends
and I'm just trying to compute what you're trying to say which is Jews and Christians have never been friends ever.
And I'm like well you have Jewish friends I have Jewish friends. We're both Catholics. Therefore we're Christians. It's all doesn't really
quite add up. Well, like I said, as peoples, there has been an historical antagonism as
peoples, and you could even say the same about um blacks in the United States. Of course, there were black and white
people that were friendly with each other, but in many ways, they were set against each other as groups, and I
think that's easy enough to understand. The reason that many people think you're anti-Semitic is that you have regularly
downplayed the Holocaust and in particular the number of Jewish people who were murdered by the Nazis. Um it's
been said that you believe no more than several hundred,000 have been killed.
And I'm going to play you this clip. People talk about, well, you know what about the gas chambers? Well, to the
extent that that's real, I find that hard to believe, but to the extent that's real, there have been atrocities
committed and genocides committed in all times in all places. Let's acknowledge
why Hitler casts the long shadow because that confers a political benefit
upon Jews. That's why it doesn't really sound correct to me. Wait a second. takes 1 hour to cook a batch of cookies
and you have 15 ovens probably in four different kitchens, right? Doing 24
hours a day every day for 5 years. How long would it take you to make 6 million? H I don't know. It certainly
wouldn't be 5 years, right? Uh the math doesn't seem to add up there.
You think that's funny? It's funny. It's amusing what you're doing because uh you know that one was a
joke, but do you want to talk seriously about the holiday? Yeah, I do actually. I mean, I do because I just find it
extraordinary that you would think the Holocaust could ever be something that we could joke about.
Piers Morgan chellenges Nick Fuentes on denying Holocaust statistics
Why too soon? Is it too soon to make jokes?
H how how many people do you think died in the Holocaust? How many Jewish people?
Um I I don't know. I'm thinking maybe 7 million. What's the number? 76 million,
something like that. So you you 8 million. You can see that six million Jews died in the Holocaust,
possibly more, possibly. You know, we're discovering all the time. Um, so it could maybe even be more than that.
So why why have you doubted the numbers in the past?
I'll tell you why. Um, I really think that every death is a tragedy, however many Jewish people died
in the Holocaust. Uh, and I'm not a World War II historian, so I'm actually open to believing the official
narrative. And I've read some of the conspiracy theories. And to tell you the truth, it's a rigorous debate. But you
know what's interesting about this is in many countries it's not even legal to
talk about it. And that's really where my interest in the Holocaust begins and sort of ends to tell you the truth is
that if you wanted to question the number, you would be put in jail in about what is it 17 or 18 European
countries. And I think that's really the more interesting conversation which is that this is almost like a a religious
dogma in the west. No other genocide, no other atrocity is treated like this.
Could you imagine if in the United States they said the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza is 100,000
and if you don't say that you're going to jail, you're banned on X. You can't have a job. That's the part that's
totally insane. And a lot of people, they can't even make up their minds. I think it's actually done a disservice if
your goal if, and I'm not saying you as Piers Morgan, but if your goal, if you're an advocate for awareness about
this, if your goal is to convince everybody that this is the way the Holocaust happened, I think the last
thing you'd want to do is say that everyone that disagrees is in jail and is banned and you're not allowed to say
it. So, there's really been no open debate about the subject since the scholarship started to be produced about
60 years ago. There is no there is no debate to be had about the number of people who were
murdered. Even the Nazis, even the Nazis in the trials after the war confirmed
the numbers. The amount of documentation that was recovered, notwithstanding the attempts by the Nazis to destroy it, the
amount of documentation that was saved and preserved and used for trials of
historical record is unprecedented in the history of mass slaughter of human
beings. So we have a very clear idea of how many people were gassed to death in
the gas chambers. We have a very clear idea of how many were starved to death, were kept in ghettos died of disease, of
forced labor, of death marches. We know how many Jews were slaughtered. It's at least 6 million. Uh what's interesting
to me is that you appear to now concede that which may be news to a lot of your regular viewers who have constantly
heard you quibble with the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust. And for the record, just to confirm what I think
you told me, you do now accept that at least 6 million Jews were killed in the
Holocaust. Well, no. I I said it could be it could even be higher than that.
Well, it could be higher. That is I think it's at least it is at least oh it's at least 6 million but it could be
100 times more people are going to be okay the people are going to be but let me respond to your let me
respond to the rest of your question what you're saying I understand where you're coming from when you say it has
been documented and there are confessions and so on let that speak for itself but you don't see you know your
show is called Piers Morgan uncensored but the United Kingdom is censored and Europe is censored and if you talk about
these things, you will be put in jail in many countries. And I think that's where a lot of people start to say, well, if
the truth is so clear and if there's such overwhelming evidence, why do you need to throw people in jail for
disagreeing? And you yourself said, well, there is no debate. I think everything is debatable. I think
everything at least should be debated. And if the evidence is very one-sided, let the evidence speak. Don't throw
people in jail. So, do you think that Holocaust denial laws should be overturned?
I don't particularly agree with Holocaust denial laws. I don't think people should be imprisoned. Well, because I have a blanket view now, which
has evolved slightly actually over the years, that I have a blanket view that speech should not be criminalized,
right? People should be allowed to say what they want to say and they should be then made accountable for what they say.
If you have an employer, they can make a view about whether you are the right kind of person they want for their employment as they would make a decision
about anything else you do in life. So I actually believe that speech should never be criminalized. It's my personal
view. I understand why in places like Germany they have strong laws about it because they want to move on from what
they believe was the most shameful moment in their history. I understand that. Uh do I want that in my country?
No. Am I appalled by what has been going on with free speech in United Kingdom in the last two or three years? Absolutely.
It is ridiculous that people have been frog marched to prison cells for stuff they put on social media. Right. So
yeah, I do. I think what is more interesting to me about our exchange is I was not expecting you to go the
opposite way. I was not expecting you to be so emphatic that at least 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. There'll be
people watching this who I think will be very surprised by that because you have built a reputation for being if not a
Holocaust denier than somebody constantly questioning in a downward way the number of Jews who were murdered.
That doesn't appear to be what your position is now. No. And and here's what I would like to
see. For my entire career, when I started my show, it started with a good faith inquiry where I was questioning a
lot of these narratives and I said, "What is the answer on the other side?" But what I found is that the answer was
criminalized. So when you would talk about anything regarding Jews, Israel, the Holocaust, you could be in favor of
the official narrative on those things, if you went against, you were banned, censored, and in some countries jailed.
And so I actually haven't made up my mind on that because that's not really a matter of interest to me. And there's a
lot of analysis and scholarship on both sides of the issue. And I've read both
sides of the issue. And honestly, unfortunately, it's hard to judge because there has never been
there's never been a debate on it. And there's never been a debate because of the stigma, because of the censorship.
And I think that leads a lot of people to say, well, what do they have to hide? Because you can say on your show, well,
I'm personally against Holocaust denial laws, yet they still persist and the social consequences still persist. And I
think that that is the anomaly. And people have to wonder, okay, why is it that way? And what I said in that clip
is the reason the Holocaust casts a long shadow is because it confers a political benefit upon organized jewelry. That is
what they always fall back on. They cannot be criticized. They cannot be named. They cannot be talked about less
there be another holocaust. And no other tragedy is treated that way. And no other ethnic group has a get out of jail
free card. Just play that anti-semitism and holocaust. You can do whatever you want and defend all your actions. That's
the part that people are getting upset with. That's the problem. I don't I don't know any right-minded person who believes that Jewish people
weaponized the Holocaust for their own personal get out of jail free or whatever you called it.
You don't know anyone that does that, that believes that? I'm sure there are some people that do that, but it's such a ridiculous generalization. You know, the truth is
that most Jewish people have lost relatives in the Holocaust. In fact, I want to play you I want to play you two
two clips. One is where you talk about Adolf Hitler.
Hitler was a pedophile and kind of a pagan. It's like, well, he was also
really [ __ ] cool. So, you know, time to grow up. We're not We're not children
anymore. Am I right? Am I right? Am I right, boys? Am I right? Let's go. He
Piers Morgan chellenges Nick Fuentes on Hitler comments
was also really [ __ ] cool. Do you regret saying that?
Uh, saying a fact? No. No, that's absolutely true. You think Hitler was
very [ __ ] cool? Yes, I do.
One of them. And I'm tired of pretending he's not. Well, to be honest, this is the problem. You see, it's a bit
like when you just say, "I'm a racist." You're a racist who thinks Hitler's cool, but you're not anti-Semitic. If
you're a Jewish person watching this, what are they thinking? I'll tell you what they're thinking because I've got a
friend of mine called Danny Finkelstein who when he heard I was interviewing you. He's a Times journalist in the UK,
very eminent journalist here and author who wrote a book about his own family's experiences at the hands of Hitler and
Stalin because he also told Tucker Carlson uh that you admire Stalin. But
let's let's just take what Danny said here. My peers, it's Danny Vinkelstein here.
As you're interviewing Nick Fuentes, you might try suggesting to him that he reads my book Hitler Stalin Mom and Dad.
It's called Two Roads Home in the United States. Since he says he's on team Hitler, he you might like to ask him
about the fact that Hitler arrested my mom, tried to starve my mom to death, did starve my grandmother to death, sent
my great aunt to the gas chamber, my great uncle, my cousin. My grandmother
on my father's side ended up being one out of seven children, the only one that
survived the war. So you might ask him whether he wouldn't rather be on team mom rather than team Hitler. And as for
celebrating Stalin's birthday, well, Stalin took my father, sent him to a state collective farm, sent my
grandmother and my uh to a state collective farm, sent my grandfather to the gulag. You might try asking why he
doesn't celebrate dad's birthday rather than Stalin's. It may all be a big joke
to him, but he complains that he was 18 when uh someone tried to cancel him.
Well, Stalin and Hitler arrested my mom and my dad when they were 10 years old.
So perhaps he might like to reconsider his joke. See, is that's the reality of your
jokes. Although I haven't ascertained yet whether you are joking when you say that Hitler was very [ __ ] cool. Are
you joking or do you actually think he was very [ __ ] cool? The the most genocidal monster of uh the last 150
years. Yeah. The the thing is my generation we're just done with the pearl
clutching, you know. You might be, but then your generation hasn't gone through what Danny Finkelstein's family went through. So
maybe maybe the pearl clutching has a way to go for families whose whose family members go.
Yeah, we we got all that. We you know me me mom me m like we're you know I don't even know who this person is. Why is
this person talking to me? This old British guy is saying me mom got killed by Hitler and he doesn't find it funny when you say
Hitler's very [ __ ] care. I know you don't care. That's fine. You don't have
to care. But he does care. Does that guy care about America? Does that guy care about me and my country
and my family? No. He cares what you, a prominent conservative in America, has to say
about Adolf Hitler. Now, what do you mean by Hitler is very [ __ ] cool? Cuz I think he's very [ __ ] a monster.
And that's a clip. I think he's very [ __ ] a monster. Do you hear yourself?
I mean, can we all grow up? Can we all grow up? He murdered 12 million people. He murdered 12 million people. What is
very [ __ ] cool about that? Tell me. Uh, the edits. It's just cool. The the
uniforms, the parades, the it's it's cool as a guy. You look at World War II
and it's fascinating and it's interesting and it's compelling and it's cool and you know, we're just tired of
saying these kinds of things. We want to talk like real people and give our honest opinions and then we and then we
literally get an old Jewish guy from England who's going to say, "Oh, that very funny, mate. Me mom." And it's
like, shut up. Like, you know, no one is in favor of genocide. So, let's just get
that out of the way. We're not in favor of a Holocaust or genocide. You think if half your family You think
if half your family had been wiped out by very [ __ ] cool Hitler, you'd still think he was very [ __ ] cool. Or would
you think that actually he was a despicable monster who murdered 12 million people, who targeted people
because they were disabled or Jewish or Romany gypsy or whatever it may be, and
that he systematically destroyed people, incinerated them in gas chambers. Do you think that you would find it very
[ __ ] cool if your family had been through that? Or do you think you would find it very [ __ ] disgusting and
perhaps moderate the number of times you you laugh about it or want to joke about it or want to abuse someone like Danny
Finkelstein who's written incredibly powerful books about what happened to his extended family at the hands of the
Nazis and your other hero Stalin. See, my point to you, Nick Fuentes, is that in parts of this interview. You tried to
come across as moderate, but every now and again, the mask slips and it slipped again here with what you say about
Hitler, there's nothing very [ __ ] cool about Hitler. We know that from history now. We know what he did. You've
already conceded that he murdered at least 6 million Jews. So, when you say he's very [ __ ] cool. Jewish people
watch this and go, "This guy's disgusting. Why would he say this say this about someone who perpetrated such
an evil? And what's the what's the real answer? Why do you is it just for clicks? Is it for money? Is it just for
fun? For shits and giggles? What is it? What motivates you to say something like
Hitler was very [ __ ] cool? It's for this. It's for all of this. And
and the lack of self-awareness is amazing. You're you're a boomer. You're a 60-year-old boomer. And we've spent
maybe 3 minutes on you saying he's a really [ __ ] monster. He incinerated
people. This this a and and I'm sitting here saying it's not that serious. It's
not that deep. And what I'm getting at that serious do you want to say more about you're not kid you're not a kid
yourself anymore. You're not a teenager. I I know. Right. You're you're nearly 30 to be
clear. Okay. You're a fully formed adult who has a brain, right? And at some stage that brain is
taking you off these ramps. Is this an interview or is this a lecture? Can I respond to what you're saying? I want you to really I want you to
explain why you think it's fine to say how [ __ ] cool Hitler is and to
dismiss the very powerful 90 seconds from a British journalist who lost a lot
of family members to the Nazis in such a callous, dismissive manner.
I don't think it's powerful. I think we've been hearing that our entire lives. Okay, the Schindler's list. Let's
just be honest. The propaganda is over the top. We have been in America. What about the shameless list? Tell me
about the shameless. Well, tell me about the shameless list. I'll tell you about it. We have been browbeaten as a people, as Americans, as
Westerners for our entire lives. And do you know what this has done? It has taken away any sense of pride, any sense
of love for our own civilization. We have been made the villain in our own story. we have been made because well
let's just be clear it doesn't begin and end with Hitler is a monster. This has
been the political narrative which is why we have thrown open the borders. This is a political narrative which is why we're not we can't be a conservative
society as a whole anymore. Why we can't be proud of Europeans. Why we can't be proud of being Christian because they've
told us if you're too white and too proud and too Christian it's going to lead to a holocaust. And so my
generation, our entire lives wait for true and that's what that's why
people like me. That's why I'm popular because this is [ __ ] Honestly, yeah, it's a croc. You don't want to hear anymore mom and me dad of [ __ ] No,
no, listen. What you just said is a croc of [ __ ] And you know it's true. It's called the open society.
In your in your gut, you know it is. You weaponize this stuff. You weaponize this
stuff for money. But you know when you say something like what you just I'm banned from banking. I'm banned from
banking and credit cards. You know who you're talking to. I do it for money. How much money you make? Your company's
worth $und00 million. Your country. Your company's worth $100 million. I was
banned from Bank of America. I'm banned from processing credit cards. And you shouldn't be. But I am. So don't tell me I'm doing it
for money. Well, ask me my opinion about that. I'll tell you you shouldn't have been. Right. I don't agree with that. What happened
to you? Then don't say I'm doing it for money cuz you know that full well and you say it's a how much money to be a grifter. I'd be
like you and I would go and say how much money are you making? I'm making a lot of money now that I'm
the number one live streamer in America because people agree with me more than they agree with you. We're tired of hearing about slavery and the Holocaust
and Jim Crow. We're done hearing about that. You guys over over hearing about that.
Okay. Well, you know, your generation's on the way out and generation Z is coming up and we're finished with that.
We're ready to take our country down. We're not listening to minorities anymore. I've got three sons and they don't share
your views about slavery and about the Holocaust. They can have decency and compassion and
humanity about some of the worst things that have happened in the last 150 years or more. They can do they can do that
and they can also have concerned views about issues like immigration and other issues. The two things are not mutually
incompatible. You can have different views about different things. It's your lack of humanity and compassion for
people about things like the Holocaust, about slavery. It's that that people find so contemptable. And I don't
understand why you need to do that. Is it again I just ask you is it is your motivation financial? Is your motivation
for fun? What is the motivation for saying these outlandish things which you don't need to say and which I suspect I
don't know. I suspect a lot of it is performative. So, so what is the motivation?

Part 3 of 3

I'm an iconoclast. The
Holocaust is not my religion. And it is treated like a religion. It is treated like a religion with dogma with
blasphemy laws. And that secular religion says and and you say you say
that's a croc of [ __ ] It's intentional. It's called the Open Society by Carl Pauper. It's by these architects of the
liberal order after World War II. They got together and they said, "How can we make sure that Hitler never happens? How
can we make sure that totalitarianism never happens again?" And they came up with a consensus which is that we need
to take down nations, religions, fathers, the authoritarian personality.
We need to be empathetic and altruistic. We need to be diverse and pluralistic. And that experiment isn't working. And
I'll tell you the truth right now. And you can laugh at this. You can scoff at this. Our people are being genocided in
our country. 50% of the live births in the United Kingdom and in the United States are non-white. In a 100 years, my
Nick Fuentes discusses his comments about ‘ worldwide Jewry’
ancestors, your ancestors, your kids who are so empathetic and compassionate, they're going to be a minority. They're
going to be a minority in maybe a Muslim country, an Indian country, an Hispanic country. And these Jewish people that
are a hundred years old talking about my grandparents on the Holocaust, they don't care about that. Actually, they
like to see it. At the SPLC, they're literally counting down the days until whites are a minority in America. So,
forgive me if I don't believe them that when they talk about compassion. There's a genocide going on right now. It's not
against the Jews. How many Christians are there in Gaza? It's against How many Christians are there in the world?
Like me? 1 point some billion. Two billion. How many Jew How many Jews are there? 15 million. Okay. So, with a straight
face, you're going to tell me the world is being overrun by the jewelry by 15
million people when there are over a billion Christians. There is a genocide
of Christians like poor old Nick Fuentes going on at the hands of these 15 million Jews. Really
see this attitude is why you're losing. When you say poor white people, these losing white people,
who am I losing to? You're seeing it. mass migration. Matt, oh, you're losing to me. We are losing
as a civilization of mass migration. And here's the difference. In Israel, they have my politics. In Israel, they want
to maintain a Jewish majority. If they had it their way, it would only be Jewish people. They're fighting like
hell so that Jewish people can have as much territory, a Jewish state. They can be proudly Jewish in their own land.
Whereas in America, we are being besieged by 10 million illegal immigrants in four years. And then
whites and Christians are going to be the minority. And that's true in Canada, Australia, all the countries in Europe.
So you could say there's two billion people, but what's the proportionality? What is the percentage of people being
born that are white? Where's the arrow pointing? Where are we going to be in 50 years? In 50 years, there might be in
Israel. In 50 years, there isn't a white. You don't you don't believe people should get married, right?
I think people should get married. I'm a Christian. You're basically anti-marriage. Really? You've you've talked about this. You talk about
Nick Fuentes slamming women - ‘you’re fat and you talk too much’
Are we done talking about why genocide I'm coming to I'm coming to the same part because you seem very resistant to
the idea of marriage. You've never got married. Uh you've talked very scathingly about henpecked husbands.
Just take a look. That's true. Guys get to a certain age and they're like, "You know what? Women suck." Like
they're talking too much. They're not hot anymore. Like you're fat. You're chubby. You're not as hot as you think
you are. You [ __ ] talk too much. You're a [ __ ] So, we'll obviously get to the brazen
misogyny part of that a little later, but but I'm just curious, on the one
hand, there's this terrible genocide going on of white people. On the other hand, you want people effectively to
stop going near women because they all turn out to be so ghastly, so they shouldn't presumably procreate. So, how
does that work? I mean, aren't you with your rhetoric actively encouraging men
not to associate with these ghastly women, therefore not have any more
children, therefore you are contributing, Nick Fuentes, to the diminishing white population. I I'm
confused. I tell my followers to get married all the time. I tell them that it's best for
everybody to get married. And I think that's the only way that you can have sex. I think that's the only licit way
as a Catholic is sex is within marriage. Why don't you get married? Uh I'll get married later. It's been
difficult for me because people are shooting at me at my house. I don't know that I I don't want to have kids and a
wife. You know, my wife would be screaming about that. Me, you know, I have to be able to take risks and be
able to say these things. It's difficult to bring a family into a life that's like that. But for my followers, I tell
them to get married. But what's happening with women? You literally just told your followers, hang on. In that
clip, you literally told followers, women, they get old, they get fat, they get ugly, they get very annoying. So,
where's the incentive to get married to women? There isn't one. You're act you're actively telling them
extrapolating. You're extrapolating a lot. Just quoting you back yourself again.
No, no, but you're extrapolating and saying, "Well, you say women are annoying, so therefore what's the
incentive?" We have to do it in spite of the fact that they are annoying. We have to do it in spite of the fact that they
talk too much. We can get them to lose weight. We can put them on peptides. We can get them to the promised land. Uh
but it's going to be Do you think this view of women may be why none of them want to go near you?
Piers Morgan asks Nick Fuentes if he's ever had sex
Oh, you should see my DMs. It is quite the opposite. They're called the Groy Betts, and I'm I'm actually batting them
away. Granted, not all them are attractive. Some of them are attractive, but Oh, you actually just to clear up? Just
to clear up one of the many theories about you. I have no idea what the answer is and you haven't got an answer. But are you actually attracted to women?
I am attracted to women. You're not gay. No. But I will say that women are very
difficult to be around. Okay. So, there's that. And do you think they should have the right to vote?
I do not. No. Absolutely not. They should stay at home.
Well, yeah. Absolutely. So, basically, you're just a misogynist old dinosaur, aren't you?
For a for a young guy. I mean, I know I'm the boomer. I know I'm the boomer here, but actually, you're a 27y old
dinosaur, aren't you? Aren't you, Nick Fuentes? All women. All women are annoying. All women grow old. They all
get fat. Says the guy. Have you ever had sex? No. Absolutely not.
Wow. Says the guy who's never got laid. Wow. That's the thing, though. You boomers,
it's always Are you an expert in women given you never got laid?
Yeah, we're we are going back to the stone age. You're absolutely right. This, you know, you're talking about empathy
and your kids are empathetic and they would never laugh at a joke about the Holocaust and you're a misogynist.
You're a simp yourself. You're totally henpacked. That's the problem. So, you are going to play another
another clip of yours about women. A lot of women want to be raped. And and
when I say raped, I mean like that sounds bad when I say it like that, but
there's like a lot of women that really want a guy to beat the [ __ ] out of them,
but also they have to pretend, but part of it is they have to pretend like they don't. You think women want to be raped, do
you? Uh that's what the studies show, Piers. That is what these statistics believe.
They have fantasies. They have fantasies about it. I don't think that they want to actually get raped, but there's a
study out there. Get ready for this. It says 62% of women have rape fantasies.
And if you read anything that they're reading, if you watch what they're watching, what do you think Fifty Shades
of Gray is about? What do you think Twilight is about? I mean, that's just true.
You think women want to have the [ __ ] beaten out of them, as you said? Yeah. And it's very disturbing, but it's
true. Do you think your views on women might change if you actually ever had a
relationship with one or had sex and actually had a proper relationship? I mean, people say the reason you're so
angry about women is you're basically an incel. Well, I'm not angry about it.
You sound very angry. You sound very, very angry about women.
They get passionate that it's an issue. You're not passionate. You're actually you're sounding very bitter about women. as if as if women
have done a terrible disservice to you, but when you don't have relationships, you don't have sex. When are they doing
these terrible things to you that's made you so hateful towards women? I'm really curious. Was that I don't think that was a
hateful clip. I think I was laughing. I said they want men to beat the [ __ ] out of them. And I and that's just true. I
mean, when you look at the state of modern women, all they do is lay in their bed, doom scroll. They're chilling
out. Um they're getting a little look, they're getting a little fat. It is what it is. I don't know what the average
weight is, but they're getting a little heavy. And any guy that is playing the field these days will tell you that. I
mean, and I and I know a lot of the Chads, I am an incel. I'm friends with a lot of Chads like Bradley Martin,
Clvicular, they agree with me. You know, there's sort of like this alliance between the guys that don't have sex and
the guys that get the most sex. We know what women are about. It's the guys in the middle. Guys like you in the middle.
It's the beta male orbiters that say, "She's amazing. you're a misogynistic pig because I don't know what that is. I
guess let me explain to you let me explain to you what I think it is. I think when a 27y old guy who's never got laid, never
had a meaningful relationship with a woman, says that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, they should stay at home, uh that all they do is fantasize
about being raped and being beaten up, that's what they want. That they're annoying, that they get fat, that they
get ugly, that's a misogynist. Now you may not understand it because your
knowledge of women is so incredibly tiny but actually you are the embodiment of a
misogynist. It couldn't be clearer. And if I was if I was a you know in a way
you have the deeprooted misogyny of some of the actual boomers I know. Yeah. Here you are 27 years old and most of the
current studies show that a lot of men are really disenfranchised from society.
no longer have physical relationships with women, if they've ever had them, never associate with women, and build up
instinctively misogynist views about women. And I I fear you're in that position. You're just a bit of a lonely
guy who wants to get laid and can't for whatever reason. And it's made you
bitter about women. And I I don't know where that's where that's come from, but it's fascinating.
No. See, here's the thing. First of all, you're very caught up in the labels. It's always
you're a racist. You're a misogynist. You're a racist. Nothing to me. Can I
respond? You gave yourself the label. What is this? You said I am a racist. I didn't give you the label. You said,
Nick Fuentes, I am a racist. Calm down. Calm down. Did you or didn't you? It's okay.
Did you? Yeah. Yeah. But I didn't give you the label. You did.
Why are you yelling at me? Because you're trying to explain something that didn't happen. You said I gave you the
label of being a racist. No, you did. You said I'm a racist. You gave yourself
a label. Going to have to tone it down a little. All right. You're going to have to bring
it down a notch and relax. This is just an interview. Okay, please calm down. All I said is you're hung up. I didn't
say you gave me that. I maybe I did. But here's what I mean. What I mean is Okay. What I mean is you're just hung up on
say on proving you're okay you're a misogynist. Okay, you're a racist. Okay, you denied the Holocaust. And and I'm
just I'm not about the labels that as I said to you, look Nick, as I said
to you, I just wanted to go over the stuff that you know everyone uses out there about you and get you to respond. And we're
getting we are getting I think a long way in this interview. Okay. You didn't deny the Holocaust. You
accepted there's been a Holocaust of at least 6 million Jews. I'm a maximalist.
That is significant. You did admit you did admit you're a racist and you have
spelled out a thought process about women which is the purest definition of misogyny that I've ever seen and you
said you're not gay. So the we're getting somewhere. Yeah. Well, look, and I own the labels,
okay? But I just don't care that much about that. Like I feel like the whole is like a weird
I'm not saying you have to care, Nick. You don't have to care about any of it. I promise you. Right. That's not why I
got you on the on the show. I wanted to give you a fair crack, which I think I have. We've gone over a lot of stuff. We
got we got a bit more to go on. I I genuinely don't think I've ambushed you with anything you couldn't have been
expecting. No, I don't think I've been overtly hostile. In fact, when you've asked me to calm down, I've calmed down. I don't want to
have a hostile, angry, shouty match with you. I simply want you to spell out
exactly what you've meant about all these things and people can then be the judge of them. So, let's take another break and we'll come back and talk about
Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and others.
Christmas is peak time for online shopping sprees, but that also means it's peak time for hackers and data
brokers who steal your information online. The solution is very simple. Use ExpressVPN to shut them down. Top tier
encryption keeps your activity hidden, even on dodgy public Wi-Fi, which is perfect for holiday travel. You can set
your location to 105 different countries, which lets you access content from all over the world. Users save
AD: ExpressVPN - get an extra four months of ExpressVPN
hundreds on streaming and even plane tickets with ExpressVPN. All for $349 a
month. It's a no-brainer. I use it and you should, too. Right now, you can get an extra four months of ExpressVPN if
you go to expressvpn.com/pers. That's ExpressVPN's lowest price ever,
plus four extra months of service. Just scan the QR code on the screen or go to expressvpn.com/pers.
Okay, back with Nick Fuentes. Um, you began your show in 2017, the same year as Trump was inaugurated for his first
term in office. You supported him at that time, but you've grown increasingly disillusioned. I think it'd be fair to
Nick Fuentes on Donald Trump
say. Let's let's play a recent clip from you about Trump. We played this game in the first term.
We're 10 years in. And you still have these people. I I hate to say it, but
they're just like in denial. And they're like, "Okay, everybody, let's all go on
Twitter and let's tell Trump, don't screw over your voters."
Okay. Hey Trump, don't hire John Radcliffe in the CIA. Like, what are we
doing? It's We lost. It's over. The time to make demands was during the election
when he needed the votes. He's a lame dug president and he doesn't need anything from us. He's not even on
Twitter. He's on Truth Social. So, what are you talking about? We're going to all rally and tell him, "Don't hire yet
another neocon?" Now over the weekend you posted this on
X. Uh you said performative cruelty is the perfect phrase to characterize the Trump admin and the mood of the MAGA
movement. In order to compensate for his compromises and failures, Trump has to fall back on mean-spiritedness to appeal
to the basis basist instincts of its followers. It's really sad. I mean do you think you're the best person, Nick
Fuentes, to lecture people about performative cruelty?
Why are you accusing me of being cruel? Is that what that is? Yeah. What? How am I cruel?
You're c you're cruel about black people. You're cruel about uh women. I
mean, you're cool about a lot of people. And you're very performative. Okay. I don't think I'm performative. I
If anything, everyone else is performative. I'm authentic. You know, whatever you want to say about me, it's
it's real. It's from the gut. But yes, I do think it's performative. And what I mean by that is, you know, when they're
doing the deportations, they know the deportations are not where the base wants them to be. They deported. The
figures are disputed, but from my data, it's 300,000 in the year, which is not a massive deportation. They know the base
is unhappy with that. So, what do they do? The deportations that they are carrying out, they do a big spectacle
and they arrest everybody and they film it and they put a hype at it. And there's a meanness in there. They played
that song, I think, from Sabrina Carpenter or something, and they make it a joke. They make it glib. And they do that because
they're not delivering on the promise. So, they compensate by doing it meaner, edgier, more uh more mean-spirited so
that the base will overlook the fact that it's not happening. And I think that's by definition performative
cruelty. You can call me a hypocrite, but it's definitely true about what they're doing in the administration. You went to see Trump at Maraago with Yay uh
for dinner. What was that like? It was very interesting. Uh they're my
two heroes. Yay is my hero. Trump is my hero. Even though I he's very
disappointing. I still a personal hero of mine. Uh and he's a remarkable person. It was a great conversation. We
got along pretty well. He liked me. I liked him. It was a love fest. I mean, he got attacked afterwards for
sapping with the white supremacist devil. I mean, do you accept you are a white supremacist?
No. No. Absolutely not. You don't think white people are superior to black people?
No. I'm I'm a Christian. So, I believe everybody is equal before God, including women.
Yes. So, you you give women equal rights then? No.
Great. No. Great. Okay. So, you just talked a little [ __ ] didn't you? No. What is Why are you like mad about
this? No. You want women to be treated equally before God, but you don't want to give them equal rights.
Yeah. Because women and men are different. Do you believe there are two genders? It's your view. Do you think there's two genders? I do think there are two genders. Yes.
Okay. And And so you mean there's distinction? There are two distinct genders. I think we should all have the
same rights to well, if they're meaningfully distinct, biologically distinct, and they have
different social and biological roles, I think it would follow that we would treat them a little bit differently in
the law. Do you think the Catholic Church's teachings reflect that? I do. Yeah. There's no female priests.
Have you ever seen that? Do you think that the Catholic Church thinks all women should be deprived of vote?
Uh, yeah. I think so. No, they don't. I think they do. Yeah.
You think the Catholic Church position is women shouldn't be allowed to vote? I think so. Yeah. But I'm not positive.
No, it's [ __ ] Oh, it should be. It should be. So, if you were pope, that's what you do. You could be pope
because you're a celibate. That's true. And I'm also from Chicago like the pope.
But look, I mean, women, it it says in the Bible that women have no authority over men and they can't teach men. And
that's why there's no female priests. There's a lot of things. I mean, do you do you think every word of the Bible is sacrosan?
Um, well, yeah, it's inspired scripture. That's all of it. Now,
all of it is sacrif theological debate. Well, it it is Catholic doctrine that
women should not lead and teach. I mean, you're not interacting with what I'm saying. Why can't women be priests?
They should be. Okay. Well, you're not Catholic. That's not a Catholic. I'm a Catholic. I just many things I
disagree with the Catholic Church. Okay. Well, that kind of is contrary because the whole the whole basis of
being Catholic is accepting accepting the authority of the context. You can be a member of a religion and
disagree with parts of that religion. Perfectly perfectly reasonable. You can be well yeah I mean I you could
see an extremist be true. If you're an extremist you can't obviously you never deviate. That's just not rigorous. You never
deviate if you're an extremist. But even the constitution even the constitution's been amended what was it 27 times.
People talk about this sacrian document. It's like it's been amended 27 times. Yeah. Oh my. This is not rigorous
intellectually. This is very This is a fact. Theology. Okay. But it's fine. Where
Where were we? We're talking about Trump. We got Trump nighting for women's rights. On Trump. Well, I think women should
have the same rights as you and I. You don't. That's fine. Put on the pink hat, bro. Put on the the pink hat. We're waiting.
What's the pink hat for? The uh for the march. For the women's march. Are we going to see you at the women's march protesting for women's
rights and all that? I think women should have equal rights to men. Period. You carry tampons in case your female
friends get a period or something like it's crazy. I'd have no problem giving a female
friend a tampon. Would you? Have you ever I don't suppose you've ever seen a tampon, have you?
Gross. Absolutely not. You think tampons are gross? Uh yeah. They're filled with period
blood. Yeah, it's kind of gross. Wow. Are you into that? You like that? You a lot of tampons. I don't think you've ever seen
it. Have you? I've seen him. I've seen him before. You've been that close to a woman?
Really? No. I' I've seen him. Uh, look, I I used to live with women, so I've seen them
around the house. I bet you've seen videos, haven't you? What? What are we doing here, Piers? You
really hate that. You're more impressed that I'm a misogynist than you are about anything. It's really I'm I'm more I'm
actually more exercised about your blatant self-admitted racism than I am about anything. But the
misogyny runs a close second. Let me ask you about Tucker Carlson because you had a long sit down with Tucker Carlson in
which he was oddly I like Tucker. We get on more. I was with him last week in London. But he gave me a harder time
than he gives you. Uh and yet afterwards he was more critical. And then you said
this about Tucker. He's a handler. He handles people.
That's what he does. He's He's a [ __ ] liar and a handler. He goes around telling people, "I don't know anything.
I don't know. Oh, I know nothing. I don't even have a phone. I am just a clueless tourist. I just travel to all
these countries and you know, I don't trust him and I don't and I
don't care. You know, maybe that alienates me from people in the conservative movement. I don't care. I'm
not going to be a part of it. I'm not going to be a party to whatever that is. Whatever that CIA [ __ ] is, I'm not
going to be a part of it. So, you know, now that I've I've heard
enough from Tucker and I've heard enough from other people and I've seen enough, this guy's not who he says he is. Not an
ally. Stay the [ __ ] away from me. You're You're weird, dude. You're weird. See, what would have been great is if
you'd said that to him when you were sitting opposite him. Well, when I was sitting opposite him at
Nick Fuentes on why he didn’t call Tucker Carlson “weird” to his face
the dinner and in the interview, he was nothing but nice. He was very nice to me and very cordial
and he didn't call me an anti-semite and he didn't even press me on it at all and I thought he would and I almost wanted
him to. He was nothing but nice and we had a great time. We had a really great dinner, really great interview and I
felt really good about it and the next week on my show I said he really surprised me. He's great. And then every
interview he's done since, all he does is call me an anti-semite. He goes, "Well, I I hate his anti-semitism, and
you know, I I wonder why people like him." And so, I just think that's two-faced. So, after that experience, it
kind of turned me off. I didn't like that, but he's going to do what he's going to do. He's still a nice guy, but I think he's two-faced.
What about Candace Owens? Uh, you had a sit down with her. She called you out on
a few of your more incendury comments. you've been attacking her quite virulently recently. Um, what's going on
there? Well, you know, it's me and her. We're so complicated. We're on and off. Uh,
it's very passionate on both sides. Um, you know, there I think there's this intense desire to be friends. Um, but a
frustration where we disagree with each other. There's a rivalry. Um, but I
thought we were going to have a friendly conversation and then she kind of did the same thing. We're going to go on a
show during the war with Iran. We're literally in the middle of a war and she text me the day before the United States
bombed Fordo and she said, "Would you like to come on my show?" I said, "Absolutely." I said, "Is this going to
be about Iran?" She goes, "I don't do setups." I said, "Yeah, let's do it." I come on the show and then she's like got
this weird hostile demeanor. She's doing the clip thing, then she puts it behind a payw wall. It was ridiculous. So that
that really uh was not nice. And then I think this whole Charlie Kirk thing, I think she's gone insane. I think she's
absolutely lost her mind. Um so I feel sorry for her husband.
What did you feel when Charlie Kirk was assassinated? What where were you when you heard about it?
I was at my house and a friend of mine who was actually at the event texted me
and said, "Charlie got shot." I said, "Who?" He said, "Charlie Kirk." I said, "Oh my gosh, that's terrible." And and honestly, it was devastating. I didn't
like Charlie Kirk at all. And we had an intense rivalry and he hated me. But
honest to God, I was devastated. I was emotionally affected by it. I didn't even do a show that night uh because I
was beside myself. So, it it was rough. I mean, it was hard to watch. When you say you were beside yourself, I
mean, you didn't you hated him. Uh, I didn't I don't hate anybody. I didn't hate him, but we I really didn't
like him. I intensely disliked him. And I He called you vermin, didn't he?
He did. Yeah, he hated me also. But you were still beside yourself when you heard what happened to him.
I was I was I thought it was it was disgusting what was done to him. And it was tragic and it was horrifying.
Do you fear an attack like that on yourself? Have you upped your own security because of this? Because you
your profile's got it exponentially higher since what happened to Charlie Kirk.
I have I have increased my security and uh but you know something similar like that happened to me. Someone came to my
house with a gun about a year ago almost exactly trying to kill me and he was shot and killed in my alleyway. So I
I've had increased security for a while. It's It's a bad time out there. And I I do believe it was a left-wing person
that killed him. I think it was a leftwing person that tried to kill me. So, yeah, I take it very seriously.
Elon Musk uh said on his his explatform that you're a Fed, that you're a paid up
Nick Fuentes on Candace Owens: "I feel sorry for her husband"
hire of the government. Is that true? No.
100. You've never worked for the government in any capacity? I've never talked to federal law enforcement and and actually I've
testified to that fact under oath when I was subpoenaed by the Congress. People leave that part out, but I got
subpoenaed I think in January 2022 I think it was. Um and I was deposed by
the subcommittee, the House Select Subcommittee on January 6th and they asked me, "Did you speak with any
federal law enforcement?" And under oath I said, "No, I've never had contact with them. I've never turned over devices."
Uh, so no, absolutely not. There's been footage that's come out again this week. This is you at the
January the 6th riots. Let's take a look. It appears we are taking the capital.
[Applause]
Keep watching and don't relax. Never relent. Break down the barriers and
disregard the police. This capital belongs to us.
The police are evacuating the capital.
Politicians out of the people's house.
[Applause] Now, you heard there uh shouting down your loud haler. Break down the barriers
and disregard the police. The capital belongs to us. Now, what did you mean by
that? I think it's pretty self-explanatory. The capital belongs to the people.
Disregard the police. You don't support law and order.
Uh, no. I support law and order, but on that day, um, the police were brutal.
The police killed somebody, Ashley Babbot, and, uh, you know, they were throwing people off of the rafters. They they
killed multiple people. So when disregarding the police is a is the the first step to anarchy, isn't it?
Well, I think the first step to anarchy is when the government rigs the election, which is what happened. That that is when the government loses its
legitimacy and its enforcers consequently do also. What happened in
there is no evidence the government rigged the election. You know that you're a bright guy. Well, let's talk about it. You want to
talk about the election of 2020? Yeah. I think Trump lost it fair and square. I I think he fought the wrong
argument about the stolen election. I've said to him to his face, I agree. The argument he should have said is that
the deliberate suppression of things like the Hunter Biden laptop scandal from the media by social media
by big tech uh was actually a deliberate attempt to subvert the result of the
election. And that's a much better argument because it's undeniable. When the New York Post that had that
exclusive were basically shadowbanned off all social media for the two weeks before the election, that was an
absolute disgrace. And if I was Donald Trump, I would focus on that as being my
main argument that that election was slanted against him. when he goes off
into saying that there was widespread rigging and voter systems were wrong and we've be we've litigated all this now
through various court cases, various Republican judges have ruled there was no rigging of that kind. In fact, the
American election system is accepted by most people around the world as being one of the best in the world, one of the
most reliable. So, I just think he fought the wrong argument. If he said the deliberate suppression of damaging
stories to the Bidens, which could have swung the election, uh, was outrageous and unacceptable, I I'm 100% behind him.
On Trump losing the 2020 election
But by by building this speurious argument that it was all rigged through voting systems and so on, he lost me.
Well, I agree about the voting systems, but, you know, when they went into the machines, I think that was ridiculous.
However, what has to be accounted for is that in 2016, 35% of the votes were cast
by mail. Uh, by 2020, it was 70% because of the pandemic. So, you doubled the
amount of votes that happened by mail. They called it in-person early voting. They called it a variety of different
things. And the other thing that they changed is they solicited the mail-in ballots. So, they sent ballots to
people's houses. And once you do that, I mean, you you have absentee balloting normally, but it's a process. You got to
give your social security number, your ID. They send it to you. There's regulations in place. This is an
election where they double the amount of mail and votes and they solicited they sent ballots to people's houses. And when you do that, you break the chain of
custody. So they send the ballot out and then they tell people return it at a 24-hour ballot drop site that's
unsupervised. There's thousands of them. And they're going to hope that all the ballots that find their way into these
drop boxes were filled out by the person that the ballot was intended for. And I know that didn't happen. I'll tell you
why. My uncle has been dead for 26 years. He got a ballot in 2020. It was
mailed to my parents house. And you know that was happening in nursing homes. You know that was happening in apartment
buildings. But you also every independent body that has looked at this has concluded there
was no widespread rigging, that it was a free and fair election and Trump lost.
And the bottom line is he should stop going on about it anyway cuz he won back the White House in in 2024
by your as as you have been so keen to tell me. Move on, right? No one wants to
look back too far. That's a separate argument. I mean, you can say that he should stop talking about it. But
whether it was rigged or not is actually relevant to what happened on January 6th. Because what happened on J6 is
people were outraged about it. People were furious that, by the way, there's never been an independent ballot audit
in all the states where there was alleged to be rigging. That has not happened. And certainly, it did not
happen up until January 6th. And people said, "This is ridiculous. They're stealing it." You know,
honestly, if either you or Donald Trump or anybody else wants to show me, I said this to him when I interviewed him last.
You know, if you show me the actual hardcore incontrovertible evidence, then
great. I've never seen it. Joe Rogan asked him. He didn't produce it with Joe Rogan. It's just never been produced. Uh
but look, I I don't want to label the point on that. I suppose the more interesting question now as your
influence rises in the conservative movement in America and there's a lot of splits going on amongst MAGA uh over a
number of issues uh and about you and you know this. Is your split with Trump
irrevocable? Do you feel now as we head towards the year of the midterms that
it's time to now look to who his successor will be and who do you think that person should be?
Well, it's not irrevocable, but I I am very pessimistic about this administration.
And succession is something that I've been interested in for as long as I've been doing this show. And I think it's
very clear that they are grooming JD Vance to be that successor. And by they, I mean Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, Peter
Teal. There seems to be an organization that was put in place roughly around 2022 when Peter Teal was very active in
the midterm elections. He spent, I think, over $30 million. Uh 15 million for Vance, 15 million for Masters, spent
a lot of money in a lot of other congressional races trying to unseat the Republicans that voted for impeachment
in 21. and also building out uh a media market, building out a patronage network, funding things like Passage
Press, Sovereign House, a number of other projects to create sort of like a self-contained media ecosystem. And
Vance is clearly the selected nominee. That is who the interests want and
they've been pushing for him very strongly. So, I think he's the apparent right now. There's a forceful push. I've
heard good things about him. I've heard bad things about him, too. Um, and where I think it needs to go is I think we
need to return to the message from 2016, what Trump said in the first election, which is we need to drain the swamp. We
need to get the money out of politics, the super PACs, the special interests, put America first in foreign policy and
the wars. Close the border and deport the illegals and reindustrialize America. Bring back manufacturing. Bring
back jobs. We're in this cold war with China. We need America to have productive capacity again. We need
America to have wealth. So, I think whoever is going to bring us back to that, that's who I'm going to support.
And I haven't seen enough from Vance yet. You called JD Vance's wife a Jeet. What does that mean?
It's a slur for Indians. Why would you use that? Well, you want the honest answer?
Cuz you're a racist. No. No. There's actually a different
reason. The reason why I said that, if you watch the whole show, did you watch that whole show by
No, no, but you've admitted you use that slur. I'm just curious why you would use that about a woman with her hair. I tell you the there's a really
important reason why, and this is why context matters. If you look online at the people that are supporting JD Vance
the most, they are racist. They're racist also, let's say, and they look at
someone like myself, I don't support JD Vance, and they say, "You're brown. You're a third worldist." They are
gleefully participating in the cruelty, you could say the performative cruelty of the Trump administration. They say,
"You're going back. You have 100 days until you're being deported. You're going into Crystal." And then they tell
us to vote for JD Vance. And so all I did on the show is I said, "You have
basically racist chuds that post memes about Indians all day on Twitter, memes
about third worldists and Palestinians even." But then they want to turn around and support a guy who has said on
Twitter, "How dare you say I'm racist? I have non-white kids and I'm in an interracial marriage." And all I said is
that's I just said that's a little ironic. I said that's hypocritical. And Vance is going to have to explain to all
of his supporters who have gassed him up as the real, you know, the real mass
deportation candidate. He's going to have to explain to them what's going on with that. What is with the contradiction? Because
you don't feel any accountability for the millions of young people that will hear you use that slur and think it's
fine to use it. What are No, no. I think that's
ridiculous. Okay, let's take a final break. I come back with a little kind of summary of
how you think this interview has gone for you. Okay, if you're a fan of epic fantasy, Arththeran legend, or just epic
storytelling, I have some good news for you. The Pen Dragon Cycle. Rise of the Merlin is the Daily Wire's new
seven-part cinematic series, and it's so good it will shock you. It's a top quality reimagining of the King Arthur
legend, which follows a young Merlin in a Britain torn apart by waring factions and standing on the brink of a new era,
AD: Pendragon Cycle (Daily Wire+) - watch full trailer now
the rise of Christianity. Daily Wire Plus All Access members get the first two full episodes on Christmas Day. Not
a teaser, not a sneak peek. episodes one and two a full month before anybody
else. So, if you want to go ahead uh with the story, now's the time to join. And with the sale happening right now,
you can get 50% off memberships, including the all access plan. The Pen Dragon Cycle: Rise of the Merlin
premieres on January the 22nd, but all access members can start watching on Christmas morning. Head to dailywire
plus.com so you don't miss out.
Okay, next for Wednesday, we've we've been talking for nearly two hours. Uh what is your view of how the interview
has gone? I think it was great. Honestly, I uh I think it was a tough interview. You're a
tough interviewer, but I don't think there were surprises. I I will not say it was an ambush because it wasn't. Uh I
sort of anticipated that that you would make some choices about how you wanted it to go, and I was fine with it. So, I
Nick Fuentes on how the interview went and how he will feel if the pope condemns him
I thought it was terrific. A as a Catholic, you probably aware the Jerusalem Post has recently called on
the Pope to openly condemn you. Would it matter to you if the Pope did? He's an American pope, obviously.
It would be very disheartening. Yes. Why?
Because he's our spiritual leader. He's he's the head of the church. He's the vicer of Christ. So, if if he condemned
me, that would be very disheartening. Um, and it it would depend upon what he would say exactly, but yeah, I wouldn't
like that. I wouldn't like that. If he condemned you because you've openly admitted to being a racist on this show,
well, you know, this racist, I would be disappointed if he said that because I think that word racist, it means
something different to everybody. And um, so I think that's just silly. I think that's just semantic.
Have you ever been in love in your life? Uh, no. No. Like romantically? No.
Yeah. Never? No. Do you think that's part of the problem?
What? What's the problem? Why you are the way you are?
Nick Fuentes: 'I’ve never been in love'
And what's the way I am? What are you trying to say? I've given I've given people two hours of the way you are. You're unashamed
about a lot of it. I don't think I have a problem. I think
I'm uh cheerful, boisterous. I look I unlike you,
I'm willing to be a little provoc Well, I guess you're willing to be provocative, but I'm willing to be very provocative and I'm a free thinker and
I'm I don't like to be tone policed. I don't like to be told about, you know, people are going to tone police and play
moral cop about you can't make this joke or you can't make this statement. And uh I think that's just about being
intellectually open. I I'm a believer in openness and I like I completely agree. I I think you should be perfectly free
to express yourself exactly how you see fit. My problem is how you see fit with
some of the things that you say and we've been through a lot of them and I think people who don't know you very
well will have been shocked in parts and surprised in other parts. Uh but in
totality they can see you for what you are. I think we've got a lot nearer to what the real Nick Fuentes is in the
last two hours than we probably have seen from your other recent interviews. Would you agree?
Uh, no. I mean, the the clip thing, we've done the clip thing. We've all seen the clip show. Everyone's seen the
clips. You think you're the first one to do the ADL rap sheet. So, here you said this and then here you said that. I've
been playing that game for 10 years. So, I this is honestly more of the same to tell you the truth.
Nick Fuentes. I appreciate you coming on Uncensored. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me.
Well, my thanks to Nick Fuentes and my thanks to the hundreds of thousands of you watching this special live episode
of Piers Morgan Uncensored. As I said during the interview, I think it was firm but fair, but you can all make up
your own minds. If you like uh what you do, please like and subscribe the channel so that we can keep doing it.
I'm back tomorrow. Until then, whatever you're up to, keep it uncensored

Federal Court to Trump: keeping a standing army is illegal, the federalization of California’s National Guard must end. What you need to know: California wins victory against Trump in court to return California National Guard soldiers to the Governor’s control.
Dec 10, 2025
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/12/10/feder ... -must-end/

https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploa ... -NG-PI.pdf

SACRAMENTO – In a major win for California, a federal court has directed the Trump Administration to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom.

Today’s ruling is abundantly clear – the federalization of the National Guard in California is illegal and must end. The President deployed these brave men and women against their own communities, removing them from essential public safety operations. We look forward to all National Guard servicemembers being returned to state service.

Governor Gavin Newsom

Read the court ruling here.

How we got here

On June 7, for the first time in our country’s history, the President invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize a state’s National Guard over the objections of a state’s governor. President Trump and Department of Defense Secretary Hegseth transferred 4,000 members of California’s National Guard—one in three of the Guard’s total active members—to federal control to serve in a civilian law enforcement role on the streets of Los Angeles and other communities in Southern California. California brought suit to challenge that unprecedented action. The litigation is ongoing.

Following a bench trial, a federal judge ruled in August 2025 that President Trump’s deployment of federalized National Guard troops in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act. This law restricts the military’s involvement in domestic law enforcement. That ruling, secured by Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, is on hold pending the federal government’s appeal.

Governor Newsom has warned that although California was the first to be targeted in this way, it would not be the last – a prediction borne out by the President’s subsequent unlawful federalization of National Guard troops elsewhere, including in Oregon and Illinois. The federal government had renewed the federalization of these California guard members to at least February 2026.

Headlines
by Amy Goodman
Democracy Now
December 11, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/12/11/headlines



Caracas Condemns U.S. Seizure of Oil Tanker Off Venezuela’s Coast as “International Piracy”
Dec 11, 2025

U.S. forces seized a tanker loaded with crude oil off the coast of Venezuela Wednesday, as the Pentagon ramps up its military buildup in the Caribbean ahead of possible strikes on Venezuela. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the seizure of the 20-year-old tanker named The Skipper in a social media post, accompanied by video showing soldiers rappelling from helicopters and pointing weapons at sailors. Bondi said Coast Guard, FBI and Homeland Security officers carried out a seizure warrant for the tanker, which she said was used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran. At the White House, President Trump confirmed the raid.

President Donald Trump: “As you probably know, we’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela, large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually.”

Reporter: “We’re interested in the seizure of this tanker. What happens to the oil on this ship?”
bq. President Donald Trump: “Well, we keep it, I guess. I don’t know.”

Venezuela’s government condemned the seizure as an “act of international piracy.” It comes after the Pentagon carried out more than 20 strikes on alleged drug boats that human rights groups have condemned as murder.

“He’d Better Wise Up, or He’ll Be Next”: Trump Threatens Colombian President Gustavo Petro
Dec 11, 2025

President Trump signaled Wednesday he may expand his attacks on alleged narcotraffickers to Colombia, following up his threats against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro with a new threat against Colombian President Gustavo Petro.

President Donald Trump: “Colombia is producing a lot of drugs, a lot of — they have cocaine factories that they make cocaine, as you know, and they sell it right into the United States. So, he’d better wise up, or he’ll be next. He’ll be next, too.”

We’ll have more on this story after headlines.

Child Freezes to Death as Torrential Rains Flood Tents of Gaza’s Displaced Palestinians
Dec 11, 2025

In Gaza, hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians are struggling to stay warm and dry as a fierce winter storm brings heavy rains and flash flooding to the territory. Forecasters are predicting two months’ worth of rain to fall on Gaza over just two days, threatening to flood makeshift tents housing families. Already the storm has claimed at least one life. Eight-month-old Rahaf Abu Jazar died of cold exposure earlier today after water flooded her family’s tent in Khan Younis.

Meanwhile, Israel’s military continues to violate the U.S.-brokered ceasefire deal it agreed to in October. Health officials report four bodies and 10 injured Palestinians were brought to hospitals over the last 24 hours. That brings the number of Palestinians killed since the truce was declared to 383. This is Umm al-Abd al-Jarjawi, the aunt of a Palestinian killed in an Israeli airstrike on Monday.

Umm al-Abd al-Jarjawi: “They were sitting in their home thinking they were safe, because there is a ceasefire and nothing is happening. He was bombed while he was at home. His mother was few steps away from him. God saved her. … There is no safety here. There is no consideration for the ceasefire. The war is still going on. People are bombed every day in their homes.”

Five Palestine Action Supporters Hospitalized While on Hunger Strike to Protest Imprisonment
Dec 11, 2025

In Britain, five political prisoners awaiting trial for supporting the banned protest group Palestine Action have been hospitalized due to deteriorating health as a result of hunger strikes. It’s now the largest coordinated hunger strike in U.K. prisons since the 1981 Irish Republican protests led by political prisoner Bobby Sands.

House of Representatives Passes $901 Billion National Defense Authorization Act
Dec 11, 2025

On Capitol Hill, the House of Representatives has passed the $901 billion National Defense Authorization Act. Combined with a supplemental bill passed earlier this year, the NDAA would expand the U.S. military’s budget to over $1 trillion. The bill drew bipartisan support, passing on a vote of 312 to 112, with 94 Democrats and 18 Republicans in opposition. Minnesota Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar voted no. She said it was because “Congress cannot continue writing blank checks for endless war while millions of Americans struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and basic necessities.”

NTSB Chair Says New Military Bill Would Make Washington, D.C., Airspace Less Safe
Dec 11, 2025

The chair of the National Transportation Safety Board warned Wednesday that a section in the National Defense Authorization Act would weaken safety measures near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy specifically cited the board’s investigation into the January 29 collision between an Army helicopter and a commercial jet that killed 67 people. The investigation found that the military helicopter was not using enhanced tracking technology. The recently passed defense authorization bill creates a waiver for military aircraft to turn off their enhanced tracking software while flying on national security missions through parts of the Washington, D.C., airspace.

Jennifer Homendy: “This is a significant, significant safety setback. It represents an unacceptable risk to the flying public, to commercial and military aircraft crews and to the residents in the region. It’s also an unthinkable dismissal of our investigation and of 67 families, 67 families who lost loved ones in a tragedy that was entirely preventable. This is shameful.”

Federal Reserve Votes to Cut Interest Rates by Quarter Point
Dec 11, 2025

In economic news, the Federal Reserve voted Wednesday to cut interest rates by a quarter point for the third time this year. But the vote to reduce rates was split 9 to 3; usually the Fed votes unanimously when making major changes to the interest rate. This comes as the U.S. economy is reeling from tariffs, immigration crackdowns and cuts to government spending. And despite inflation and unemployment ticking up in September, not to mention four months of job losses over the past six months, President Trump offered an optimistic assessment of the U.S. economy.

Dasha Burns: “But I do want to talk about the economy, sir, here at home. And I wonder what grade you would give your economy.”

President Donald Trump: “A-plus.”

Dasha Burns: “A-plus?”

President Donald Trump: “Yeah, A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus.”

President Trump was interviewed by Politico’s Dasha Burns.

200+ Environmental Groups Demand Halt to Construction of New U.S. Data Centers
Dec 11, 2025

More than 200 environmental groups are demanding a national moratorium on the construction of data centers in the U.S until new regulations are put in place. In an open letter addressed to Congress, the groups, which include Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Food & Water Watch, write, “The rapid, largely unregulated rise of datacenters to fuel the AI and crypto frenzy is disrupting communities across the country and threatening Americans’ economic, environmental, climate and water security.” Vermont’s independent Senator Bernie Sanders urged opponents of AI data centers to keep up the pressure against elected officials.

Sen. Bernie Sanders: “In community after community, Americans are fighting back against data centers being built by some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world. They are opposing the destruction of their local environment, soaring electric bills and the diversion of scarce water supplies. Nationally, how will continued construction of AI data centers impact our environment?”

Report: Wealthiest 0.001% Hold Three Times More Wealth Than the Poorest Half of Humanity
Dec 11, 2025

A new report on global inequality shows the wealthiest 0.001% hold three times more wealth than the poorest half of humanity. Publishers of the World Inequality Report say their findings show the global wealth gap is much larger than most people imagine, with fewer than 60,000 multimillionaires and billionaires holding unprecedented financial power, while billions of the world’s poor remain cut off from even basic economic stability.

Federal Judge Orders Trump Administration to End Deployment of Troops to Los Angeles
Dec 11, 2025

A federal judge in California has ordered the Trump administration to end its deployment of National Guard forces to Los Angeles and to return control of the troops to Governor Gavin Newsom. District Judge Charles Breyer issued the preliminary injunction on Wednesday, after rejecting government claims that protests against Trump’s immigration crackdown in L.A. amounted to a “rebellion.” But Judge Breyer put the decision on hold until next Monday to give the Trump administration time to appeal.

Trump Launches “Trump Gold Card” Visa Program for Wealthy Noncitizens
Dec 11, 2025

President Trump has officially launched a visa program that provides a pathway for wealthy noncitizens to get expedited permission to live and work in the United States. For a $1 million payment, visitors can obtain a “Trump Gold Card” that promises to expedite U.S. residency applications “in record time.” The administration says it’ll soon offer a $5 million “Trump Platinum Card” allowing visitors to avoid paying some U.S. taxes.

Separately, new U.S. Customs and Border Protection rules published this week would require visitors from 42 countries on the visa waiver program to provide up to five years of their social media history, along with telephone numbers, email addresses and biometric data including DNA, face, fingerprint and iris scans.

Trump Administration Abruptly Cancels Naturalization Ceremonies for Immigrants from 19 Nations
Dec 11, 2025

The Trump administration recently told green card holders on the cusp of becoming U.S. citizens that their naturalization ceremonies had been canceled. Among those affected were immigrants who lined up at Boston’s Faneuil Hall last week and prepared to pledge allegiance to the United States. The group Project Citizenship told radio station WGBH, “officers were asking everyone what country they were from, and if they said a certain country, they were told to step out of line and that their oath ceremonies were canceled.”

At Least 33 People Killed After Myanmar Military Bombs Hospital
Dec 11, 2025

In Burma, at least 33 people were killed after forces loyal to the country’s military leaders bombed a hospital in Rakhine state. The airstrike left dozens of people injured, including 27 in critical condition. The attack came on International Human Rights Day and ahead of elections set for the end of December. Burmese opposition groups are boycotting the election, after major political parties were barred from running by the ruling military junta.

Bolivia’s Former President Luis Arce Arrested over Alleged Graft
Dec 11, 2025

Bolivia’s former President Luis Arce has been arrested in the capital La Paz as part of the government’s investigation into alleged graft. Arce is accused of authorizing transfers from the public treasury to the personal accounts of political leaders when he served as economy minister under former President Evo Morales.

***

Is War Next? U.S. Seizes Venezuelan Oil Tanker as Anti-Maduro Campaign Escalates
by Amy Goodman
Democracy Now
December 11, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/12/11 ... oil_maduro



"What's Next for the Left in Venezuela?"

"Barrio Rising: Urban Popular Politics and the Making of Modern Venezuela"

U.S. troops seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela on Wednesday, a major escalation that the Venezuelan government called “international piracy.” We speak with New York University professor Alejandro Velasco about the Trump administration’s intentions in the country, which has the world’s largest known oil reserves. Though the Pentagon has claimed the conflict is aimed at combating narcoterrorism, Velasco says the violence is actually an effort “to get rid of leftist governments in the region.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: In a major escalation, U.S. troops seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, a day after U.S. fighter jets flew over the Gulf of Venezuela, the closest the U.S. has come to the country’s airspace. Attorney General Pam Bondi released video showing U.S. forces rappelling from helicopters and pointing weapons at sailors. Bondi claimed the tanker had been used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran. President Trump confirmed the raid while speaking with reporters at the White House.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: As you probably know, we’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela, large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually. And other things are happening, so you’ll be seeing that later, and you’ll be talking about that later with some of the people. …

REPORTER 1: We’re interested in the seizure of this tanker. What happens to the oil on this ship?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, we keep it, I guess. I don’t know.

REPORTER 2: Where does it go? What port does it go to?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, you’ll have to follow the tanker. You know, you’re a good newsman. Just follow the tanker.

REPORTER 3: Do you know where it was going? Was it going to China?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Follow it. Follow it. Get a helicopter. Follow the tanker.

REPORTER 4: Is it true it was going to Cuba?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But we’re going to — I assume we’re going to keep the oil.

AMY GOODMAN: The Venezuelan government denounced the action, calling it “blatant theft” and “an act of international piracy.” Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro spoke in Caracas Wednesday.

PRESIDENT NICOLÁS MADURO: [translated] Anyone who wants Venezuelan oil must respect the law, the constitution and national sovereignty and get down to producing, invest and sell our oil. Venezuela an oil colony? Never again, neither a colony nor slaves.

AMY GOODMAN: He also started singing “Don’t Worry, Be Happy.”

The U.S. seizure of the oil tanker comes as the Pentagon ramps up its military buildup in the Caribbean ahead of possible strikes on Venezuela. Since September, the U.S. has carried out more than 20 deadly strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific, though they’ve never offered evidence.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the right-wing Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado. On Tuesday night, hundreds of protesters marched in Oslo to condemn the selection of Machado, who’s supported Trump’s threats against the Venezuelan government. In October, she dedicated the peace prize to President Trump. Machado did not attend the prize ceremony on Wednesday but later appeared in Oslo waving to supporters from the balcony of her hotel. She spoke at the Norwegian parliament today. CNN reports the United States gave her support to travel to Oslo from Venezuela, where she had been in hiding. She apparently, last step, flew from Bangor, Maine, to Oslo.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We’re joined by Alejandro Velasco, associate professor at New York University, where he’s a historian of modern Latin America. Velasco is a former executive director of NACLA Report on the Americas and the author of Barrio Rising: Urban Popular Politics and the Making of Modern Venezuela. He was born and raised in Venezuela.

Welcome back to the show, Alejandro. So, if you could comment on these latest developments, the U.S. coming the closest it has to invading Venezuela’s airspace, and then also Machado receiving the Nobel Peace Prize?

ALEJANDRO VELASCO: Yeah, no, for sure. But on the one hand, you have to think of it as an escalation on two fronts. The most apparent front, of course, is the military escalation. Even though they’re calling it a legal maneuver, more of a high seas stakes kind of operation, in fact, the United States has amassed the greatest number of troops in the 21st century in the Caribbean. And so, this absolutely escalates this kind of war of chicken with the Venezuelan government.

But it’s also, in some ways, an escalation of illegality. The United States has in the past seized Venezuelan assets. It now controls millions of Venezuelan Citgo assets, that it has essentially, you know, kidnapped for ransom in the United States. The U.K. has also held Venezuelan gold in the wake of 2019’s crisis that saw Juan Guaidó become sort of interim president, self-proclaimed. And so, that kind of escalation is very significant and worrisome.

It’s been interesting that the Venezuelan government’s reaction has been really disciplined. They’ve not fallen into the trap of trying to be goaded into some kind of, you know, response that would surely bring greater military action on the part of the United States.

Now, on the other hand, of course, you have the María Corina Machado ceremony. She had said that she would not leave Venezuela until the final battle is won. And so, now the question is: Will she be able to return, or will she run the fate of many Venezuelan politicians in the opposition who have lived out their promise in exile?

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But was she under a travel ban? She had apparently not seen her own children. Her daughter received the prize in her stead. She had not seen the kids for a year or possibly two. What kind of ban was she under?

ALEJANDRO VELASCO: So, the Venezuelan government had an arrest warrant on her, and so they had alleged that she had violated campaign laws, political actions, as well. And so, certainly, she was under hiding. And, of course, her concern was, if she was going to be detained, then she might suffer the consequences of torture or other kinds of violations. But, of course, her profile is so significant. It’s so high-profile that it’s also somewhat far-fetched to imagine that the Venezuelan government would in fact detain her, rather than in fact see what she’s doing now, which is to leave.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me play María Corina Machado speaking at the Norwegian parliament today.

MARÍA CORINA MACHADO: I am very very hopeful Venezuela will be free, and we will turn our country into a beacon of hope and opportunity of democracy. And we will welcome not only the Venezuelans that have been forced to flee, but citizens from all over the world that will find a refuge, as Venezuela used to be decades ago.

AMY GOODMAN: On Tuesday night, hundreds of protesters marched in Oslo to condemn the selection of Machado for the Nobel Peace Prize because she has supported Trump’s threats against Venezuela. In October, she dedicated the peace prize to Trump. This is Lina Álvarez of the Norwegian Solidarity Committee for Latin America in Oslo.

LINA ÁLVAREZ REYES: [translated] We are here in a demonstration organized together with a broad alliance of Norwegian solidarity and peace organizations, where we are highlighting that the Nobel Prize is being used to legitimize military intervention. This year’s Nobel Prize winner has not distanced herself from the interventions and the attacks we are seeing in the Caribbean, and we are stating that this clearly breaks with Alfred Nobel’s will.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Professor Velasco, if you can comment on this? And then talk about this tanker. President Trump boasted it’s the largest tanker ever seized.

ALEJANDRO VELASCO: Yeah, it’s hard to parse the Nobel Prize Committee’s selection and then how they have proceeded over the last few weeks since the announcement. The history of the Nobel Prize being awarded to politicians and opposition politicians is, let’s just say, not a very storied one. More recently, of course, you have Barack Obama, who had been awarded the prize, and, before that, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese politician. And at the time, they said that these were more aspirational awards for, hopefully, what would come, if they in fact reached the kind of power that they wanted. But in both of those cases, of course, we did not see peace. We saw, in the case, unfortunately, of Obama, war, and of Aung San Suu Kyi, an authoritarian turn.

So, part of the question here is: Why would the Nobel Prize Committee take another chance on an opposition politician who has been so vocal in requesting and demanding an armed intervention of her country, even, of course, as, on the other hand, she would say, like, “Well, we want peace, and we want democracy”? This is what the Norwegians — you know, the prime minister conversation was like. So, that’s on the one hand: What is going on with the Norwegians, who have in the past tried to broker some kind of negotiation with the Venezuelan government?

But in terms, of course, of the oil question, it’s a kind of a two-handed approach on — you have this seeming carrot of, you know, will we seek peace, and bringing the Norwegians along, but, on the other hand, we’re seizing ships, we are launching military aircraft, fighter jets, right literally off the coast of Venezuela, all in an effort to try to goad the Venezuelan government to a kind of misstep that would then justify some military intervention.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But what do we know about this ship? U.S. officials, of course, say the ship had been previously linked to the smuggling of Iranian oil. The final destination of the ship was indeed Asia. Can you talk about the claim that the Venezuelan state-owned oil company PDVSA is part of a global black market network?

ALEJANDRO VELASCO: So, Venezuela’s oil, and PDVSA in particular, has been sanctioned since the first Trump administration. And those, as we call, sectoral sanctions are part of a maximum-pressure campaign on the part of the U.S. to try to force the Venezuelan government out of power. They, of course, you know, withheld — withstood that pressure. But it does mean that Venezuelan oil and Venezuelan oil interests and assets abroad, as well as domestically, are under threat.

The paradox here is that Venezuela continues to sell oil to the United States. So, on the one hand, we have the seizure of a tanker, and then other tankers that are just finding their way to the United States by way of licenses to be sold in the U.S. market. And so, part of this is this larger narrative of Venezuelan narcoterrorism and this access between Iran and Venezuela and Cuba. But, on the other hand, you have the continuation of politics as normal. So, it’s hard, extremely difficult to parse what the actual intentions are.

AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s talk about Venezuela having the world’s largest oil reserves. It’s under threat from the United States, and followed by Colombia. On Wednesday, President Trump threatened Colombian President Gustavo Petro.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Colombia is producing a lot of drugs, a lot of — they have cocaine factories that they make cocaine, as you know, and they sell it right into the United States. So, he’d better wise up, or he’ll be next. He’ll be next, too. And I hope he’s listening. He’s going to be next.

AMY GOODMAN: “I hope he’s listening,” he says about Petro. “He’s going to be next.” He also brought in narcotrafficking. It’s important to note that in this past week, he pardoned a major narcotrafficker — right? — the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was sentenced in a U.S. court to 45 years in prison, served about a year of that, accused of bringing in, using all the levers of the Honduran state, military, police, helping to facilitate 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. So, talk about Colombia.

ALEJANDRO VELASCO: I mean, Colombia has been nothing if not a stable partner for the United States in terms of drug interdiction. It is, continues to be a major oil — drug producer and exporter, although Ecuador has now become far more. And, of course, Ecuador has a friendly ally to the Trump administration as president currently, and so they’re not talking about Ecuador.

But, you know, what this demonstrates is that, certainly on the part of Trump, but also on the part of Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth and others in the U.S. government, Venezuela is not the only target. It’s other Latin American governments. And questions about narcoterrorism are really subterfuge claims, in fact, to get rid of leftist governments in the region. Right? This is what we see with Colombia. We’ve seen all the threats to Mexico, as well, which has a leftist government, as well. So, this has a lot to do with ideology, despite the claims that it’s impact about drugs.

AMY GOODMAN: Before you go, I wanted to ask you about what is a national story but also has international significance, this Miami mayoral race, Florida voters electing a Democratic mayor and the first woman, for the first time a Democratic mayor in 30 years. In a stunning upset, the former County Commissioner Eileen Higgins received about 59% of the vote, defeating the Cuban-born Republican, Emilio González, who had been endorsed by Trump. How does this relate to what we’re seeing now? Trump reportedly has been extremely affected by these two races this week. One was her upset victory. And another, a smaller race in Georgia, in a Trump region, a state legislator, Democrat, won this time around. But what about Miami?

ALEJANDRO VELASCO: It’s massive, and especially in the worldview of Trump and his ties to Florida, in particular, but his sense that Florida was now in the bag for Trump. And this tremendous upset — and it wasn’t even close, right? And we’re talking massive margin — suggests that perhaps the message, the bellicose message, that the Cuban American community, most of the Cuban American community in South Florida —

AMY GOODMAN: And if you can bring up Rubio in this, the secretary of state, and his role in what’s happening, a Cuban American from Miami?

ALEJANDRO VELASCO: Of course. I mean, yes, this sort of —

AMY GOODMAN: From Florida.

ALEJANDRO VELASCO: — staid, Cold War-era discourse being brought up again. What it suggests is that it’s perhaps run a bit of its course, and the interests of people in Miami, as elsewhere in the country, especially Republican voters, is much more fixated on: What are you doing for me here at home? Why are we worrying about interventions abroad? What are you doing for us here at home? And this is a tremendous warning, I think, to the Trump administration, Trump in particular, that the shift — the focus has to shift to domestic interests, especially around the economy, rather than these war games with tremendously high stakes in the Caribbean.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you, Alejandro Velasco, for joining us, associate professor at New York University, historian of modern Latin America, former executive editor of NACLA Report on the Americas, author of Barrio Rising: Urban Popular Politics and the Making of Modern Venezuela.

Coming up, acclaimed academic and writer Mahmood Mamdani. He’s author of the new book, Slow Poison. He’s also the father of the New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: “Peaceable Kingdom” by Patti Smith, performed at Democracy Now!’s 20th anniversary, as we move into our 30th anniversary this February.

Part 1 of 2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 25-cv-04870-CRB

ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances.1 Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one. Six months after they first federalized the California National Guard, Defendants still retain control of approximately 300 Guardsmen, despite no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded in any way—let alone significantly. What’s more, Defendants have sent California Guardsmen into other states, effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops. In response to Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin this conduct, Defendants take the position that, after a valid initial federalization, all subsequent re-federalizations are completely, and forever, unreviewable by the courts. Defendants’ position is contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court ENJOINS Defendants’ federalization of California National Guard troops.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court has chronicled the background of this dispute in previous orders, and so will not repeat it in detail here. See Order Granting TRO (dkt. 64); Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief (dkt. 176). Instead, the Court summarizes the circumstances of the temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in this case, recounts the developments that occurred in California and elsewhere during the stay in this case, and outlines the present dispute.

A. TRO in This Case

On June 6, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) began immigration raids across Los Angeles, at locations like Home Depot, a donut shop, and a clothing wholesaler. Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief at 3; Espiritu Decl. Ex. G (dkt. 8- 1) at 52. Protests, some unruly, followed. President Trump—despite quick responses from the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”)—responded by federalizing the California National Guard. Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief at 4. He did so by way of a June 7 memorandum invoking Section 12406, in which he stated that the Guardsmen’s “duration of duty shall be for 60 days or at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense.” See June 7 Memo (Espiritu Decl. Ex. O at 108–09). “The memorandum never specifically mentioned Los Angeles or California; to the contrary, it instructed the Secretary of Defense ‘to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau in identifying and ordering into Federal service the appropriate members and units of the National Guard.’” Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief at 5 (quoting June 7 Memo at 108). Secretary Hegseth subsequently issued his own memorandum, stating that 2,000 members of the California National Guard would be “called into Federal service effective immediately for a period of 60 days.” June 7 DOD Memo (Trial Ex. 18). Two days later, Secretary Hegseth issued another memorandum federalizing an additional 2,000 members of the California National Guard. June 9 DOD Memo (Trial Ex. 3).

The federalized National Guard deployed in Los Angeles on June 8. Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief at 9. Plaintiffs filed suit the next day, arguing that Defendants’ actions exceeded the scope of their authority. See Compl. (dkt. 1). On June 12, this Court issued a TRO holding that the June federalization did not satisfy Section 12406. See Order Granting TRO. The Ninth Circuit stayed the TRO pending appeal, articulating a deferential standard of review that courts in this Circuit must apply to federalization orders under Section 12406. See Newsom v. Trump, 141 F.4th 1032, 1040 (9th Cir. 2025). The Ninth Circuit recently held a hearing on Defendants’ appeal of the TRO; it has not yet issued a ruling.

B. Events in California Following the TRO

From the “No Kings” protests in mid-June through August, there were “only a few immigration-related protests around [Los Angeles] with often just a few dozen protestors at a time.” Hurtado Decl. (dkt. 183-5) ¶ 11; see also Duryee Decl. (dkt. 183-4) ¶ 9 (“I am not aware of any large-scale, protest-related activities in the Los Angeles area since June 19, 2025, and therefore there have been no arrests resulting from such activities occurring after June 19.”); Opp’n (dkt. 214) at 1 (“The deployment has succeeded.”). The LAPD was “well equipped to handle these protests and did so without mutual aid, the National Guard, or even the Department’s own specialized crime suppression units.” Hurtado Decl. ¶ 11.

1. Draw Down of Troops

In a series of orders, Defendants released the majority of federalized members of the California National Guard. See Hamme Decl. Ex. 5 (dkt. 183-2) at 25 (July 1, 2025 press release: “Task Force 51 releases 150 members of the California National Guard”); Sauter Decl. (dkt. 214-1) at ¶ 5 (On July 30, 2025, Secretary Hegseth directed a draw down of forces to approximately 300.); Kurland Decl. Ex. A. (dkt. 190-1) (“August 15 Memo”) at 5 (memorializing directive on July 30, 20225 to release 1,350 members of the California National Guard from federal service).2 In mid-August, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the immigration enforcement mission had succeeded: the administration had “Removed the Worst of the Worst Illegal Aliens,” arresting “4,481 illegal aliens in the Los Angeles area” since June 6. Hamme Decl. Ex. 8 (dkt. 183-2) at 37.

2. August Federalization Order

In the midst of that draw down, however, and despite the calm in Los Angeles, on August 5, 2025, Defendants issued a new federalization order. That order, issued the day before the initial federalization was set to expire, federalized 300 members of the California National Guard for 90 days, through November 4, 2025. Strong Decl. Ex. 1 (dkt. 212-2) (“August 5 Order”) at 2 (calling Guardsmen into service for a “tour length” of 90 days). The August 5 Order stated in part:

[] The Secretary of Defense, pursuant to Title 10, US Code, Section 12406, authorizes the mobilization of units and members of the National Guard. This mobilization is in response to direction from the President of the United States . . . to provide forces to protect federal functions, personnel, and property.

[] This message implements SecDef’s order to call units and members of the Army National Guard into federal service. The National Guard unit(s) listed . . . below are called into federal service under Presidential Reserve Callup (Title 10, USC 12406). . . .

[] The following unit(s) is/are hereby called into federal service under the provisions of 10 USC 12406 effective[.]

Id. at 1–2. A subsequent letter from Secretary Hegseth on August 15, 2025 confirmed that “300 remaining CA NG personnel will remain in Federal service and continue to execute the Federal protective mission through November 4, 2025.” Kurland Decl. Ex. B (dkt. 190-1) at 7.3

3. Filing of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

On September 2, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, challenging the August 5 Order. See First MPI (dkt. 183).4 This Court stayed that motion, explaining: “[t]he complicated and fragmented procedural posture leaves the Court skeptical of its jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ motion.” Order re: Jurisdiction (dkt. 192) at 1. The Ninth Circuit later clarified that “Plaintiffs’ challenge to Secretary Hegseth’s August 5 order extending the California National Guard’s federalization through November 5 is not the subject of this appeal,” and so held that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ challenge to that order. USCA Order (dkt. 204).

C. Events During Stay

While the case was stayed before this Court, a series of significant events occurred, all demonstrating Defendants’ expansive view of President Trump’s powers under Section 12406.

1. Oregon

On September 28, 2025, after the Governor of Oregon declined to mobilize Oregon’s National Guard, Secretary Hegseth called 200 members of the Oregon National Guard into federal service. Compl. (dkt. 1) ¶¶ 57, 58 in Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756- IM. Secretary Hegseth asserted that the Oregon federalization was a “further implement[ation]” of the June 7 Memo in this case, which, as noted above, was justified based on events in Los Angeles but unlimited in its geographic scope. Id. ¶ 58; June 7 Memo.5 On October 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut granted a TRO in favor of the State of Oregon and the City of Portland, holding that Defendants’ actions failed to satisfy Section 12406, and temporarily enjoining the federalization and deployment of the Oregon National Guard in Portland. See Opinion and Order Granting Motion for TRO (dkt. 56) in Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756-IM (“Portland TRO”). The next day, Defendants deployed 200 of the 300 remaining federalized members of the California National Guard to Oregon. Sauter Decl. ¶ 5; Second Mot. for TRO (dkt. 59) at 2 in Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756-IM. Defendants also federalized 400 members of the Texas National Guard to send to Portland and other cities. Marshall Decl. Ex. 1 (dkt. 65-1) in Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756-IM. On October 5, Judge Immergut granted a second TRO, enjoining the deployment of any National Guard members in Oregon. Second TRO (dkt. 68) in Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756-IM (“Second Portland TRO”).

Defendants appealed the first TRO but not the second. Although the Ninth Circuit stayed the first TRO pending appeal, an en banc court has since vacated the panel’s decision and granted rehearing. See Oregon v. Trump, No. 26-6268 dkt. 61.1; 89.1.6 In the interim, Judge Immergut held a trial on the merits, and ultimately granted the plaintiffs a permanent injunction because “even giving great deference to the President’s determination, the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406.” Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (dkt. 146) at 2 in Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756-IM (“Portland FOFCOL”). As of October 31, 2025, 200 federalized California National Guard members remain stationed in Portland “to perform infrastructure protection.” Eck Decl. (dkt. 212-3) ¶ 9. At the motion hearing in this case, Defendants suggested that they are in the process of de-federalizing these 200 Guardsmen.

2. Illinois

On October 4, 2025, Defendants again federalized a state’s National Guard over its governor’s objection. Compl. (dkt. 1) ¶¶ 126–32 in Illinois v. Trump, 1:25-cv-12174. Secretary Hegseth issued a memo calling up 300 members of the Illinois National Guard to protect ICE, Federal Protective Service (FPS), other U.S. personnel performing federal functions, and federal property. Id. ¶ 130. Defendants also stated that federalized Texas National Guard members would be sent to cities including Chicago. Id. ¶¶ 133–34. And on October 7, Defendants sent fourteen federalized California National Guard members from Oregon to Illinois to train the National Guard in that state. Sauter Decl. ¶ 8; Eck Decl. ¶ 7.7

On October 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge April M. Perry granted a TRO in favor of the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago, holding that they were likely to succeed in demonstrating that Defendants’ deployment of the National Guard violated Section 12406. Opinion and Order (dkt. 70) in Illinois v. Trump, 1:25-cv-12174 (“Chicago TRO”). The Seventh Circuit denied Defendants’ motion to stay the TRO pending appeal. Illinois v. Trump, 155 F.4th 929, 933 (7th Cir. Oct. 16, 2025) (“[T]he facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois under § 12406, even giving substantial deference to his assertions.”). The case is currently before the Supreme Court after briefing concluded in November. See Jason Meisner, Illinois and Trump brief US Supreme Court over administration’s National Guard deployment powers, Chicago Trib. (November 11, 2025 at 4:08 PM CST), https://perma.cc/9W3Q-372U.

3. October Federalization Order

Meanwhile, despite the ongoing calm in Los Angeles, on October 16, 2025, a couple of weeks before the August 5 Order lapsed, Defendants again federalized 300 members of the California National Guard. Strong Decl. Exs. 4 and 5. Secretary Hegseth wrote:

In response to a request for assistance from the Department of Homeland Security, and at the direction of the President, I direct the Secretary of the Army to extend the orders of all remaining California (CA) National Guard (NG) personnel called into Federal service under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, from November 4, 2025 to February 2, 2026, and I directed that Commander, U.S. Northern Command . . . redeploy 200 CA NG personnel to Oregon. . . .

[T]hese individuals will temporarily protect [ICE] and other U.S. Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including personnel enforcing Federal law, and will protect Federal property.

Strong Decl. Ex. 4 (“October 16 Order”); see also Strong Decl. Ex. 5 (Oct. 16, 2025 memo from Anthony C. Fuscellaro: “These 200 CA NG and 200 TX NG personnel, along with additional headquarters and support staff, will deploy to Oregon effective immediately to protect Federal functions, personnel, and property.”).

As of now, 100 federalized California National Guard members remain “at various locations throughout Los Angeles providing rapid response protection to federal facilities, functions, and personnel.” Sauter Decl. ¶ 9. They also provide perimeter security at the Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles. Id.

D. Pending Motion

On November 4, this Court lifted the stay in accordance with guidance from the Ninth Circuit, and directed Plaintiffs to file an updated motion that included the relevant events that transpired during the stay. See Order Lifting Stay (dkt. 208). Briefing is now complete. See MPI (dkt. 212); Opp’n; Reply (dkt. 215). Plaintiffs challenge two orders under Section 12406: (1) the August 5 Order federalizing 300 members of the California National Guard for an additional 90 days, through November 4, 2025, and (2) the October 16 Order federalizing 300 members of the California National Guard through February 2, 2026.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm absent preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff’s favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See id. at 20. Alternatively, the moving party must demonstrate that “serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor,” and that the other two Winter elements are met. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction because they have satisfied each of the Winter elements. The Court agrees.

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish a likelihood of success on the merits. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Plaintiffs argue that they are likely to succeed in arguing that the subsequent federalization orders are unjustified, because there was no colorable basis to federalize the National Guard on August 5 or October 16. Defendants respond that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed, because (1) courts lack the authority to review a president’s subsequent federalization orders; (2) Plaintiffs have failed to state an ultra vires claim; (3) the August 5 and October 16 Orders satisfy the highly deferential standard of review; and (4) Plaintiffs seek relief that goes beyond the scope of the complaint. The Court addresses and rejects each of Defendants’ arguments.

1. Reviewability

Defendants first argue that the August 5 and October 16 Orders are not subject to judicial review. But “t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). Deciding whether a party’s “interpretation of [a] statute is correct” is a “familiar judicial exercise.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012). And every court to consider whether federalization under Section 12406 is reviewable has answered in the affirmative. See, e.g., Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1047 (“[W]e disagree with Defendants’ contention that § 12406 completely precludes judicial review of the President’s determination that a statutory precondition exists.”); Illinois, 155 F.4th at 937 (same). Undeterred, Defendants justify their recycled arguments by contending that Newsom was only “controlling” as to the President’s June 7 Memo, and that the Orders now at issue require different consideration. Opp’n at 4.

Defendants’ second run at reviewability also falls flat.

a. Sections 12406 and 12407 on Reviewability

For starters, Defendants concede that “Newsom allows some measure of review of Section 12406’s prerequisites when Guardsmen are ‘call[ed] into Federal service.’” Opp’n at 4 (quoting 10 U.S.C. § 12406). That is explicitly what both challenged Orders here do. August 5 Order (“The National Guard unit(s) . . . are called into federal service under Presidential Reserve Callup (Title 10, USC 12406).”); October 16 Order (California National Guard personnel were “called into Federal service under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, from November 4, 2025 to February 2, 2026”). By Defendants’ own admission, then, these orders are reviewable.

Defendants nevertheless attempt to circumvent the scope of Section 12406 by characterizing the Orders as extensions of federalization, which they argue are outside the statute’s reach. Opp’n at 4 (“Congress decided against subjecting the continuation of a mission to further regulation by Section 12406.”). Indeed, at the motion hearing, Defendants confirmed their position that, after an initial federalization, all extensions of federalization orders are utterly unreviewable, forever.

That is shocking. Adopting Defendants’ interpretation of Section 12406 would permit a president to create a perpetual police force comprised of state troops, so long as they were first federalized lawfully. Such a scenario would validate the Founders’ “widespread fear [of] a national standing Army,” which they believed “posed an intolerable threat to individual liberty and to the sovereignty of the separate States.” Perpich v. Dep’t of Def., 496 U.S. 334, 340 (1990). Defendants’ argument for a president to hold unchecked power to control state troops would wholly upend the federalism that is at the heart of our system of government. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 638 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (“Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.”).

The statutory framework repudiates Defendant’s position. As Plaintiffs argue, and as this Court discusses in greater detail below, Section 12406 “authorizes federalization only when one of its factual predicates is presently satisfied.” Reply at 1 (emphasis in original) (citing Portland FOFCOL at 37). Accordingly, each affirmative order authorizing federalization—whether a subsequent, distinct federalization or what Defendants call an extension—must comply with Section 12406’s exigency requirements at the time it is effectuated.

Section 12407, the statute regarding the period of federal service, further confirms the judicial authority for reviewability of the Orders.

Section 12407 establishes that federalization terminates at the end of a president’s chosen period of service, or sooner. 10 U.S.C. § 12407(a) (“Members and units called shall serve inside or outside the territory of the United States during the term specified, unless sooner relieved by the President.”). It necessarily follows that an order bringing the Guard back into service must again go through the President’s vehicle for federalization: Section 12406. Moreover, there are no statutes specifically relating to continuation or extension; as Defendants admitted at the motion hearing, only Sections 12406 and 12407 apply.

The timeline in this case is also illustrative. The President’s initial memorandum in June specified that “the duration of duty shall be for 60 days or at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense.” June 7 Memo. Secretary Hegseth’s memorandum carrying out the President’s declaration then specified that the federalization was “for a period of 60 days.” June 7 DOD Memo. 8 Then on August 5, the day before that initial period lapsed, Secretary Hegseth again called up National Guard troops for a 90-day period starting on August 8. August 5 Order. And then again, shortly before this new period ended, Secretary Hegseth issued his October Order for another 90-day period ending on February 2, 2026. October 16 Order. Clearly, Defendants’ own conduct demonstrates their understanding that Sections 12406 and 12407 work in tandem, requiring a re-federalization when the service period is set to expire.9 The August 5 Order and the October 16 Order are properly construed as calling Guardsmen into federal service and are thus reviewable under Section 12406.10

The parties dispute the relevance of Section 12407. Defendants assert that “the duration of federalized Guardsmen’s service is committed to the President’s discretion.” Opp’n at 5. During the motion hearing, Defendants insisted that there is no language in Sections 12406 or 12407—or in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Newsom—that allows judicial review for anything but the initial federalization. On the other side, Plaintiffs argue that Section 12407’s “purpose is to limit the President’s power over the duration of federalization, not grant him absolute discretion.” Reply at 4 (emphasis in original). In the Court’s view, Defendants have the better reading. Section 12407 explicitly gives the President the option to specify a period of service in the call. Nowhere does it prescribe a maximum period the President may authorize. Further, Defendants correctly point out that Section 12406’s predecessor statute did have a nine-month maximum service period. Opp’n at 6 (citing Act of Jan. 21, 1903, ch. 196, § 4, 32 Stat. 775, 776). This language was removed in a later amendment and remains absent in the current iteration. See Act of May 27, 1908, ch. 204, §§ 3, 4, 35 Stat. 400.

But that does not mean that the President’s discretion over the service period is absolute or that the service period can be infinite.11 Plaintiffs persuasively point to legislative history indicating that Congress did not intend for the service period to last forever—just long enough to address the present emergency. See Reply at 6–7. The removal of the nine-month limitation was part of an effort to ensure the Guardsmen could “respond to a call for troops issued by the President under the conditions of emergency.” H.R. Rep. No. 1067, at 5 (1908). Then-Acting Secretary of War Robert Shaw Oliver made clear that the limit was “generously waived” with the understanding that Guardsmen would “render service in any theater of military activity to which they may be called, and to continue in such service until the necessity for their employment no longer exists.” Id. at 6 (emphasis added).

Consequently, if this were a case where the President had neglected to specify a call-up period, it would still be reviewable under Section 12406’s preconditions. After all, it is nonsensical to suggest that the law would permit a president to take advantage of an exigency, omit a call-up period, and then send Guardsmen wherever he wanted for as long as he wanted. See Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 650 (Jackson, J., concurring) (explaining that the Founders “knew what emergencies were” and “how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation,” including how “emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies.”). Such a scenario would make a mockery out of the narrow preconditions Congress set forth in Section 12406 when it delegated its call-up power. See Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1045 (“Congress has delegated some of its power to call forth the militia to the President by statute, including 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which authorizes the President to ‘call into federal service members and units of the National Guard of any state’ under specified exigent circumstances.”).

Of course a president is not required to identify a service period when first issuing a federalization order, because presidents cannot be expected to know at the start of an exigency how long it will last. But if the exigency is over and the President refuses to relinquish control over a state’s National Guard, the state may seek court review of whether Section 12406’s preconditions are still met, with all appropriate deference given to the President. Regardless, this scenario is not an issue here, where the President and the Secretary of War did identify periods of service. Those subsequent orders federalizing troops are reviewable under Sections 12406 and 12407.

b. Other Arguments on Reviewability

Defendants also raise other arguments opposing reviewability, which the Court briefly addresses here.

First, Defendants attempt to characterize Plaintiffs’ motion as being centered on the quantity of Guardsmen federalized. Opp’n at 4. Because Section 12406 gives the President the discretion to federalize the National Guard “in such numbers as he considers necessary,” Defendants argue that his management of headcount is unreviewable. 10 U.S.C. § 12406; Opp’n at 4–5. But that is a red herring. Plaintiffs do not dispute the appropriate “number of federalized Guardsmen,” but instead argue that “the federalization is wholly unlawful.” Reply at 5. 12

Second, Defendants argue that judicial review poses separation of powers concerns. They contend that review of the Commander-in-Chief’s on-the-ground decision making “would inject the Judiciary into the military chain of command” and constitute improper “micromanagement.” Opp’n at 8. “[C]ourts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs.” Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530 (1988). But reluctance does not mean refusal. Courts have reviewed—albeit cautiously—military actions before. See, e.g., Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 401 (1932) (“What are the allowable limits of military discretion, and whether or not they have been overstepped in a particular case, are judicial questions.”). And the Judiciary’s willingness to intrude into military affairs is greatest when the military is deployed domestically. The Supreme Court has emphasized:

Indeed, when presented with claims of judicially cognizable injury resulting from military intrusion into the civilian sector, federal courts are fully empowered to consider claims of those asserting such injury; there is nothing in our Nation’s history or in this Court’s decided cases, including our holding today, that can properly be seen as giving any indication that actual or threatened injury by reason of unlawful activities of the military would go unnoticed or unremedied.

Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 15–16 (1972). In Sections 12406 and 12407, Congress has articulated the necessary preconditions for the President to exercise his delegated power; it is then up to the courts to review, with appropriate deference, whether those preconditions have been met.

Finally, Defendants’ argument that reviewability would permit “judicial review on every day of the mission” is unsupported by the facts. Opp’n at 4. Plaintiffs certainly have not peppered the Court with frequent challenges to Defendants’ federalizations, and the Court is not aware that Defendants have faced this issue in their other National Guard cases, either. Even if Defendants’ fear did come to pass, courts have long been capable of handling vexatious litigants and meritless actions.

The Court determines that both the August 5 and October 16 Orders are reviewable.

2. Ultra Vires

Defendants next argue that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed because they cannot meet the high threshold necessary for relief on an ultra vires theory. Opp’n at 11–12. But as the Court explained previously, “emphasizing the narrowness of the theory of relief does not answer whether Plaintiffs have asserted a claim that fits within that theory.” Order Granting Injunctive Relief at 49. An ultra vires claim succeeds only if a plaintiff can show that “an agency has taken action entirely ‘in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition’ in a statute.” NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S. 665, 681 (2025) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Such claims also apply to presidential actions that extend beyond delegated statutory authority. See Murphy Co. v. Biden, 65 F.4th 1122, 1129–31 (9th Cir. 2023). An ultra vires claim is unavailable “where a statutory review scheme provides aggrieved persons with an adequate opportunity for judicial review.” NRC, 605 U.S. at 681.

Certainly, Section 12406 represents a delegation by Congress of its authority to call forth the militia. See Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1045 (“Congress has delegated some of its power to call forth the militia to the President by statute, including 10 U.S.C. § 12406.”). If the Ninth Circuit had agreed with Defendants’ contention that there can be no ultra vires claim based on a president’s violation of Section 12406, it would presumably have said so when it ruled on Defendants’ motion to stay the Court’s grant of a TRO in June.13 Instead, it held that alleged violations of Section 12406 are judicially reviewable. See id. at 1047. “Section 12406 is nothing if not a delegation of authority, and so [the] Court’s analysis of whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits [of their ultra vires claim] will hinge on the degree to which Defendants’ actions are in violation of Section 12406’s command.” Chicago TRO at 30 n.13. Accordingly, Plaintiffs can demonstrate that Defendants exceeded their delegated authority if they can show that Defendants federalized the National Guard on August 5 and October 16 without satisfying the narrow prerequisites of Section 12406.14d

3. Merits

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed because, even if the Court can review the August 5 and October 16 Orders, those Orders “easily” satisfy Section 12406. Opp’n at 9–11. Not so. In rejecting Defendants’ argument that a president’s determinations under Section 12406 are entirely unreviewable, the Ninth Circuit instructed that “courts may at least review the President’s determination to ensure that it reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.’” Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1051 (citation omitted). Even under that “highly deferential standard of review,” see id. at 1052, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits.15

Section 12406 provides that a president “may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard” “[w]henever” one of three preconditions is met: “(1) the United States . . . is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation,” “(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,” or “(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (emphasis added).

Of these three preconditions to federalization, Defendants only truly advance one. Defendants do not argue that there was a foreign invasion (or danger thereof) that justified federalization. And they make only a passing argument in their briefing—and perfunctorily asserted at the motion hearing—that there was a rebellion (or danger thereof) in Los Angeles that justified federalization, see Opp’n at 10 (“including the need to protect against any risk of rebellion”), id. at 11 (“There remains . . . a danger of a rebellion in California.”). But the suggestion that there was any danger of a rebellion was even more farfetched in August and October than it was in June, when this Court first rejected it.16 As the Court explained then, “[w]hile Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.” Order Granting TRO at 20; see also id. (“Moreover, the Court is troubled by the implication . . . that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.”).17 Other courts in recent months have reached a similar understanding. See, e.g., Illinois, 155 F.4th at 939 (“ecause rebellions at least use deliberate, organized violence to resist governmental authority, the problematic incidents in this record clearly fall within the considerable daylight between protected speech and rebellion.”); Portland FOFCOL at 98– 102 (defining rebellion as “an organized group engaged in sustained, armed hostilities for the purpose of overtaking an instrumentality of government by unlawful or antidemocratic means”). Defendants point to no evidence that the scattered protesters in Los Angeles in August or October were organized, collectively armed, or determined to overtake the federal government.

Accordingly, the Court turns to the remaining precondition to federalization, and the one upon which Defendants primarily rely: that “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” See Opp’n at 9. Defendants fail to satisfy two different requirements of that precondition: “is unable” and “regular forces.”

Part 2 of 2

a. “Is Unable”

First, the Court turns to the requirement that the President “is unable” to execute federal law.

i. The Meaning of “Is Unable”

The Ninth Circuit has already defined “unable” in this context, holding that “unable . . . to execute the laws” does not actually mean not able to execute the laws. See Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1051–52 (rejecting the notion that Section 12406 requires that the president “be completely precluded from executing the relevant laws”).18 Rather, the Circuit held, it is enough that the president be “significantly impeded” in executing the laws. Id. at 1052. But see Newsom v. Trump, 158 F.4th 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2025) (Berzon, J., regarding the denial of rehearing en banc) (“But § 12406(3) says nothing about ‘interference’ or ‘significant impediments.’ It requires that the President be ‘unable with the regular forces to execute the laws’ before he is authorized to call in the National Guard. . . . ‘Unable’ requires something much closer to complete incapacity than a two-day minor disruption in a discrete location.” (emphasis in original)); Chicago TRO at 43 (“[T]he Court frankly does not agree that ‘significantly impeded’ is the same thing as ‘unable.’”); id. at 35 (explaining that “unable” at the time of Section 12406’s enactment meant “not able”).

The Ninth Circuit also explained the term “significantly impeded,” holding that “any minimal interference with the execution of the laws” is insufficient. Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1051–52. Because invasion and rebellion both involve “unusual and extreme exigencies,” which would render a president unable to execute some laws, the Ninth Circuit indicated that the third precondition must mean something similarly unusual and extreme, or else it would swallow the first two preconditions. Id. The Ninth Circuit pointed to evidence of violent protests (including protesters throwing “objects at ICE vehicles trying to complete a law enforcement operation”) on the day before the June 7 federalization as colorably demonstrating an inability to execute the laws. Id. at 1052.

The Ninth Circuit did not address the meaning of the word “is” in Section 12406, as there was no real dispute at the time of the TRO that the protest activity was ongoing. It is clear to this Court, however, that the word “is” conveys the present tense.19 See Portland FOFCOL at 79 (“Section 12406(3) asks whether ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws,’ not whether the President was at some point in the past unable to do so.” (emphasis in original)); Oregon v. Trump, 157 F.4th 1013, 1046 (9th Cir. 2025) (vacated opinion) (Graber, J., dissenting) (noting that “use of the present tense clearly conveys congressional intent that the present state of affairs is the relevant time” and collecting cases); see also Oral Argument at 1:30, Newsom v. Trump (No. 25-3727), https://perma.cc/A6Y5-L6LT (Judge Miller asking about “the fact that [Section 12406] says the President is unable . . . not . . . was at . . . some distant time in the past . . . doesn’t that suggest that it has to be tied to what current conditions are?”).

Congress did not say “was unable with the regular forces to execute the laws,” and for good reason: the preconditions in Section 12406 are “specified exigent circumstances.” See Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1045. Presently existing exigent circumstances, like an invasion, may demand streamlined responses. See Circumstance, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (defining “exigent circumstances” as “[a] situation that demands unusual or immediate action and that may allow people to circumvent usual procedures, as when a neighbor breaks through a window of a burning house to save someone inside.”); cf. United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 62 (1993) (exigent circumstances justify exception to Due Process requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard). Past exigent circumstances do not. See Portland FOFCOL at 79 (“Of course, an exigency does not exist only at a discrete point in time, but nor is it a ghost that continues to persist once it has passed.”); see also Oregon, 157 F.4th at 1046 (Graber, J., dissenting) (“Nor would it make sense for this narrow statute, which focuses on extreme and unusual occurrences, to allow the President to call up the National Guard to address an exigency that no longer exists.”).

Defendants reject this emphasis on the present tense, insisting that “past experiences necessarily inform any analysis of whether, and to what degree, continued federalization is appropriate moving forward.” Opp’n at 10. True enough. But there must be a colorable basis to conclude, based on past events, that there was an ongoing inability to execute the law at the time of federalization. Common sense must guide that inquiry.20 In order to assess the facts, the Court must evaluate them holistically. See Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1051 (Courts “review the President’s determination to ensure that it reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.’”). A colorable basis requires evidence linking a past event to a present inability to execute the law, such as the impact of any intervening events or the lack of attenuation to the time of the call-up. It is insufficient to simply point to a past event in and of itself.

Next, Defendants insist that Section 12406 permits federalization based on “‘mere risk.’” Opp’n at 10 (quoting MPI at 12–13). Defendants asserted to the Ninth Circuit that “[p]rotests [in Los Angeles] are now less frequent, less violent, and generally pose a less significant risk to federal personnel and property compared to before the Guard was deployed[,] [ b]ut that risk has not disappeared entirely.” Opp’n to Mot. to Vacate Stay (dkt. 137) at 5 in Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-3727. They similarly assert here that there is a “continued threat of harm to federal personnel and property.” Opp’n at 10. The Court shares Defendants’ concerns about public safety: all citizens in this country deserve to feel safe, and it is a core function of government to ensure that safety.

Yet it is also a core right of the people to be able to gather in protest of their government and its policies—even when doing so is provocative, and even when doing so causes inconvenience. See, e.g., Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24–25 (1972) (“To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance. . . . That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense not a sign of weakness but of strength.”); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 508 (“But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. . . Any word spoken . . . that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk.”). Every protest, and indeed any large gathering of people in public, carries with it a risk of violence, however unlikely. But the specter of a protest that is not a current impediment to the President’s ability to execute the laws becoming a future impediment is not adequate. See United States v. Weekley, 24 F.3d 1125, 1125 (9th Cir. 1994) (“A risk is a risk. But a risk of a risk is not enough of a risk.”). It is profoundly un-American to suggest that people peacefully exercising their fundamental right to protest constitute a risk justifying the federalization of military forces.21 Such logic, if accepted, would dangerously water down this precondition for federalization and run headfirst into the First Amendment. See Bise v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO Loc. 1969, 618 F.2d 1299, 1304 (9th Cir. 1979) (“First Amendment rights are among the most fragile possessions of a citizen.” (citation omitted)).

Regardless, the applicable standard when reviewing a president’s decision to federalize the National Guard is not whether there are some threats of harm or risks to personnel and property. Those considerations are relevant to Section 12406(3) only insofar as they render the President presently unable to execute the laws. Notably, the first two preconditions for federalization permit a president to call up the National Guard even if there is only a danger of an invasion or rebellion. See 10 U.S.C. § 12406(1), (2). The third precondition, in contrast, does not permit federalization when there is a “danger” that the president will be unable to execute the laws, but requires a present inability to do so. See 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3); see also Portland TRO at 22 (“[C]oncern about hypothetical future conduct does not demonstrate a present inability to execute the laws.”); Portland FOFCOL at 80 (same); Oregon, 157 F.4th at 1046 (Graber, J., dissenting) (“[T]he text of subsection three contrasts with the text of the other two subsections in a way that removes any doubt about the relevant time frame. . . . [S]ubsection three exclusively concerns the present, not the past and not the future.”). Without a demonstration that the President’s ability to execute the law is currently being impeded at the time of deployment, he lacks adequate grounds for federalization under Section 12406(3).

ii. Application to the August and October Orders

The Court now turns to whether the President’s determination on August 5, 2025 and October 16, 2025 that he “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws” “reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.’” See Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1051 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs contend that “[e]ven if there was a colorable basis to invoke § 12406 in Los Angeles in June, that does not authorize Defendants to keep soldiers deployed there indefinitely.” MPI at 10. Defendants concede that “conditions have now improved,” and even declare that “the federal protection mission has been a success,” yet still insist that “the conditions required for federalization under Section 12406 continue to exist in California.” Opp’n at 9.

The Court notes that Defendants focus on the current state of affairs. See, e.g., id. (“[T]he conditions required for federalization under Section 12406 continue to exist in California.”). But the motion’s focus, and therefore the Court’s focus, is whether the President had a colorable basis for federalization at the time that he issued the challenged Orders, in August and October of 2025. Nevertheless, Defendants point to no evidence currently justifying federalization either. Their assertion that “[t]here remains an inability to execute the laws . . . in California” is not only unsupported, but actually borders on a misrepresentation. See Opp’n at 11.22

August Order. In August of 2025, the situation in Los Angeles was calm. Defendants, nonetheless, rely on two points to justify the August 5 Order. First, they cite to the declaration of Roger Scharmen, Deputy Regional Director for FPS, see Opp’n at 9 (citing Scharmen Decl. (Opp’n Ex. A)), which mentions the violence at the Roybal Building in “early June” and then no other incidents until October, see Scharmen Decl. ¶¶ 4–6. Scharmen states that “continuing to the present, protests have continued, albeit in reduced numbers,” adding that typically there are fewer than 100 protesters, “but protests that are attended by up to 500 people still occur.” Id. ¶ 5. He also states that “the smaller protests are for the most part peaceful.” Id. ¶ 6. Second, Defendants point to a July 10 incident in Camarillo, California at a cannabis farm. Opp’n at 10–11. In Camarillo, federal law enforcement initially requested assistance from the National Guard, then canceled that request, before coming under attack by a crowd throwing rocks. Id. Defendants reason that “[m]ilitary decision-makers could reasonably rely upon such considerations in concluding that a small deployment of Guardsmen is still required.” Id. at 11.

But an incident on July 10, 50 miles from Los Angeles, is not a compelling reason in and of itself to federalize troops on August 5. Even if there were exigent circumstances on July 10 in Camarillo, they had passed in the weeks thereafter, when there was no indication that ICE intended to return to Camarillo, when the National Guard was in fact assisting on “zero” ICE field operations like the one in Camarillo, see Santacruz Test. on 8/11/2025 (dkt. 162) at 198:5–21, and when Defendants had decided to release most of the Guardsmen, see Sauter Decl. ¶ 5.

Likewise, even if there were exigent circumstances in early June at the Roybal Building, two months thereafter that exigency had passed, as there were often just a few dozen protesters, no violent incidents, and no arrests at that location. See Hurtado Decl. ¶ 11; see also Scharmen Decl. ¶¶ 4–6; Duryee Decl. ¶ 9. “[A]n exigency [is not] a ghost that continues to persist once it has passed.” Portland FOFCOL at 79. Defendants reason that while the unrest in June subsided, that abatement “was due at least in part to the presence of Guardsmen in Los Angeles.” Opp’n at 10; see also Scharmen Decl. ¶ 5 (crediting “the presence of the National Guard” for reduction in violence in protests at federal buildings). But as Plaintiffs respond, “The point of federalization is to abate the exigency, so the claimed success of the federalization cannot be grounds for finding a further exigency.” See Reply at 8. If federalization justified federalization, it would become a positive feedback loop that perpetually rationalized federal control of state troops. Defendants’ rank speculation regarding the effects of the Guardsmen’s presence is insufficient as Defendants have been unable to identify even “minimal interference with the execution of the laws” in August 2025. See Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1052.

The Court also rejects Defendants’ argument that the risk of future impediments was enough to federalize the National Guard in August. Even accepting Defendants’ contention that future risk is relevant to Section 12406(3), Defendants have identified no colorable basis for the August federalization based on such risk. Defendants cannot credibly assert that the National Guard is necessary to “keep most protests from becoming violent,” when they concede that protests since June now only occur “in reduced numbers.” See Scharmen Decl. ¶¶ 5, 9. The protests around that time specifically had been small and peaceful. Hurtado Decl. ¶ 12; Scharmen Decl. ¶ 6. Again, peaceful protests cannot be the sole justification for federalization. See supra pp. 21–22.

Moreover, risk must be viewed in the context of what resources are available to prevent, mediate, or manage it. The risk that a handful of people could overtake a federal building, for example, looks different if there is just one guard, as opposed to many, protecting that building. Consequently, it defies the record—and common sense—to conclude that risks stemming from protests—in August, October, or even present day— could not have been sufficiently managed without resorting to the National Guard. After all, local law enforcement like the LAPD, the LASD, and the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) have not only been willing to manage the protests,23 but have capably done so since June.24 See Hurtado Decl. ¶ 12 (LAPD was “well-equipped” to handle the recent protests and did so “without mutual aid, the National Guard, or even the Department’s own specialized crime suppression units.”); Duryee Decl. ¶ 9 (“CHP stands ready to respond to any future significant protest activities anywhere in California, including in the Los Angeles area.”). That is even before considering the resources of FPS, other federal civil law enforcement, or the military.25 One cannot colorably conclude that these organizations were so unable to manage the then-existing risk that the National Guard was required to protect the city’s federal buildings.

As this Court can attest, individuals protesting the federal government often gather outside federal buildings. There is always some risk that a protester will engage in violence. But, as the Court has explained, if the threat that a protester might engage in violence outside a federal building was all that it took for the President to federalize the National Guard, then the narrow preconditions of Section 12406 would be rendered meaningless. See Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cnty. Emps. Ret. Fund, 583 U.S. 416, 431 (2018) (“Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Based on a holistic evaluation, there is no colorable basis to conclude that the President was “significantly impeded” from executing federal law on August 5, 2025.

October Order. The Court’s analysis of the October 16 Order differs from its analysis of the August 5 Order in only a few respects.

First, and most obvious, October is two months even further removed from the unrest in June that the Ninth Circuit held satisfied Section 12406(3), making that justification for federalization that much weaker.

Second, Defendants have identified two other incidents that occurred in October, apparently at the Roybal Building. On October 9, 2025, “a known gang member” verbally threatened (“watch out,” “leave and [let] gangs run this,” “you think I am playing?”) an FPS Inspector. Opp’n at 9 (citing Scharmen Decl. as evidence that threats have continued); Scharmen Decl. ¶ 6. That threat did not escalate into any physical violence and the gang member apparently left on his own. See Scharmen Decl. ¶ 6. The next day, an immigration protestor shined “a high-power laser” in an FPS officer’s eyes, “causing eye damage.” Id. ¶ 7. Defendants provide no further information about whether any National Guard members or law enforcement intervened in those incidents or how long they lasted. In any case, while it is never acceptable to threaten or injure an FPS officer, Section 12406(3) does not ask whether there are threats to individual federal employees, but whether the President is presently unable to execute the laws. See supra p. 22. These isolated incidents do not show that.26 Even if the two October incidents were enough to create a risk that the President would be unable to execute the laws, there is no indication that local law enforcement, FPS, other federal civil law enforcement, or the military were incapable of managing that risk.

Third, the October 16 Order is based on events in Oregon, not anything occurring in Los Angeles.27 See Strong Decl. Exs. 4 & 5. In the same breath that the Order federalized the Guard, it immediately redeployed 200 federalized National Guards members from California to Oregon. Id. Indeed, in sending 200 of the 300 remaining federalized California National Guard members to Oregon, and keeping them there, Defendants signaled that there was no pressing need for them in Los Angeles. See Eck Decl. ¶ 9 (200 federalized California National Guard members remained in Portland as of 10/31/25). Judge Immergut held that the events in Oregon did not justify the deployment of the National Guard there. See generally Portland FOFCOL. Those same events certainly do not justify federalization in California.

Based on a holistic evaluation, there is no colorable basis to conclude that the President was “significantly impeded” from executing federal law on October 16, 2025.

b. “The Regular Forces”

Next, the Court turns to the requirement that the President “is unable with the regular forces” to execute federal law.

i. The Meaning of “the Regular Forces”

The Ninth Circuit has not addressed Section 12406(3)’s use of the term “the regular forces.” See Newsom, 158 F.4th at 1000 (Berzon, J., regarding the denial of rehearing en banc) (noting that “[t]he panel opinion gives no role whatever to the ‘with regular forces’ requirement.”).28 In addition, this Court’s order granting a TRO paid the term little attention, concluding that, “n this case, the regular forces were and are still very much on duty,” as ICE continued to execute the federal immigration laws in Los Angeles notwithstanding the protests. Order Granting TRO at 24. To the extent that this Court assumed that “the regular forces” meant civilian workers or civilian law enforcement, that assumption might have been in error. A review of materials related to the statutory history of Section 12406(3) not before the Court at the time of the TRO persuasively demonstrates that “the regular forces” means the regular forces of the military.

When the predecessor to Section 12406(3) was enacted, “regular forces” meant “the soldiers and officers regularly enlisted with the Army and Navy, as opposed to militiamen who did not make it their livelihoods to serve their country but instead took up arms only when called forth in times of national emergency.” Chicago TRO at 35. As Professor Martin Lederman of Georgetown Law explained, in December of 1901, President Roosevelt “implored Congress to [establish] a means by which the states’ militia could be enhanced and effectively called into service.” Lederman Br. (dkt. 14) in Trump v. Illinois, Case No. 25A443 (Oct. 21, 2025) at 9 (quoting Perpich, 496 U.S. at 341). Congress responded to Roosevelt’s appeal by passing the Dick Act in 1903, which among other things sought “to establish closer relations and better cooperation between the National Guard and the Regular Army.” Id. at 9–10 (quoting S. Rep. 57–2129 at 2 (1902)). When Congress amended the Dick Act in 1908, it was “to ensure that in cases where the use of the ‘regular forces’ was inadequate to execute federal laws, the President would have to call upon the National Guard as the initial supplement to the standing army before deploying any volunteer units.” Id. at 11 (emphasis in original); see also id. at 12 (“The effect of the law was to prescribe the National Guard as the ‘second line of defense’ . . . as a supplement to the regular army.” (citation omitted)). Professor Lederman recounted plentiful references to “Regulars” and “the Regular Army” in the congressional reports surrounding the 1903 and 1908 legislation, and in the over-hundred years leading up to it. Id. at 12–14. He concluded that “whenever anyone in one of the three branches discussed ‘the regular forces’ in relation to the militia, the National Guard or the volunteer forces, they were referring to those persons serving within the standing U.S. military, particularly the army.” Id. at 17.29 Indeed, he asserted that he was “unaware of any counterexamples.” Id. Unsurprisingly, when asked at the motion hearing whether there is any historical basis for believing that in 1908, “regular forces” meant anything other than the standing army, Defendants were unable to point to any.30

This Court finds this historical review persuasive on the meaning of “the regular forces.” But this Court is also well aware that the Supreme Court will soon rule on this issue, and will have the last word. Accordingly, the Court will apply both the “military” meaning of regular forces and the Court’s earlier understanding of that term.

ii. Application to the August and October Orders

The Court now turns to whether the President’s determination on August 5 and October 16 that he “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws” “reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.’” See Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1051. Even if the evidence that Defendants point to in support of the August and October Orders represented a significant impediment to executing federal law in Los Angeles, Defendants do not even attempt to show that the President would have had any difficulty executing federal law with the assistance of the significant available military force at his command in California.31

The Court takes judicial notice that there are 34 military installations in California. See California Installations, Military OneSource, https://perma.cc/N5NT-PDW5. There were 160,074 active members of the military in California as of June 2025. See DoD Personnel, Workforce Reports & Publications, Defense Manpower Data Center, https://dwp.dmdc.osd.mil/dwp/app/dod-da ... ce-reports. And there are 7,319 active members of the Army in California. See id. The notion that such a substantial military force, if otherwise permitted to execute the laws, see 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (Posse Comitatus Act), would have had any difficulty managing the small, ongoing, peaceful protests in Los Angeles, or the two incidents at the Roybal Building in October, each involving a single individual, has no merit.

Even under this Court’s previous understanding of “the regular forces,” there is no colorable basis to conclude that civilian law enforcement alone would have had any difficulty enabling the President to execute federal law in August or October. See Illinois, 155 F.4th at 939–40 (“We need not fully resolve these thorny and complex issues of statutory interpretation now, because we conclude that the administration has not met its burden under either standard.”). As discussed earlier, Plaintiffs submitted evidence that the LAPD was “well equipped to handle these protests and did so without mutual aid, the National Guard, or even the Department’s own specialized crime suppression units.” Hurtado Decl. ¶ 11. And Defendants submitted no contravening evidence suggesting that civilian law enforcement was inadequate. Defendants’ hypothetical that the FPS “would not have the resources on hand to respond fully” “if the protests grow in size and become violent again,” see Scharmen Decl. ¶ 12, does not mean that FPS did not have the resources available to deal with the altogether manageable circumstances in August and October, that the President could not employ support beyond FPS, or that local or state law enforcement would not also have been available to assist.

Accordingly, notwithstanding the highly deferential standard of review, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in arguing that the August 5 and October 16 Orders fail to meet two requirements of Section 12406(3)—that the president “is unable” to execute the laws or that he is unable to do so with “the regular forces.” Because Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits as to Section 12406, they are also likely to succeed on the merits of their Tenth Amendment claim. See Bond v. U.S., 564 U.S. 211, 225 (2011) (“[A]ction that exceeds the National Government’s enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States.”); see also Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1044 (“[P]arties agree that Plaintiffs’ Tenth Amendment claim, at this stage, rises and falls with their ultra vires claim based on § 12406.”).

4. Amendment

Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed because Plaintiffs’ motion seeks relief that goes beyond the scope of the complaint. Opp’n at 12. Defendants assert that the complaint, which Plaintiffs filed on June 9, made “no mention of any decisions to extend the federalization,” and so “Plaintiffs must amend their complaint before the Court could possibly entertain their motion.” Id. This argument is both impractical—as it would require Plaintiffs to return to court to amend their complaint every time Defendants filed a new federalization order, unnecessarily slowing the adjudication of these issues—and wrong.

Although the complaint predates the August 5 and October 16 Orders, it anticipates them, asking the Court to declare that the June 7 Memo “and any future orders” that call the California National Guard “into service under the stated authority of the President’s use of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 are unauthorized by and contrary to the laws of the United States.” Compl. at 21. The central claim in the complaint was that Defendants’ June 7 Memo did not satisfy any of the preconditions in Section 12406, see id. ¶ 88, and the central relief sought in the complaint was the enjoining of the federalization, see id. ¶ 92. The motion now pending seeks to “enjoin any continued federalization and deployment of the National Guard troops in and around Los Angeles, and end this unlawful federalization now,” MPI at 1, and turns entirely on Section 12406, id. at 10. Of course there is a “sufficient nexus” between the two. See Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). Indeed, it is Defendants who refer to the June 7 Memo and the August and October Orders as part of one big “mission.” See Opp’n at 4.32 Moreover, when this Court expressed caution about proceeding on this motion, the Ninth Circuit held that the Court had jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ challenge to that order, something it presumably would not have done if the motion sought relief beyond the scope of this case. See USCA Order.

Plaintiffs therefore need not have amended the complaint for the Court to entertain this motion.

B. Irreparable Harm

A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22; see also Michigan v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 667 F.3d 765, 788 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding that harm need not be certain to occur for injunctive relief to issue). The moving party must show a “sufficient causal connection” between the defendant’s conduct and their anticipated injury. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2011). “Irreparable harm is traditionally defined as harm for which there is no adequate legal remedy, such as an award of damages.” Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014).

Plaintiffs have demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief based on their “constitutional sovereign harms” under the Tenth Amendment. Reply at 9; see also Bond, 564 U.S. at 225. Defendants attempt to frame the harm as “statutory, not constitutional,” because Plaintiffs bring “alleged violations of a federal statute.” Opp’n at 13. But those statutory violations themselves give rise to constitutional, sovereign injury as federalization wrests control of the National Guard from the State. Indeed, the other courts with National Guard cases are in accord. See, e.g., Illinois, 155 F.4th at 940 (“[T]he administration’s likely violation of Illinois’s Tenth Amendment rights by deploying Guard troops in the state over the state’s objections constitutes proof of an irreparable harm.” (cleaned up)); Preliminary Injunction (dkt. 134) in Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756-IM (granting a preliminary injunction based, in part, on a likelihood of irreparable harm to Oregon’s sovereignty). Because Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their constitutional claim, “that showing will almost always demonstrate [the plaintiff] is suffering irreparable harm as well.” Baird v. Bonta, 81 F.4th 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2023).

C. Balance of Equities and Public Interest

A party seeking injunctive relief must also demonstrate that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “‘In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.’” Id. (quoting Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982)). Because the federal government is a party, the last two Winter factors merge. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 993 F.3d 640, 668 (9th Cir. 2021).

The balance of the equities and the public interest tip in Plaintiffs’ favor. Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their Tenth Amendment injury claim, their showing “tips the merged third and fourth factors decisively in [their] favor.” Baird, 81 F.4th at 1042. That is because it is “always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Riley’s Am. Heritage Farms v. Elsasser, 32 F.4th 707, 731 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012)). In contrast, the harm of denying Defendants access to California’s National Guard members is minimal given that Defendants “have adjusted downward the number of federalized Guardsmen” because, as they say, the “deployment has succeeded.” Opp’n at 1.

The Court also notes that it is contrary to the public interest to have “militarized actors unfamiliar with local history and context” roaming the streets. Chicago TRO at 24. Rather, “the public has a significant interest in having only well-trained law enforcement officers deployed in their communities and avoiding unnecessary shows of military force in their neighborhoods.” Illinois, 155 F.4th at 940.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles.33

Defendants are DIRECTED to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.
The Court STAYS this order until noon on Monday, December 15, 2025.

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to post a nominal bond of $100 within 24 hours. The bond shall be filed in the Clerk’s Office and be deposited into the registry of the Court. If said bond is not posted by the aforementioned date and time, this Order shall be dissolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2025
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-04870-CRB Document 225 Filed 12/10/25

_______________

Notes:

1 The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison) (“TO what expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”).

2 Secretary Hegseth signed the memo by hand, adding “Thanks Gavin!” August 15 Memo at 5.

3 Secretary Hegseth again added a handwritten “thanks!” to Governor Newsom. Kurland Decl. Ex. B at 7.

4 That same day, following a three-day bench trial, this Court granted injunctive relief for Plaintiffs on their Posse Comitatus Act claim. See Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief at 3. The Posse Comitatus Act claim is not material to the pending motion.

5 See also Order Granting TRO at 34 n.13 (noting that amici from other states argued in early June that they were “‘impacted by the unlimited scope of’ the June 7 Memo.”) (quoting States Amici (dkt. 30-1) at 2).

6 The en banc hearing has yet to take place at the time of this Order.

7 Those individuals returned to Los Angeles by October 30, 2025. Eck Decl. ¶ 8.

8 As Defendants argue, it is possible to construe President Trump’s June memorandum as not defining a closed period of service, since it is for 60 days or at Secretary Hegseth’s discretion. June 7 Memo. But Secretary Hegseth’s subsequent memorandum forecloses this possibility. See June 7 DOD Memo; see also 10 U.S.C. § 12407(a) (period of service is specified “in the call”).

9 Why else would Defendants continue to issue orders if the June 7 Memo alone was sufficient?

10 During oral argument in the Ninth Circuit for this case, Judge Bennett raised this exact issue, asking, “Let’s say the President’s original call-up had a termination date. Would you agree that your argument [for nonreviewability] wouldn’t apply to a subsequent order of the President extending the date?” Oral Argument at 5:27, Newsom v. Trump (No. 25-3727), https://perma.cc/A6Y5-L6LT.

11 During oral argument in the Ninth Circuit for this case, Judge Miller expressed concern about this idea, asking if there was “any time limit on how long [the Guardsmen] can stay federalized.” Oral Argument at 1:20, Newsom v. Trump (No. 25-3727), https://perma.cc/A6Y5-L6LT. When Defendants answered that there was no limit, Judge Miller asked if “the fact that [Section 12406] says the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws—not, you know, was some distant time in the past when he decided to federalize them—doesn’t that suggest that it has to be tied to what current conditions are?” Id. at 1:30.

12 At the hearing, Defendants implied that Plaintiffs are in fact arguing about headcount, as Plaintiffs want zero federalized Guardsmen. That is too clever by half. Plaintiffs’ core argument does not transform into one about headcount merely because it would result in a complete lack of Guardsmen in federal service.

13 The Circuit even referenced the ultra vires claim without raising any such concern. Id. at 1044.

14 Defendants do not assert that Plaintiffs have some other opportunity for judicial review. See Opp’n at 11 (“[H]ere, the only possible avenue for review is an ultra vires claim.”).

15 At the motion hearing, Defendants asserted that if the Court can review a federalization order after the initial federalization, it should apply an even “more deferential” standard of review. They provided no support for that position.

16 Defendants made the incredible argument at the motion hearing that there is a current danger of rebellion in Los Angeles. The evidence they offered was the protests six months ago and the fact that, on December 1, 2025, a single individual—acting alone and having burned down his own apartment that morning—threw two unlit Molotov cocktails at a federal building, injuring no one. See Notice (dkt. 220) Ex. 1. But the exigency of the June protests has long since passed, and the misconduct of a lone individual hardly represents “deliberate, organized violence to resist government authority.” See Illinois, 155 F.4th at 939. The idea that there is a current danger of rebellion rings especially hollow in light of Defendants’ ongoing draw down of federalized Guardsmen: if Defendants truly believed that there was such a danger, how could only 100 Guardsmen be the answer?

17 At the motion hearing, Defendants again made the concerning argument that any demonstration against the policy of the Executive, if organized, can constitute a threat of rebellion. But organized protest is not inherently violent, nor is it an “unusual and extreme” exigency. See Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1051. To the contrary, it is quite common and part of the fabric of our nation. Indeed, “[p]ublic demonstrations and protests are clearly protected by the First Amendment.” Index Newspapers LLC v. United States Marshals Serv., 977 F.3d 817, 830 (9th Cir. 2020). And the “Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment [even] in times of crisis.” Cf. Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14, 21 (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).

18 To be clear, in granting a TRO, this Court held that President Trump had not been “unable” to execute the laws because ICE had continued to detain and arrest people in Los Angeles despite the protests, Defendants provided no support for their argument that ICE could have detained more people in the absence of protests, the statute said “unable to execute the laws” and not “faces obstacles that cause him to underperform in executing the laws,” and Defendants’ showing compared unfavorably to the Postal Service Strike, when the mail system was “paralyzed.” Order Granting TRO at 22–24.

19 The word “whenever” in Section 12406 also communicates a temporal limitation to the present moment. See MPI at 12.

20 As Judge Immergut asked, “could the President rely solely on the civil unrest in Portland, Oregon, in 2020, to justify his deployment of military troops to the Portland ICE facility in 2025?” Portland FOFCOL at 78; see also Oral Argument at 4:04, Newsom v. Trump (No. 25-3727), https://perma.cc/A6Y5-L6LT] (Judge Bennett: “So if . . . for example, this statute were in effect at the Founding, and President Washington had called up militia to deal with the Whiskey Rebellion, notwithstanding the Whiskey Rebellion having gone away, that they could be called up forever without judicial review.”); Oregon, 157 F.4th at 1045 (Graber, J., dissenting) (rejecting the government’s suggestion that “even if there is complete calm for weeks beforehand, we should look further back in time to assess whether a present exigency exists.”).

21 See Cox v. State of La., 379 U.S. 559, 574 (1965) (“We reaffirm the repeated holdings of this Court that our constitutional command of free speech and assembly is basic and fundamental and encompasses peaceful social protest, so important to the preservation of the freedoms treasured in a democratic society.”); cf. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 460–61 (2011) (“As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”); Hon. Thurgood Marshall, Civil Rights And Race Relations: A Seminar 18 (1966) (“[T]his government was founded on protest.”); Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., Sedition, a Free Press and Personal Rule, Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918 (“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”).

22 As discussed above, see supra note 16, the December 1 incident fails to demonstrate a current inability to execute federal law. While it no doubt represents an illegal and dangerous act of violence, that lone bad actor does not rise to the level of an “unusual or extreme exigenc[y].” See Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1051. Indeed, in their press release about the incident, the Justice Department states that it was able to manage this incident “immediately” and that the “FBI is investigating this matter with assistance from [FPS], the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Homeland Security Investigations, the [LAPD], and the Los Angeles Fire Department.” See Notice Ex. 1. There was no mention of the need for, or involvement of, the California National Guard. Defendants also fail to articulate any federal laws that the brief December 1 incident significantly impeded the President from executing.

23 Defendants’ suggestion at the motion hearing that because Los Angeles is a “sanctuary city,” its law enforcement officers might be unwilling to assist with violence against federal personnel or property has absolutely no support in the record. As the Court pointed out and Defendants agreed, many crimes against federal personnel and property would constitute both state and federal crimes that state law enforcement would have a sworn duty to address. Nor is there any evidence that because Los Angeles is a “sanctuary city,” its law enforcement officers are significantly impeding ICE’s ability to execute the law in Los Angeles.

24 While not pertinent to the August and October Orders, the LAPD and CHP were more than capable of handling the “No Kings” protest in Los Angeles on October 18, 2025, which had between 75,000 and 100,000 participants. Hurtado Decl. ¶ 13 (only “normal operational resources” were required to manage the protest); Duryee Decl. ¶ 7 (no “direct deployment of [CHP] resources” was required for the protest).

25 The Court holds that the term “regular forces” in Section 12406 refers to the federal military, rather than federal civilian forces. See infra pp. 28–30. For purposes of the present analysis, however, the Court determines that both kinds of forces would have been able to manage the risk stemming from protests in coordination with local law enforcement.

26 Scharmen also declares that “having the National Guard present at the federal facilities that FPS protects . . . has allowed FPS to reduce its staffing levels.” Scharmen Decl. ¶ 9. He goes on to explain that “FPS is a small agency with a total of 776 law enforcement officers.” Id. ¶ 11. But Section 12406(3) does not permit the President to federalize the National Guard to make up for staffing shortages in other agencies. As discussed elsewhere, the President has many other resources available to him. Only if the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the law may he federalize the National Guard pursuant to Section 12406(3).

27 The August 5 Order did not actually reference events in California, but it at least did not explicitly concern events in any other state. See Strong Decl. Ex. 1.

28 The parties also have not addressed this point in any detail before this Court. See, e.g., MPI at 11 n.4 (asserting in a footnote that it is reasonable to construe “regular forces” as federal law enforcement or members of the regular military); see Opp’n (not addressing).

29 See also Chicago TRO at 36–37 (noting that in McClaughry v. Deming, 186 U.S. 49, 56 (1902), the Supreme Court distinguished between “the men composing the militia”—i.e., the Guard—and “the Regular Army”); Lederman Br. at 16–17 (noting, for example, that Secretary of State Luke Edward Wright distinguished between the militia and the “regular forces” in an annual report to the President in 1908).

30 Defendants argued instead that they believe from the context of Section 12406(3) that “regular forces” means the authorities normally charged with executing the laws. That reading would be more persuasive if the Court interpreted statutory language in a vacuum; here, the statutory history makes Congress’s intent clear.

31 This fact is devastating not only as to the actual evidence that Defendants say demonstrates a present inability to execute the law, but also as to Defendants’ speculative arguments about future risk, like violence only being abated due to the presence of the National Guard.

32 Defendants’ position is that the August 5 and October 16 Orders were not new orders “calling up” the National Guard but mere continuations of the June 7 Memo. See Opp’n at 2 (distinguishing these orders, which they characterize as “[t]he continuation decision[s] challenged here,” from “the initial decision to federalize.”); see also id. at 9 (reiterating “continuation of . . . valid federalization” characterization). By their own reasoning, then, there is all the more “relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.” See Pacific Radiation Oncology, 810 F.3d at 636.

33 Plaintiffs asked the Court at the motion hearing to enjoin any future federalizations based on the same circumstances. In light of the deference owed the President’s determinations under Section 12406 and the Court’s recognition that circumstances are always changing, the Court DENIES this request. Plaintiffs may return to this Court to challenge any future federalization order that they believe violates the law.