The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Maximillian Alvarez:

All right. Welcome everyone to Working People, a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. My name is Maximillian Alvarez, and today we are talking about labor unions, why they are important, why they have always been important for working people, and why they are more important now than ever, and why you should be part of one. In their new book, Fired Up About Unions, veteran labor educator, organizer, and writer Cole Rockharts writes, “We are living in a pivotal moment in labor history. At a time when corporations have more power, profit, and political influence than ever before, workers are leading inspiring union organizing campaigns and taking on bosses to win big. These workers are fighting not just for themselves, but for their communities too. Their struggles reveal that everyday people can unite, change their conditions, and build better workplaces and a better world.” So this is what we’re going to be talking about today, and we’re really basing this conversation on Cole Rockhart’s great new book, which everyone should go read.

You can find it using the links in the show notes for this episode. And I’m really grateful to have Cole Rockarts themselves joining us on the show today. So Cole, welcome. Congratulations on this important book. Could you tell our listeners a little bit about the book and where it came from?

Cole Rockarts:

Absolutely. Thanks, Maximillian. It’s really exciting also to hear someone else read it because it’s just been in the ether for such a long time, so thanks for that. It’s very cool. So Fired Up About Unions, which again, you can get at BTL between the lines in Canada or AK Press in the US or your local library, give it an order there, really examines what unions are, demystifies the myths around unions, that we don’t need them, that they’re outdated, that young workers can’t be organized or different types of workers can’t be organized, and really lays the groundwork of why unions have become so weak in our respective countries in Canada and the US, and talks about why young people can be the antidote to all of the problems facing work and really unions themselves. Unions aren’t perfect, but if we take the view that unions are made up of people and we recognize that our coworkers are just regular people and we all ultimately want the same things, and that’s higher wages, protections at work, health and safety on the job, and better, that’s the great place where we can start to come together and change not only our individual situations, but as I say in the book, our communities and even beyond.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Hell yeah. And we’re going to be talking about how to do that, how to do better, get better, and fight better from the shop floor and beyond. And I’m so grateful with Cole’s help that we’ve pulled together an incredible panel of folks here, union organizers and members from across Canada and the US. And we’re going to dig into all this now, but first I wanted to ask if y’all could introduce yourselves to our listeners.

Hassan Husseini:

My name is Hassan Husseini. My day job is a national negotiator with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which is the largest federal public sector union in Canada. As such, I’m also unionized member of Unifor Local 2025. Unifor is a merger of a couple of private sector unions in Canada, one of them being the Canadian Auto Workers that split from the American Auto Workers Union back in the 80s. And I am also a member of the National Steering Committee of Labor for Palestine Canada. I’ve been active in social justice and labor movement for 30 plus, maybe more years. Happy to be here. Thank you.

Tina Oh:

Hi folks. My name is Tina Oh. My pronouns are she/her. I’m joining in from Halifax, Nova Scotia here in Eastern Canada. My role is organizing coordinator with Service Employees International Union Local two. We’re the only national SEIU division in Canada, but I also have a role as vice president for Eastern Canada. So the region is all of Atlanta, Canada, Newfoundland, PI, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Really happy to be here.

Alex Raymond:

Hey y’all, I’m Alex Raymond. I am a mental health worker out of Richmond, Virginia, United States, and I am just a regular worker organizer, very new to the labor space, but very fired up to be here.

Cole Rockarts:

My name is Cole Rocker. My pronouns are they/them, and I am a longtime union staffer, although the veteran brand doesn’t sit well when Hassan’s in the room. I’ve been working for labor unions for the past 10 years, and that’s been in Canada and the US. And I’m now a labor educator at a healthcare union in Los Angeles. And I am the author of the forthcoming book, Fired Up About Unions, which is about why young people can change the working world and the labor movement.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Oh yeah. So maybe we need an updated taxonomy. We got veterans here and then we got legends with Hassan. So we got the full spectrum here, baby. And I’m so grateful to have all of you on and to hear all of your perspectives on this important subject. So I want to dive right in and ask y’all, what have unions meant to you over your lifetime? What did you know or not know about unions before being part of one? And I’m asking that as someone who does a labor show now, but knew jack shit about unions for most of my life.

Alex Raymond:

I kind of want to just directly responding to that, that was sort of my experience, that labor organizing in mental health, that’s really not a thing. But over the years that I’ve been in this industry, almost 15 years coming up this November, we just see wages decrease the amount of patients or clients that we are responsible for increase expectations going up while benefits go down. And a lot of us just silently accept that. We get into this line of work because we care and it almost feels like a betrayal to the work that we’re so committed to, to even think that better is possible. But it had always been a discussion. And growing up, my dad, he was an organizer with SEIU in Boston during his residency, and he would always tell me this story when he was laid off for labor organizing, that it was just the proudest moment of his professional life when all of his coworkers came to his shitty Boston apartment and they essentially shut the hospital down.

There was a lot of anxiety about what that would do to patients, but there was a lot of camaraderie and that’s something that’s missing nowadays. We’re struggling to get by and we deserve better. And I think that sort of bubbled up over the last couple of years. And a group of us got together a couple years back and we started organizing from the ground up, literally Googling how to make union. And we came into contact with a lot of people that have a lot of expertise and thank God because we needed all the help we can get. And we went from zero union density to more than zero and growing each and every month. And we formed a union here in Richmond, Virginia with Teamsters Local 322. And now there are unions with United Automotive Workers within our industry as well as National Union of Healthcare Workers and United Food and Commercial Workers.

And we’ve had to learn what all those acronyms mean and what they can mean for people in our field. And it’s been a huge thing. But from my perspective growing up, I’d always thought that was such an important thing to do, but just never really knew how to go about doing it.

Hassan Husseini:

From my experience way back when I first became unionized, and I think it’s still with us today, the thinking about unions is that it’s only about money. It’s only going to put more money in your pocket by increasing your wages from what you had before you were unionized. And to me, the thing that struck me, and I think it’s still with me today and in the organizing campaigns that I was involved in, it is really important for us to recognize and talk to workers about the fact that it’s about increasing your power in the workplace. It is about working class empowerment, and it is about some of the things that Cole just rhymed off with respect to health and safety, with respect to being valued in the workplace, giving your voice on so many different committees, and taking away the power, the exclusive power that bosses have without a union.

So I didn’t know that at the beginning. I came in, I though, okay, my wage will go up a little bit, not knowing that it’s going to give me so much more empowerment both individually and as a collective within the workplace. And that is something that opened my eyes to huge possibilities for that particular workplace I was in, but for the working class generally. And that lesson is still with me up to this point. I think things are getting even worse in terms of capitalist bosses propaganda that we can give you a little bit of a bump in your wages. You don’t have to go to unions because they know that when you unionize, you have more power in the workplace and that’s what scares the shit out of them.

Tina Oh:

Hasan, I’m just going to piggyback off that because I think that last point you just mentioned about how non-union workers are still gaining and benefiting off the winds of union workers is so relevant and I think that’s how I want to answer this question. It’s going to take me a second to get there, but I’ll get there. So my family moved to Edmonton, Alberta when I was two years old. My sister was five and it was just my mom and my dad. There was no other kind of family support systems that my parents had in Canada nor in Edmonton. So that like many non-economic migrants, that meant working traditionally low wage service jobs.

My parents have never worked a union job in their working careers in this country. And one of my dad’s longest held jobs was as a housekeeper and a janitor at the Western Hotel, and that was a non-union job. But the reason why that’s relevant is that that job, even though it was non-union, it was the first job that my dad had that gave us health benefits. It was the job that ended up getting us permanent residency so that we could stay in the country. And the reason why, of course, that connects to unions is because the work of the private sector hotel unions that have raised the industry standards to the point that these non-union hotels cannot recruit workers without offering health benefits, without offering them a pathway to permanent residency. And so I think about that job, especially now that I work for a janitor’s union, SEIU Local two, half of our membership is janitors, private sector contracted out janitors.

And now that I’m in this role and I think back to my childhood and the horrors really that my parents had to face in their working careers, I know absolutely without a doubt in my mind that our lives would’ve been better had my dad had a union at that hotel or any union really. And at the same time, I also can see how our lives still greatly benefited from the wins of the working class that have progressed the labor movement to the point where non-union jobs are still offering health benefits and whatnot. So I just wanted to leave that there.

Cole Rockarts:

I think for me, it’s a bit of a combination of all these things. As my co-podcasters have just said, a union can be the difference between having healthcare or not, having benefits or not. When I was younger, I didn’t realize that my mom was unionized. She was a teacher for many years before she retired, and it wasn’t until I started getting involved in my student movement. And in Canada, the student union system is quite different than in the US, and I think the US should absolutely steal this idea from Canada. But many of our student organizations that fight for lower tuition fees or free tuition or more rights for international students or different campaigns of equity on campuses are unionized. So my first foray into having a union was starting to work at the student union and run all these campaigns as a student organizer.

And so it wasn’t until I started getting involved that I had this conversation with my mom about, “Oh, there’s this union.” And I was told to go to a meeting because there’s free pizza and I wanted free pizza. And she said, “Oh yeah, I’ve been involved in my union. I was a shop steward.” I was like, “What the hell is a shop steward? What does that even mean? And it’s essentially the person that represents the workplace while they’re actually working in there, and you can go to them with questions about your contract or different issues you’re having.” And I said, “What? You were a shop steward?” She was like, “Yeah, I used to carry the book and the book is the contract.” And I said, “I didn’t know that.” She said, “Yeah, I’ve been out on strike. I’ve been on the picket line.” And so it was years later that I realized like, “Oh my God, my parent has been a union member, has fought for these things, and it’s because of her that I have the life that I have.”

Maximillian Alvarez:

It’s always so fascinating to me to hear stories like yours and the stories that folks have shared with me on this show for the past nine seasons. I always tell folks that I am endlessly fascinated in the stories of our fellow workers who take that step to do something, to change their conditions, because I lived most of my life not knowing that that was an option. Like most people in this country, I’m talking about the US here, when I had crappy jobs, whether they were in service or factories, warehouses, retail, I thought I only had two options. If the job sucked, I could either just stay, grin and bear it, or leave and try to find something better. I didn’t know there was a secret third thing you could do and band together with your coworkers and fight back and stay and fight to improve things.

And so to me, anyone who takes that step, especially in a country where working people are so routinely reminded and conditioned to believe that we are powerless, anyone who says otherwise and does otherwise to me is a hero. And not just that, but the way it changes your perspective on things to take that step, to organize, to bring your boss to the bargaining table, that really changes a lot of the ways that you look at the world and yourself and the work that you do. And I wanted to turn that into a question for y’all. You talked about this a bit in the first round, but I wanted to ask if you could go a little deeper and say how it changes your life at work and beyond when you become part of a union or join a union drive. Did it change the way that you guys all look at your own work in life when you did that?

Tina Oh:

For me as a young person that started labor work, I think I was 21 at the time when I first got my union job. And of course, previous to that, I was part of the student union like Cole was. And we’re living in a time where obviously we can talk about all these crises that are happening, global crises to mention that, and union work really helped make the world make more sense, if that makes sense. And I think a lot of young people, and when I reflect back to what I was thinking through when I was 21, and I’m not saying obviously I’ve got it all figured out now, certainly don’t, but I think a lot of young people are probably really confused and puzzled by all these kind of disparate crises when obviously they’re all interconnected. And maybe we could even say that they are interconnected, but it wasn’t really until I really immersed myself and understood how power works and the history of the gains that workers have made to really push the needle to where we are today.

Things really just started to click. And now when a new crisis happens in the world, it’s just less confusing for me. And I think that’s relevant because that feeling of hopelessness I think really gets reined in when you are in a fighting union because that fighting union is then about solutions and it’s about optimism and it’s about hope. And it’s also about, yeah, we might lose, but we’re just going to get back up the next day and fight again. And so that clarity really became clear when I was part of a union drive and helping workers form unions at their workplace. And seeing the transformation happen to them was so transformative for me because I’m seeing it in real time, ordinary people coming together to do extraordinary things.

Alex Raymond:

Yeah. Tina, hearing you say that, especially that piece about hopelessness was something that was deeply more so than I think I’ve even been aware of in my personal experience of work and working up until the idea that there could be something better came up in my working with this organizing that we’ve done recently. Meeting people across the country that are fighting for change and are in the exact same position. We are inexperienced, we are outnumbered, we are dealing with a very effectively organized managerial group that wants nothing more than to see us lose. And then seeing people like Sean and Noah out in Massachusetts, workers out in California coming together, Jane and Colin out in Marilyn, all these different people that I would not have met had not been for this organizing work changed a lot of that hopelessness into a deep sense of optimism that’s going to be really, really hard to lose.

And that I think is the most important way my life has changed since participating in organizing. And I see it at home, at work. We have this current style of people coming in and out of care work and healthcare, and it’s hard on us. We’re job hopping a lot, but it’s really, really hard on the clients that we serve. We work predominantly for little kids and somebody comes in, they build a relationship with you, and then you can’t afford to work the job anymore, you get burned out. And that’s devastating for those young people, and we want to change that. And since we’ve started organizing, we’re seeing turnover rates decrease. These people believe that better is possible and that possibility is brought into existence through our collective action. We alone can’t formulate what a solution might look like, but collectively we’ve found answers and we’ve put them into practice, not just in one location, but in lots of other locations.

And we’re seeing people pick up the banner with us, and it’s just been one of the most inspiring, if not the most profound experiences of my life. And hearing you speak on that just reminds me why I’m part of this fight.

Hassan Husseini:

This is a really good segue because most of you have done the organizing part, which is the hard part to organize workers into unions. My role as a national negotiator is that I come in to work with these newly organized group of workers to get in place a first collective agreement, which is challenging in and of its own, but it’s during the negotiations for a collective agreement. Well, actually it is during the organizing drive that you see their power and a recognition of the power that they have really come into fruition. But it is also a different kind of a very, very rewarding process when you’re working collectively with workers, trying to get a new collective agreement and seeing the bosses push back to put language in collective agreements that gives them more rights, more powers, more protections, more provisions. This is where you see that they are solidifying their power in the workplace and there’s nothing like it because at times when we’re negotiating new terms, and I’ve negotiated terms in the new collective agreement in the university sector, in the gaming industry, right now I have a group of firefighters in an indigenous community in Southwestern Ontario that I just came back from starting negotiations with them.

And you’ll see that their questions is that, “What do you mean we can put language in the collective agreement that is better than the minimum standards?” It’s like, yes, you are organized in order to do that. Minimum standards, you’re protected by it anyway, but your collective agreement, it relies on your power in the workplace, your power in the community, and you’ll see the relationship with their coworkers, their relationship with the boss, their relationship within the community completely changes. It gives them the confidence, it gives them the power, it gives them the power that comes with the fact that when they’re sitting at the bargaining table, no matter what, they’re equals to that boss. And of course, when the boss goes back to the workplace, they try to play games, but you cannot put back, what is that expression, the genie in a bottle or something?

They’ve recognized their power and they’re willing to take that extra steps in order to keep building on it and to demonstrate it in the workplace and outside the workplace. And there’s nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing like it when work is recognized, I want to go Tina’s original point, recognize the power that they have in the workplace and in the community. And I’m privileged, I feel, that I get to work with workers to try to put together collective agreements that give them that extra power.

Cole Rockarts:

Yeah, I’ll just pick up on something Hassan said in his current negotiations about raising the minimum standards. And as organizers and workers, we talk about expectations a lot and great folks have written about raising expectations, so I won’t go into too much of that. But when people realize that not only can they raise the floor at their job, like Alex said, that he could change the mental healthcare industry and the ability for him to have consistency with his clients, with the kids that he’s trying to serve, that’s very mission-driven work. And we see all the time workers in organizing drives, particularly in healthcare, but lots of places, education where they say, “Well, I don’t know if I could do this because I would put the kids or the patients or whoever it is at risk.” But a lot of these campaigns are about connecting, “Well, this would actually make things way more sustainable for the work that I’m trying to do.

This would make me stay. This would help raise my wage so I can provide for my family.” All of these things go back to that question of power. And so when I think about how it changed the way I look at work and life, particularly now coming from Canada and the US, there is an entire industry that is dedicated to crushing workers’ ability to do this. And it has a lot of money behind it. It has a lot of politicians behind it. I mean, the US, we look at right to work states. We look at what is going on in Alberta, Canada right now and the attacks on trying to privatize our healthcare, which is a big no-no in Canada.

We workers, workers historically fought for all these things to get a public healthcare system to get funding. And so I think this’ll go to a little bit about the power that we’re up against, but we also talk about how we don’t have, and it’s because of people crushing unions, we don’t have a lot of money. We don’t have the ability to match dollar for dollar what our bosses are doing, but what we do have is people power. And so I think I was lucky enough to get into it at 20, but since moving here, even in the past few years, I’ve completely changed the way that I see power and what workers are up against as well.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Yeah, man. I mean, in the good old US of A, I mean, we have many rights on paper, but not in reality. And I’m constantly telling folks that you have a right to be a part of and form a union and collectively bargain in your workplace in this country. But in this country, that’s basically saying that Frodo Baggins has a right to go into Mordor, right? I mean, the opposition that you’re going to face, the pain that you’re going to be put through, the system that’s going to chew you up and spit you out just for exercising that right is going to take a lot from you and your coworkers, and you need to be prepared for that. And that’s what I wanted to talk about here in this round. Let’s talk about the hard stuff because we’ve seen over the past few years, over the course of me doing this show, I’ve heard it in the stories we’ve reported, this boom in energy around new labor organizing from the Starbucks workers to the Amazon workers, to the independent union movements, to the revivals within the established unions like the UAW, the Teamsters, some of the historic strikes that have happened in Canada in the past five years.

A lot is clearly happening, but at the same time, I think a lot of folks who got swept up in that energy over the past five years have also come to the hard kind of realities of unions aren’t perfect. Labor law is stacked against you. There’s going to be a whole lot of crap that you’re going to have to go through, but it is worth it. And so I want to talk about that with you guys and sort of address head on these real issues that folks have had or will face when trying to organize. So let’s talk about what people are really going to be up against when they try to unionize today in the US or Canada. And if someone’s listening to this, what do they do when their union sucks or union officials break their heart and screw them over?

Hassan Husseini:

You’re right. There are a lot of unions that, to put it in your words, can break your heart. But I always say having a union, even a shitty union is better than not having a union at all. Because even with a shitty union, there are mechanisms that you can do internally within your union in order to challenge those leaderships that are not willing to fight a good fight on your behalf, but collectively on behalf of all the workers and the community. So definitely I think we’re all on the same page or should be on the same page that unions are better than no unions whatsoever. But we also need to recognize that there are a lot of sellout unions or leaderships within unions that are no longer willing to fight a good fight. They’ve become part of the institutionalized capitalist system. They’ve lost the vision and they don’t advance anything more than protecting their careers.

And they have forgotten that unions are, after all, also political organizations of the working class. And they’ve lost that. And that’s where you see some unions or some leadership within unions making decisions that end up harming workers that they’re supposed to represent. But it’s not the end of the world because I always say that what you need to do as workers, the union is yourself. So you organize internally, you organize in order to bring democracy back into your union and your workplace. And you organize to take over, to take back those unions from those careerist elements within the union movement. Those who are willing to and understand and have class consciousness and they are fighting a class war to go back to the classics. This is the reality of it. And they’re not going to advance a lot of workers if they compromise with the employer on some fundamental issues.

And so our work is premised on the fact that we believe in the power of workers, but we also need to be very realistic about what kind of unions we’re dealing with. And also in my work in organizing in solidarity with the Palestinian liberation struggle and Palestinian workers, I’ve realized that the connection between those unions who are taking better positions in solidarity with international workers around the world is very much connected to how much they’re willing to fight for their own members and for the working class in Canada or the US. And those who have sold out when it comes to the class struggle in their own workplaces and communities and in Canada and the US, you find them that they’re not willing to actually be in solidarity internationally. They may pay lip service, but they don’t do anything concretely to honor that global picket line of the Palestinian people.

And as it was before, the people of South Africa that fought against apartheid. So they’re connected. Good fighting working class unions that have clarity of purpose are also clear on the local, on the national and on the international issues. And we have no choice but to continue to fight a good fight internally to make sure that they stay on the straight path or the left path rather.

Tina Oh:

I want to hear from you, Alex.

Alex Raymond:

Yeah, I’m itching to jump in on this one. So what you’re up against, you hear, especially when you’re new to this, “Hey, there’s the NLRB, you have these rights and the NLRB will adjudicate if there’s any unfair action taken against you by your employer.” But my boss, Lindsay Thompson straight up fired me in writing for labor organizing and that’s still in NLRB hell. And we’re expecting a ruling any decade now, probably 2035, 2045, my grandkids will get a decision passed down. So I mean that’s the reality of it. And I’ve got some comrades that have similarly experienced pretty nefarious dealings from their employer because who’s going to stop them? They fire you, you’re kind of done for. And then on the heels of that, my union internally was going through a little bit of drama precisely when I got fired. And that happened to create a really perfect storm that weakened our bargaining unit and set us up for a lot of trouble going into 2026.

But what is the solution? To quote the adage, don’t mourn, organize. And I remind myself that these things, these institutions that exist today were built by the literal blood of people that were massacred and organizing in significantly more difficult conditions today. I lost a job, I got a new job. I wasn’t brutalized in the ways that you encounter in the history book. So not discounting the struggles that people are facing today, it’s just that the solution remains the same, which is you organize. And my union, we organize internally, brought it up to the local president. They got it fixed. He’s out there on the line with us, every opportunity he’s got. And they’ve done an incredible amount to organize with us. And not just Brian Payton with Teamsters Local 322 and a huge chunk of amazing UPS workers, Jennifer Hancock, those folks coming out, making sure that we’re all right and that this group of workers gets represented fairly.

But the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, especially their caucus of rank and file electrical workers, it’s an internal caucus that has come together and shown up for workers in Richmond and across the country in really profound ways. If there’s a worker struggle in town, there’s going to be hard hats there. And I think it’s that kind of ethos that we need to really embrace. One worker’s struggle is my struggle and it’s been really hard. There was an understandable amount of almost desperation when we did everything right and the employer is just able to break every rule and get away with it. But I think it taught us a very valuable lesson, which is that you don’t just win a vote and then you’re all done. You organize not just to win a contract, but then to enforce it and then to be able to have the capacity to show up for other workers because there’s not just one fight and then you’re done.

This is a global fight. The cause of every member of the working class is our cause. So this is the fight of a lifetime, not just for a contract or a vote or some particular grievance. So I think it’s been hard, but we’ve learned a lot of lessons and we’re continuing to learn. And a lot of that is because of the very cool people that are on this panel today. So shout out to y’all.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Well, and obviously the fact that we have such an incredible panel of folks from Canada and the US, and Cole, you came from Canada to the US. I was wondering if you could also wrap into this question the differences of the situations and the things that folks are going to face in the US versus Canada while we’re answering this question.

Cole Rockarts:

Absolutely. I think I have two different parts to this answer. The first is that I think in Canada we have a different history when it comes to not only our labor movement, but our political parties. I think in the US, you folks are locked into the two party hell, that is the Democrats and the Republicans. Our system in Canada is multi-party and we had a labor movement that formed a political party that became the new Democratic Party, the NDP. And those were the folks I mentioned earlier that led to Medicare, healthcare being public in this country. And I say that not to give a knighthood to politicians because we know that everything that we’ve won in any country has come from workers pushing for that and pressuring that and always will be, always has been. And so I think that’s one of the big differences.

And obviously in the negotiation realm, when you don’t have to think about Medicare or healthcare being part of the contract and you can instead think about the things in Canada that haven’t gotten into that system like drug care, prescriptions, it changes the negotiation landscape for sure. I think the other big difference is the matter of density. And I mentioned the word density earlier, but that is how many workers percentage-wise are unionized within a given population. So in Canada, that is much, much higher. In the US, it’s brutal and it shows all of the things that have –

Maximillian Alvarez:

We’re below 10% now, I believe. That’s

Cole Rockarts:

Correct. And I’ll just say to your listeners, the Economic Policy Institute put out this amazing report about what would change if union density in the US was higher. And the reality is we would have healthcare. We would have about, give or take, 7,000 extra dollars a year in your pocket. And I don’t know about anyone else on this call, but I think people could use 7,000 plus dollars a year.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And that’s $7,000 a year that you would get in your contract versus the kind of fantastical fake $5,000 that President Trump is promising you if you just believe him and vote the way he wants in the midterms.

Cole Rockarts:

Exactly. And I’ll just say quickly on that, studies have shown that in countries where there are strong labor movements, there are more democracies. Even if we look at the US, we see that in right-to-work states, there are more attacks right now on the voting system than there are in states with higher union density. And so that’s kind of the first part of the answer to my question. But the second part is how is Canada and the US different? They’re not. Workers in Canada and workers in the US coming from both places, they’re not that different. They want the same things. They want higher wages, they want benefits, they want good jobs, and they want clean air and for the AI overlords to not ruin the planet and put a data center in their backyard. And so same as it ever was, workers, no matter the country, if they can get enough power, they can change things and make things better.

Tina Oh:

Everything yes, that Cole just said, a thousand percent. I just want to say genuinely, SEIU, it’s a giant of a union, one of the biggest in the US. And so when I look at my comrades in the US, not just in SEIU, but US unions in general, I really don’t have a problem in saying, I genuinely think it is harder to organize in the US than it is in Canada. And I don’t mean to say that as good or bad, as simple as that. But I think where in Canada workers have made gains like card check, which is a one-step unionization system. All you have to do is sign a union card. There’s no vote. Where there’s successor rights in the three biggest provinces of our country. So Quebec, Ontario, BC, the most populated provinces have successor rates. That means contracted workers when there’s contract flip that the new employer has to hire them on and keep their contract.

Those are two really sizable, genuinely… Those are huge wins, legislative wins that workers have made in this country. And it has, for maybe a less sophisticated word, I think it does actually produce some lazy organizing when I compare it to my comrades in the US who have to strike for recognition or right to work states where the dues aren’t guaranteed. And part of that lazy organizing is it can get dangerous, of course, because we know, just as Cole said, the bosses are the same. The power that they have will absolutely crush us. Our dollars can’t compete. Our legal can’t compete. And so when organizers on the ground, whether it’s a member organizer, worker organizer, staff organizer, is taking these shortcuts, we know we’re going to get hit by those shortcuts down the road because a fight is coming guys. A fight is always coming. And so I think it’s a really important, I think, moment for Canada-based organizers where even though we’ve made those gains like card check-in successor, that we do the right thing, which is to develop and recruit the best leaders we can in our organizations and keep it a fighting organization.

And that means yes, there might be shortcuts, but we’re actually going to do the really rigorous spade work that is required to build a fighting union.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Hell yeah. I thought that was all beautifully and powerfully put, y’all. And it bears mentioning that you could say the same thing about unions here just a little farther back in our history. I mean, the union density in this country at its height was around 30% or a little over. I mean, unions built the middle class, they gave us the weekends. We know all the talking points, but then that middle class gave up on the struggle. They cared more about their middle class existence, their specific contracts. They lost that sense of working class solidarity. And here we are 40, 30 years later with the results. Union density below 10%, wages have been stagnant or declining, cost of living has been going up, power has been shifting to the top away from the bottom. So I think the real takeaway message from Canada to the US to everywhere is don’t get complacent.

The struggle has to continue, and I could genuinely talk to you guys for hours about how to continue that struggle. And I’m so grateful for the conversation that we’ve had, but I know we have to wrap up here. And so I wanted to finish with a big picture question that y’all have touched on in this conversation, but for folks who are listening to this right now and saying, “Yeah, that all sounds great, but why should I care about unions now in the year of our Lord 2026 when the world is on fire and everything sucks and these oligarch nut jobs are taking over everything and destroying the planet?” So what would you say to folks in closing who are still in that head space?

Alex Raymond:

Yeah, what I would say is why you should care about a union now is because things have already gotten to a point where we’re feeling the everyday economic ramifications of those decisions. And whatever inertia is kind of keeping us moving in this direction, if we can overcome that, if we can come together, we can identify any solutions that need to be found and start putting them into practice so that we can build a future that we want to be part of. And I know that sounds like fanciful language, but every small step in the right direction is also a step we’re not taking in the wrong direction. And it feels difficult. It feels impossible. It feels exhausting when you think about it individual terms, but you’re not alone. People like me don’t know a ton. I’m sitting on a panel today with Hassan, Cole, Tina, and you, Max, and there’s a lot of expertise out there and you’re not alone.

So nothing weaker than the feeble strength of one. We got this together.

Hassan Husseini:

Very briefly, I think that for all the reasons that you spoke about Maximilian, it’s for all these reasons, because the world is run by not oligarchs, it’s for the reason that they’re destroying the planet, the reason that we have Trump in the White House and Mark Carney in Ottawa that are governing on behalf of banks and corporations and the super rich. It’s for all these reasons that we need unions if for nothing else to equalize things, to make sure that they fight for working people on the shop floor, but also they continue to fight for better society, for all the working class. And also they continue to make sure that international solidarity is not just a performative thing, but a real element of the work of unions. And without unions and without organizing and without that kind of mass democratic organizations that we value so much, that we will fall back even more.

And so from that perspective and because of that, unions are a lot more critical today than in my opinion, they were 50 years ago or 60 or 70 years ago. And we finish on the adage again that an injury to one is an injury to all. So this is not about individual protection, it’s about a collective work, a collective organizing and collective protection and collective empowerment.

Tina Oh:

I think a good union organizer knows how to answer any question with the answer being union. And so to me, it’s why should people care about unions? Well, it’s less about why people should care about unions, more about do you want a better life for you and your family and your loved ones? If so, the only answer is union. And I believe that. We just talked about the trickle down effects of increasing union density is that we live in a better society. There’s healthcare improvements, education improvements, life expectancy, I’m sure. And so I think that question that Cole talked about, workers in US, Canada, across any border, they want a better life for themselves and their families. I don’t know a single ordinary working person that doesn’t. And the answer to that question is going to be union.

Cole Rockarts:

Couldn’t agree more. I think the answer is unions. If we look at the world being on fire, what’s going to protect workers that are going out in increasingly record-breaking heat working outside if they’re postal worker, construction laborer, what is going to do that? Is the boss going to say, “Oh, I’m recognizing it’s a bit hot and unsafe out there. This doesn’t need to get built today. This work doesn’t need to get done.” No, bosses are going to continue to try and extract as much as they can. So that’s one example. If we look at this mass global movement in many countries, unionized dock workers have stopped the ports and refused to unload Israeli cargo.

The struggle of the anti-war movement, the struggle for basic protections of not dying on the job, and yes, the individual and materialistic thing of wanting more money in your bank account so you can pay your rent, so you can buy food, so you can get the basic necessities, all comes from having a strong resourced infrastructure. And the only thing that working people have in this country right now is a union. And so that would be my answer. Why should you care about unions now? It is literally the only thing that working people have on our side. And that’s not big you union, that’s you and your coworkers coming together to push for more and to fight the boss and to hopefully win.

Maximillian Alvarez:

All right, gang, that’s going to wrap things up for us today. I want to thank our guests, Hassan Husseini of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Labor for Palestine Canada, Tina Oh of SEIU Local two in Halifax, Canada, Alex Raymond of Teamsters Local 322 in Virginia, and Cole Rockhart’s veteran labor educator and organizer and author of the excellent new book, Fired Up About Unions, which everyone should go read. And you can learn more about the book using the links that we provided in the show notes for this episode. And of course, I want to thank you all for listening, and I want to thank you for caring about this. We do this work for you, but we cannot do it without you. Working People is brought to you in partnership with In These Times Magazine and the Real News Network. This show is produced by the great Jules Taylor and is a proud member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network.

We’ll see y’all back here next time for another episode of Working People. And in the meantime, go explore all the great work that we’re doing weekly at the Real News Network, where we do grassroots reporting that lifts up the voices and stories of people on the front lines of struggle around the US and across the world. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. Check out our great podcasts like Under the Shadow and The Marc Steiner Show, and connect with us on social media and get updates on our reporting there and help us do more work like this by going to therealnews.com/donate and becoming a supporter today. It really, really makes a difference. I’m Maximillian Alvarez. Take care of yourselves. Take care of each other. Solidarity forever.

MANSA MUSA:  Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.

Joining me today is Andrea James, activist in every sense of the word. I want to say abolitionist, but she’s an activist in every sense of the word, organizing, and is currently running for the governor of Massachusetts.

Thank you for joining me, Andrea.

ANDREA JAMES:  Thank you for having me. It’s really great to be back in your studio, and just to have the privilege of being a part of how you disseminate information. It’s really an honor to be here, and I thank you for this opportunity.

MANSA MUSA:  And we want to go on record right now saying that here at Rattling the Bars, we recognize that it’s a so-called two-party system. And we recognize that, when you’re dealing with electoral politics, that if you’re not a traditional Democrat or Republican or so-called Independent, according to their definition, you’re not going to get the recognition. So we are here primarily to level the playing field. It’s not our endorsement of it, it’s more opportunity for her to talk about her candidacy, why she’s in this position, why she’s running, and what she expect. 

And with that being said, introduce yourself to our audience, Andrea.

ANDREA JAMES:  Well, I want to say thank you for introducing me as an abolitionist. I mean, I am an abolitionist. I have had a direct experience that causes me to understand that this country has had more than 250, but 250 recognizable years of incarceration of prison and prison building and incarcerating people in cages. And actually, I believe in direct experience and that that’s what leaders should have, some level of direct experience so that there’s an urgency around the issues that need to be worked on. And so I’ve had the experience of incarceration myself personally, and I happen to know, having lived in a women’s prison, that they only cause further harm and that they are antithetical to getting us to a place of having whole, healed, and healthy communities and people. So I am a prison abolitionist, absolutely. And thank you for referring to me in that manner.

Why I’m running has a lot to do with that experience in 15-plus years specifically. Decades prior to that in my lifetime came from a family, African American family of Civil Rights folk breaking color barriers and so forth in law, in the field of medicine. My grandmother was the first Black nurse in the city of Boston. I’m from a community that is the most incarcerated community in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. We’ve been in Massachusetts for seven generations, in the same old house in Roxbury for five generations. 

And so why I’m running is this alchemy of these life experiences that have brought me to where I am in my life today with my understanding of these issues and also who I am today. And that includes all of my life experiences, not just the highs that I’ve reached and the accomplishments that I’ve had and the academic achievements that I’ve had the privilege to be exposed to, but also my incarceration, which has been one of the most important experiences of my life that propelled me.

This was 20-plus years ago. I made a mistake in my law practice. I wound up on a prison bunk in federal prison for wire fraud. And what I received and learned from that experience after having been a criminal defense attorney, after having worked my entire adult life on ending mass incarceration and bringing attention to that issue and then having the direct experience of myself of living in a prison, I knew immediately after being surrounded by all these women, I had to survive 24 months of incarceration. I was laying next to, head to toe, head to toe, head to toe on a prison bunk next to sisters who had been in there for 24 years. I mean, I knew. 

My parents were researchers of people of African diaspora. When I was a kid, they were traveling all over the world with us, showing us different cultures of our people. And one of them was a trip to Gorée Island, where we saw where they enslaved African people, put them into caves, waited for ships to come, load them on like cargo, and take them to every single place on the planet to work as labor. And when I was in that prison, I wrote a book, a memoir called Upper Bunkies Unite. And because I was on a top bunk and I remember looking up over this sea of Black women and being like, damn, the first thing that came to mind all those years later was Gorée Island, was how they stacked us.

And so I’m running for all of that, and I’m running for more of the immediacy of creating change right now. I’ve been going to the Massachusetts state House for 15 years writing policy, writing legislation, giving of my voice, my experience, to panels and state legislative hearings and congressional hearings, and being trotted out for all of the things on the federal level policy. And enough is enough. Enough is enough. 

And I have done every piece. I’m older. I’m older. I believe in pouring into our young because they’re brilliant. They have a language now that like, what y’all talking about, but I like how it sounds. But we need to break the ceiling of the caste system that they expect us to continue to live under. And I refuse to do it any longer. I refuse to be made a chump in an electoral process that is not addressing the needs of the people that are millions, that, actually, in Massachusetts, have become the majority of people who are dissatisfied with either of the establishment parties, meaning the Democrats or the Republicans, that 67% of voters in the commonwealth of Massachusetts have become unenrolled. 

Now, does it mean that they’re all the way over here, prison abolitionists and to the left and progressives like I am? I don’t even call myself a progressive because that’s been co-opted in so many ways to help democratic socialists get into office and so forth that do not go far enough for me. However, we need to be a part of this in more ways than just being on the table. 

We need to shake up. I mean, you talk about rattling the bars, the electoral process needs to, those bars need to be rattled. We get people into office and they think the job, the hard work, was getting elected — Which is an arduous process even when you have their millions of dollars, which we don’t — But still too many of our electeds have gotten into office and they thought getting into office was the job. And then term after term after term, they’re just comfortable. It’s like, they have a job. They have a nine-to-five that they go to.

MANSA MUSA:  Let me ask you this here.

ANDREA JAMES:  Yeah.

MANSA MUSA:  OK. So, you already clarified the so-called progressive. We agree that the term in and of itself says one thing, but the behavior says something else. But you are running as an Independent. Now juxtapose that against Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders has ran as the longest Independent, but how do you see yourself when you say you’re Independent? Is your Independency similar to Bernie Sanders, same, or are you saying Independent in fact and not in theory?

ANDREA JAMES:  I’m Independent in fact. I mean, I’m running on issues.

MANSA MUSA:  Come on.

ANDREA JAMES:  I am not running on any party platform, and I refuse to be constricted by a party platform. I unenrolled because I was a member of the Democratic Party, I was raised by strong Black Democratic women over the generations in my family. I unenrolled because I thought it was unconscionable what the Democratic Party has become. And I believe that it is a duopoly between the Republican parties and the Democratic parties.

That being said, I wasn’t running on any party because I’ve seen the party that I expected to do, carry the water and make the noise on behalf of the issues that are affecting so many people. When they weren’t doing that term after term, elected position after elected position, I decided the party platforms are not going to carry the work that needs to be done. So I said, I’m going to work on these four issues.

Now I care about a lot of other issues, trust me. But right now in the compounded crises that people are going through, everyday people are going through in the communities like mine across the country, but specifically across the commonwealth of Massachusetts, we’re a commonwealth. It’s different when you’re a commonwealth, that means of the people. We become a corporate wealth. And our campaign is it’s the commonwealth, not the corporate wealth. We are under the oppression and control of a corporate agenda right now in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. So wealthy donors and corporations are getting the focus and the attention that working families, underemployed, unemployed, formerly incarcerated people, people who have gone through a state of struggle, the focus should be on. We’re a commonwealth. But I’m running on four issues.

MANSA MUSA:  Come on, talk about it.

ANDREA JAMES:  So that it is very clear because they’ve co-opted the term “affordability.” They’ve listened to our language and taken our language, both the Republican and the Democratic candidate, and morphed our abolitionist language into their establishment party agenda. 

So I said, I’m not dealing with none of that. I’m an Independent, meaning I am running on issues, not any sort of party platform or party identity. We don’t have an Independent party in Massachusetts. We’re just called unenrolled/Independents. So it’s not even that I’m running on a platform called Independent. I’m running on four issues: housing, universal healthcare, childcare, and equitably funded education. 

Why those issues? Because I am the voice of the people who have been just tamped down into a caste system that is only growing and widening. So before it used to be all of us, Black, Brown. We have a wealth gap in the commonwealth of Massachusetts that is astounding that nobody even wants to talk about. It’s always like, why has it got to be about race? Because everything is about race, baby [Musa laughs]. And so we’ve got to discuss that. But we’ve got an unemployment rate that is double for Black people in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

And so, these are things that we have to talk about, but the issues that I’m running on are issues that would create an immediate lift. I call it lifting from the bottom and closing the gaps. When you talk about unaffordability, it is at a crisis level in this state and around the country, but housing, universal healthcare, childcare, and equitably funded education immediately gives economic empowerment to the people, the millions of people just in the commonwealth of Massachusetts alone, the wealthiest state in the country, that has been completely left out of that.

So, we have nurses and firemen right now who can’t afford places to live. And so it has expanded. It’s no longer just formerly incarcerated people who got no chance in hell — That’s got no chance in finding support, I should say. We still make it, but in finding support in climbing out of that hole they tried to bury us in and get back on our feet and raise our children and bring our families back together and restitch the fabric that they’ve shredded economically, family-wise. But it’s expanded to a lot of the middle class, so to speak, who are now feeling the same level of pain, even as they still are intact and have their jobs and may have a house or may be able to figure out how to pay their rent, but really are not making a living wage themselves.

And so housing, universal health care, why universal health care that’s single payer health care. I’ve traveled the world in the work that I’ve done as an expert on women and incarceration. I’ve talked to parliaments in different countries about the issue. I’ve visited women’s prisons all over the world. And while doing that, I have had the experience of those countries and their major cities and how they address policy. Well, housing is a number one thing in many of these places, but also they have universal healthcare. They’re not beholden to what we’re stuck with, which is the CEOs who make $200 million, with a M, a year who run health care companies in the United States. And we have no benefit of it. We pay high premiums, we have deductibles, and most of the time we have to ask if they’ll fix something for us and it’s denied.

And so universal healthcare is one way to immediately infuse some economic stability in the families and in the everyday people in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. If we have single-payer health care, which means the state takes over completely — Which we are uniquely poised to do here because Massachusetts already controls its own health care market — And so the only reason we don’t have it is that because the governor and the other leadership in the commonwealth of legislature are beholden to the wealthy donors who are the CEOs and their rank and file who donate money to these campaigns. Because there is no other way to explain in the commonwealth of Massachusetts where we already control our own health care marketplace, where it does not make fiscal sense or it’s not fiscally responsible to not have single-payer health care, that we still have it, except that we will hold in place because of the lobbyists, the health care industry, and the CEOs that make us have to pay all of this money for health care that does not produce the level of health and wellness that we deserve.

MANSA MUSA:  OK. Let me ask you this here then. OK, so you already acknowledged that you got this wealth gap, and you got in terms of the political structure. So how are you managing being competitive in the sense of being able to get out and get your message out unless are you getting PAC money? Are you getting corporate money? So how are you funding your campaign? How do you see it? Because like you say, you up against, just to your own point, it ain’t commonwealth, it’s corporate wealth. If it’s corporate wealth, right?

ANDREA JAMES:  Millions and millions of dollars. Millions of dollars. The Republican candidate in this race, there’s three of us. First of all, mainstream media is beholden to the Democratic Party and they only refer to her. And in reference to the Republican candidate running against us, they only refer to one opponent running this race against our current Democratic governor. There’s three of us. There’s not just two. So mainstream media plays a huge role in completely blocking. 

Took 10,000 signatures, they didn’t think we could get it as an independent candidate. We got 13,311 certified signatures from the secretary of state — Certified at the secretary of state’s office, which means I am on the general election ballot on Nov. 3. 

Mainstream media has refused to include me in anything. We did our first mainstream media interview that aired Sunday morning, the very first one, but yet that same network is hosting one of the few debates that the current governor, Mara Healy, has agreed [to do]. They left it up to her. They let her do all the deciding. There’s three candidates, but she’s the one that got to decide where she was going to show up. Fine. They’re excluding me from the debates, the mainstream networks. I’m a candidate. I am on the ballot, and I am being excluded from being in the debate. 

When I asked the other network that I just did the interview with, why had they not invited me into the debate between the gubernatorial candidates? And they said, because the people have expressed that they only want to hear from the establishment parties. Well, that’s interesting in Massachusetts where 67% of the voter roll are currently unenrolled Independents. So who are you talking to?

And so, it doesn’t matter. What Donald Trump is doing right now with mainstream media on the national level, CNN and all them, he just kicked them out of the press [inaudible] their credentials, and they’re on the sidewalk outside of the White House trying to do an interview, being fed information from inside the press room. That’s exactly what these networks are doing to me by inviting us into the debate and allowing the voters to hear the messages, to be informed voters, and not just mainstream media being able to determine who gets to be heard and who doesn’t get to be heard. That’s violation of constitutional rights, of [the] First Amendment, there’s a plethora of wrongness with it, and that shouldn’t happen.

And so then we got to talk about the money, right? So the current governor’s a millionaire, but she also has millions of dollars that have flowed into her campaign by corporations, the CEO. And then all you got to do, it’s all public knowledge. Anybody can look at ours, they can look at theirs, and you can see where the money’s coming from. And it’s all the wealth and power in the commonwealth and people of wealth and power who want to make sure that the Democratic platform stays intact.

Now look at the Republican candidate that’s running against us. He’s got a $31 million mansion in Montana somewhere, a summer home in Montana. But he, at the start of his race, said, I’m putting $10 million into this race. So they’ve got commercials running, they’ve got all kinds of stuff that we don’t have. So the only thing that we have is an opportunity to be blessed, to be invited into opportunities like this, like what you have always provided for us at Rattling the Bars, but it’s about boots on the ground. And that’s one thing that our style of organizing didn’t change because it shifted to electoral politics.

So we know how to do this. It’s still hard because you have to pay for signs. You have to pay for, even though — Here’s an example. I don’t know if you can see it because my screen —

MANSA MUSA:  Yeah, I can see it.

ANDREA JAMES:  But throughout this entire campaign, our money has been spent on toner and paper. You know what I mean? Because we’ve been talking to Independent candidates, Kshama out in Washington State, and just talking to their campaign managers about how y’all getting this done against multi, multimillions of dollars that are just, they’re not even talking about us yet because they don’t want to give any rise to the awareness of people that there is a person like myself running. So they’re just suppressing everything else by covering everything with signs, with commercials, things that we just don’t have. 

So we’re doing our best. We’re boots on the ground. It took them two days to get 10,000 signatures to get back on the ballot. It took us months because we were grassroots. I stood outside in the rain, the heat, the snow, whatever for months, personally asking people if they would sign my ballot sheet. But also it gave me an opportunity to have conversations with people about what’s their pain points, what do they need in their lives to create joy? It’s not just about the struggle we’re going through, but where are the investments to create joy in the lives of the people of the commonwealth, all of us.

So it has been a really — And then again, Massachusetts is a blue, blue state. We got a blue governor, which is another reason why I ran because I’m like, hold up. The line in the sand for me was we went — So, Massachusetts was one of three states up until 2000 that allowed incarcerated people to vote, full access to the ballot. They took that right away from incarcerated people in 2000 because the brothers inside of a men’s prison here called Norfolk State Prison started to organize themselves. And they started to organize themselves because of the hard draconian sentences that more of these young brothers were starting to come into the prison with these real heavy sentences hanging over them, young. 

And so the Legislature was predominantly white and male was like, oh wait, you going to organize yourselves and your families on the outside? We make 7% of the population, Black folks in Massachusetts. We make up 51% of the carceral population. First of all, make that make sense. Math ain’t mathing, OK?

So they said, we’re going to strip you of the right to vote. And they did. They had to move heaven and earth. They had to change the Massachusetts Constitution to strip us of the right to vote inside.

Now, we have been fighting to reinstate that ever since. And so, they got a congressional hearing in one of the sessions, and we went and poured our hearts out. And with my testimony, I lined up the fact that this is voter suppression. This goes back to denying Black people the right to vote whenever you have a disproportionality in the numbers of Black folks in the state and the levels of incarceration, on and on. Well, they didn’t even reconvene after the hearing to discuss it. It never made it out of committee. It was what every other piece of our legislation that we have worked on over decades went to what they call “went to study.” 

That was it for me. Y’all ain’t even going to huddle and discuss this after we came in and poured our hearts out about why it’s important as people who have had direct experience with incarceration for people inside to vote. I was a mother. I had a 5-month-old little baby boy when they made me go into the prison, a 12-year-old daughter, and young adult, a son and two daughters. I had good reason to still have my right to vote.

MANSA MUSA:  Right. Answer this here, Andrea. And I want you to put yourself in this space, your candidacy in this space. So when we was at the Free Her March, I asked you about that, and this is what you said. You said when we first started this, the first time we came down here, we had a hundred people. The day that we was down there, we had blocks and blocks and blocks of people. We had Freedom Plaza flooded. So that’s one. I want you to put your candidacy in these two spaces. How do you see your candidacy in this light?

I was in Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts, I think year before last, where they was doing a showing of the movie called “The Strike,” where they shut down Pelican Bay, where the men shut down. How do you see your candidacy in terms of you was in a prison where they was treating y’all like animals, y’all made y’all minds up when y’all got out, when y’all got in a position to change the narrative, you was going to change it systematically and continuously, you changed it. Her movement. 

When I was down there where the buses was at, I ran into a lot of sisters I had dealt with and interviewed. Everybody was energized. Strike. They organized this strike throughout California under a situation where they ain’t even had the ability to communicate. So put your candidacy under that type of light.

ANDREA JAMES:  Well, we did. We started our work as incarcerated women inside of a federal prison and we were like, You know what? We don’t hear nothing about us, the separation of us from our children, whatever. So we organized ourselves in that prison, and we didn’t have no way of… We were writing letters and sending kites outside, whatever we could do to raise awareness of the issue of the incarceration of women and our separation from us from our children. But if you look at the life of a woman on a prison bunk, every issue that we are fighting for has been a factor that led them to that prison bunk. The lack of housing, the lack of health care, the lack of education, the lack of childcare, the lack of resources for the most vulnerable among us. And so that’s the first thing.

The second thing is I’m older. I’m older, and they want to create a narrative, and have created a narrative, that we have no more value and we don’t count. And the issues that we’re talking about, nobody should listen to because we have incarcerated or formerly incarcerated as part of who we are. And because of that, we just valueless now. We have no more authority. We cannot be accountable. We cannot be relied upon to run these institutions, to run these states. 

And they have these positions like Qiana Johnson, county clerk. What? Come on now. We got the first formerly incarcerated Black woman who is now the clerk in Prince George’s County. This is what we talking about. We’ve got a new Black woman mayor in Washington, D.C. because of the rallying and the intense work that Black women did, formerly incarcerated Black women did, to change that and put new leadership into that seat. 

So I want to be that. Let me break the mold. You know what I mean? It’s a win-win for us as far as I’m concerned because I’m challenging that. Yeah, they’re like, oh, now they started out only writing stories. There’d be one page of a story when I announced my candidacy a year ago and the whole page was filled up linking my case and talking about my transgression of wire fraud and went to federal prison as a lawyer and one little line that said, oh, and by the way, she’s running for governor.

So I’m like, OK, somebody has to step out and kind of be like, OK, I’m the whipping post. You know what I mean? Because I’m going to push back on that. And what? I don’t have time to talk about that. I have time to talk about why it’s important to have people with direct experience who actually know and have the urgency, the transparency, the accountability that it requires that we don’t currently have from our current legislature, from our current governor, particularly in Massachusetts. Massachusetts just received the Black Hole Award in the country. That means the least transparency in any state in the United States. The least. We have the least effective legislature in the entire country. So we have to do something different. 

And they’ve made it impossible pretty much if you have a felony conviction to run for things. You can’t be a state legislator for the felony conviction in Massachusetts, but guess what they didn’t think anybody would have the nerve to do as a formerly incarcerated person? Run for governor. But also I’m not a politician. I’m a community organizer, and I have no interest in making a career out of starting from school committee and working my way up and sitting around in the state legislature. I’m going straight to the top.

MANSA MUSA:  To the top. Yeah, that’s right.

ANDREA JAMES:  Where we can get the things moving that we need to have moving. And so if this just tills the soil, I have had so many sisters in our network across the country say, hey sis, I’m going to run for office now. You’ve inspired me. That’s what I’m talking about.

MANSA MUSA:  One thing for sure and two things for certain, you got a broad network in terms, I seen the response that you got from men and women coming out that’s in this space. So what kind of feedback, because you told me earlier that you’ve been traveling across the state. And I want to say this, because Massachusetts got the misnomer of being a progressive state, the Kennedy and whatnot, but talk about what kind of response you getting from the people that you’re talking to across the state. And I know you going everywhere, every crevice. Talk about the response you’re getting from the people that’s going to be responsible for you getting elected, because I believe you can get elected and you will get elected.

ANDREA JAMES:  Well, those are the communities that I’m in where no other politicians seem to go. The people who represent those communities go there when it’s election time and then they become the untouchables. Nobody sees them or hears from them. I’ve been in the western part of the state, which is closer to New York than it is to Massachusetts. They wear Yankees caps as opposed to Red Sox hats because they are completely disconnected. I’m talking about what’s the Springfield, Holyoke, Chicopee, these towns that… I was in Holyoke last year and this sister said to me, you came all the way out here. And I was like, of course I came out here it’s a part of Massachusetts, isn’t it? She was like, nobody comes out here. They can’t even tell you who the governor is in those parts of the state. And it’s mostly Black and Brown. Black, Brown and poor. And they’re feeling like they don’t even vote. 

And so we have this tiny, tiny base of predominantly Democrats who are holding a party platform in place. There’s not enough Republicans in Massachusetts to make that matter. And they are predominantly white. They do not have the direct experience of struggle economically, and they have co-opted the term “progressive,” and they go to things like No Kings and hold signs because that’s the only kind of way that they’re feeling like they could make a difference. They will never vote for me. And so I’m like, if you vote for me, I would love, great, you have a choice. We just want you to know that. I [inaudible] communities that are in the housing developments, you know what I mean? Up in the projects. I’m knocking doors there. I’m talking to people in towns where people are like, Don’t nobody vote out here. And I’ve never voted. But we’ve been simultaneously doing a voter registration drive along with this campaign from day one.

We have a false belief amongst the majority of formerly incarcerated Black men that I’ve found out running this race over the past year that do not even know that they can vote because they’ve been told when they leave the prison. Massachusetts, if you’re felony conviction in a state prison, they took the right to vote. But the minute you walk out of that door, if you were registered before, all you got to do is go and vote again. If you aren’t registered, you can register and vote in the next election. We can vote as formerly incarcerated people in Massachusetts as long as we are not currently serving a state prison sentence for a felony conviction.

If you’re in jail in Massachusetts, you can vote. You can vote while you are serving a misdemeanor sentence in a county jail, access to the ballot. Do they have it? No. So those are the people that we’re talking to.

And again, we live. I get it. So many people have said to me, Black people have said to me, sis, I don’t vote. I would vote for you, but I can’t vote. I’m formerly incarcerated. We correct that and say, You can. We get them registered. We tell them, you don’t have to go into the voting place. You can get a mail-in ballot. You can do all these things. The other piece of that is no matter what, too many Black and Brown folks have said to me, I don’t even believe in the process, sis. I don’t vote. 

And now my response to that is one in six Black children in the commonwealth of Massachusetts go to bed hungry. 30,000 children, predominantly Black and Brown and poor kids, sleep in a car or under some makeshift shelter every single night in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. If they still go to school, they go to schools that are woefully, unequally funded, underfunded, and they just had more teacher layoffs.

If you say to me, I’m asking you, I’m an elder Black woman running for office. We’ve never had a candidate like me. I’m asking you to get engaged just to vote. Just vote. Vote for us. Vote for our issues. If I’m wrong, I’m willing to step out of the electoral process and to do. What are you doing? When I tell you that, do you have children? Most of them tell me yes. Do you care about the Black child over here who’s going to bed hungry every night, that’s sleeping on the street? If you have a better way to approach that, I’d like to know. If you have an alternative to getting somebody like myself in the governor’s seat to create immediate significant radical change that is going to start not from a budget that they’ve created that has no transparency, that nobody knows if it’s true, if it’s not true, that we voted for an audit that we can’t get.

We don’t know how much money’s there. We don’t know who’s deciding where money should be allocated. If you don’t understand the power to not start from a budget that we don’t even know if it’s true or not, but instead start from the issues and the people that need the support the most and make that the priority for the work and where the money is being spent. Then tell me what you have as an alternative for me to make sure as a mother who raised Black children, as a grandmother who now has grand babies and is from a community that the fabric has been shredded by all of these systems, you tell me what your proposal to me is so that I’m not wasting my time any longer so I can make sure that these Black babies and these poor families, white, Black, Brown, whatever, we don’t have any more children who are hungry and sleeping on the street.

MANSA MUSA:  Andrea, tell our audience as we close out how they can get involved with your campaign or how they can get more information rather about your campaign.

ANDREA JAMES:  We don’t have millions of dollars. We barely have any dollars. Our money comes from mostly poor, formerly incarcerated Black, white, Brown women who just are urgent to create change in their own families and communities who are struggling just to feed their kids, find a place to live and the whole bit. AJFOR — That shows my age. My kids were like, Ma, why didn’t you just put the number four? Because I didn’t know — So ajforma.com, that’s our website. You go there, there’s a volunteer form, there’s a donate button. No amount is too small. We get $5, $10, $15, $20 donations, and that has carried us for whatever we’ve been able to get the signs, whatever we’ve been able to do. We’re doing lit drops right now. Lit drops are where you carve out turf and you literally drop in literature like this so that people know we’re running and knocking on doors, door knocking.

Anybody who’s run campaigns like we have to stop prison builds and so forth, you’ve door knocked with me. Come and stand with me and door knock for this campaign now. It is change. And so that’s how they can. Ajforma.com, hit us up, send us an email, whatever you want to do, ajames@ajforma.com. All the information’s on our website. And we’ve got 45 [days]maybe, I don’t know, Nov. 3 is the election day. We are in the 11th hour, and still too many people in the commonwealth of Massachusetts who want or are looking for change don’t know about this campaign because mainstream media has intentionally left us out. And so we need help. We need boots on the ground who can go do a standout for us, disseminate our lit for us, put a yard sign if you have a yard or a window sign if you have a window. We need to raise awareness and we need to do it right now.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Maximillian Alvarez:

I’m here at the Parkway Theater and I’m sitting with Mahmoud Khalil, freed political prisoner and former Columbia graduate student who was heavily involved in the student-led Justice for Palestine movement and who because of that was abducted by plainclothes ICE agents from his New York apartment building in March of 2025 and locked away in immigration jail for 104 days. But he’s here with us now. Brother Mahmoud, welcome home, man.

Mahmoud Khalil:

Thank you for having me, Max. Thank you so much.

Maximillian Alvarez:

It’s such an honor to be here with you in person. I don’t even know how you begin to answer this question, but I can’t begin without asking it. How are you and your family doing after enduring this horrific nightmare that is sadly still not over?

Mahmoud Khalil:

We’re doing all right and we’re taking it day by day, really sort of surviving under the threat of deportation at any second or worse than that, whatever this government may decide to do at any point. But our fear is part of the fear of so many families in this country who are now worried about sending their children to school. We are in September now and I know a lot of kids are worried about going to school because they’re either undocumented or their parents are undocumented. I’m thinking about just the families in Minnesota and in New York and in Texas who are now under the threat of being really deportation by this or ripping them apart. It’s not only deportation. Haitians

Maximillian Alvarez:

In

Mahmoud Khalil:

Ohio,

Maximillian Alvarez:

Latinos in

Mahmoud Khalil:

Southern California. Anyone who this administration sees as the other or sees as a threat to whatever plans they have. So in that bigger scheme of things also, at least I know my son will be fed tonight. There wouldn’t be a bomb being thrown on our house as happening in Gaza right now as we are speaking. So in the bigger scheme of things, we’re grateful. We’re grateful for the community that’s supporting us.That’s what’s keeping us going forward right now is just the level of support, the level of solidarity, the community that was built around us because of what this government has imposed on me and my family.

Maximillian Alvarez:

I didn’t plan to ask this, but as a father as well, I have to. What was it like to hold your kid that first time?

Mahmoud Khalil:

I don’t think anyone can describe that feeling. It’s just the first time I held Dean was in detention in a courtroom, in an immigration courtroom where verdicts of deportations happen, like rain daily in these rooms. So it was a little bit weird that I was able to reunite with my family in a place where families are being torn apart. But at the same time I felt victorious because that’s a moment that this government tried to steal from me. Although it was only for one hour, but felt the world to me. And of course now being with Dean, a lot of people ask me, “What gives you purpose?” And just seeing Dean and dreaming of a world where he can live in dignity and safety, inequality, just like anyone else, as an American citizen who has the same rights and responsibility as any other American citizen, regardless of his background, regardless of the ethnicity, regardless of anything, really it’s just like being a human.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And how could you not look at your kids and our children and not fight? We’re going to give this world over. We’re going to give their future over to these psychopaths, to these fascists, to these fanatical nut jobs? Of course not.That’s just not an option. But it’s really hard to put that into action on a day-to-day level when we’re being bombarded by so much terror and awfulness. I interviewed members of your former graduate student union at Columbia after you were taken. I’ve interviewed members of my former grad student union in Michigan where activists are having their homes raided by the FBI. I mean, students, community members, workers, people all over this country who are terrified to fight back or do anything because of what happened to you. But you continue to speak out. You wrote this book, No Land to Stand On. You’re here in Baltimore to speak to folks.

What do you and this book have to say to all of us out there about confronting that fear and not living in fear?

Mahmoud Khalil:

I think the fear is very real and I would be lying if I said I don’t have fear about myself, about my children, about my family. But courage is not the absence of fear. It is actually acting despite the fear. I would be lying if I said, “Oh, I’m not afraid.” Or when you are dealing with such injustice and as you’ve mentioned, just these fascist tactics and the way that they dehumanize us, whether as immigrants or whether as Palestinians or just as someone who does not agree with what this government is doing. So to take you back, I think a day after my release, I decided to go to a protest. And I usually am not that protest guy, although I was very heavily involved in the Columbia movement, but I decided to go mainly to give a message that despite all this violence inflicted upon me from the government, from the university, from the institutions and the establishment in this country, I refuse to be silent.

And now my book is out because the government tried to silence me. Or in essence, they tried to make an example out of me so you and others wouldn’t speak out. But to me, this book is a testament that I refuse to be silent. Now the government gave me a platform and they would take it with a grace and responsibility that I should take this platform to advocate for those who don’t have voices. At any moment now there’s over 70,000 immigrant in ICE detention. At every second, there’s at least 70,000 immigrants in detention. That we know

Maximillian Alvarez:

Of. Now they’re like, we don’t even know if they’re keeping proper track.

Mahmoud Khalil:

Exactly. I don’t know how many went through the administrative errors that this administration every now and then does. So really this administration tried to silence me and I refuse to be silent. And that’s why I want to give people not hope, but at least some sort of despite all this violence, you can still speak out because what we’re dealing with right now is this administration, they are bullies and what our parents teach us when a bully come to bully you, you should not – Stand up, baby. Exactly. So that’s what I’m doing right now. And part of my fight is not about staying in the US. It’s more around what happened to me is wrong and shouldn’t happen to anyone else. Even if I win my case tomorrow, I may decide to leave the day after, but that’s totally besides the main point, which is what’s happening is wrong and should be confronted.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Well, I want to end on that note because ever since you were taken, one of the reasons that people found so much hope in your story was that you continued to use your voice to advocate for others who were locked away in immigration jail, people who couldn’t speak English, people who didn’t have access to lawyers and who could get contact with the outside world. And that meant so much to so many. And of course you ended up in that jail because you were speaking out and speaking up along with millions around the country and around the world against a genocide in Palestine funded by our tax dollars. So here we are in 2026 and I’m not going to say it doesn’t feel like we’re losing everything and that it was all for naught, but I know a lot of our viewers can feel that way when they look at what’s happening to the ruins of Gaza and to the continual onslaught to erase that people from that land while back home they’re using the same tech to disappear our neighbors and family members.

So how do you put all of this in perspective and how do we continue to fight even when it feels like all is lost?

Mahmoud Khalil:

I think hope and resistance is our only option right now because this administration wants us to feel defeated, want us to feel that nothing is working. And the moment that we succumb to that feeling is the moment that they win because even if we remain silent, because I know people who were targeted and remain silent, the administration did not stop going after them because their mere existence was a problem to this administration. And that’s why I’m hopeful because I don’t have any other option. And the fact that the president of the United States came after an unknown student speaks a lot to the successes of our movement because it was impactful. It was actually changing things on the ground. It was changing public opinion in droves. That’s why the president of the United States felt the need to go after a random student to make an example out of him so that others would fear speaking out.

And that’s I think my only message in terms of why we should be hopeful because the change doesn’t happen in a day and night. It is the persistence. It is the continued resistance against all odds when you see that nothing is happening, but you continue because you believe in that. And that’s the thing as Palestinians, why we continue resisting despite everything all odds against us is that we are righteous. We know that human beings, regardless of their faith and nationality, they can see that in us and they would support us. So that’s why we have a strong belief in our cause that it’s a righteous cause. We don’t need millions and billions of dollars to convince public opinion about the righteousness of our cause or not. It’s just like we need to present it and that’s it. And that’s what they are fearing right now.

That’s why you see the establishment in this country is scrambling to control the media, to buy TikTok and to buy CNN and all of these just because we are actually winning and they know they will not be able to stop us. That’s why they’re bringing these all new tactics about, in my case, they’re weaponizing the immigration law from 1952. And in other cases they’re bringing all these alien laws.

Maximillian Alvarez:

They’re

Mahmoud Khalil:

Reaching back to laws from centuries ago. Yeah, 1800 something because they’re looking for tools because we’re actually winning and the public is with us. But also with immigrants, an average American sees that an immigrant is a benefit to this country, whether it is through the work that they do, whether through the diversity they bring. And this country was built upon, I mean recently, I don’t want to stoke about the enslaved people and how this country was built on their shoulders, but recently also immigrants were part of this.

Maximillian Alvarez:

You and I wouldn’t be sitting here if that wasn’t true.

Mahmoud Khalil:

Absolutely. And we absolutely must be conscious of that. And that’s the other thing about why I’m writing the book now, not in five years, because this is urgent. A lot of people ask me, “How would you look at this moment in 20 years?” I don’t want to look at it in 20 years. I want to do what I can do right now to stop it because what’s happening right now is a stain on the constitution, is a stain on the American consciousness, is a stain on every human value that we stand or we say we stand for. And I don’t want to look in 20 years and say, “Oh, we should have done something because it’s happening now in our backyards. An ICE detention center is at least 30 minutes from any one of us right now. If you drive 30 minutes, you would find an ICE detention center.

There’s one

Maximillian Alvarez:

Five minutes that way. Thank you so much, bro.

Mahmoud Khalil:

No, thank you so much,

Maximillian Alvarez:

Max.

Mahmoud Khalil:

Appreciate it, man.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Reporter 1:

Breaking story in Frederick. We have been told that ICE agents have been camped out in the Taskers Chance neighborhood. Neighbors

Reporter 2:

Say ICE has made a move on one home under the cover of night. That’s exactly what you are seeing right now.

Soolah:

There were protestors next to me. There are protestors across the street. And then I turned to this car and it was right here. And then I heard out of the side, the siren go off and I turned and here’s this car coming at me from on the sidewalk. By

Reporter 1:

Friday night, protestors were chanting on the sidewalk, also trying to block the street and a home they believed ICE was targeting. That’s when Santos says ICE became aggressive. This video shows when an ICE officer drove up on the sidewalk toward protestors. Santos and local activist Sula Kemp say ICE officers became violent.

Maximillian Alvarez:

I’m standing here in Frederick, Maryland, just over an hour west from Baltimore, and I’m standing in a quiet residential neighborhood where just over a week ago, ICE agents in unmarked cars swarmed this neighborhood, surrounded the house behind me. ICE agents are on video beating peaceful protestors with their batons, menacingly driving their cars onto the curbs into the directions of protestors. And I’m standing here with Sula, who is a local resident of the area and who was here the night of those events. Sula, thanks so much for joining me here. Can you walk listeners through what happened and what you saw that night?

Soolah:

Okay. I was asked by as many people were asked to come and help. So I had that time and I was able to come down and I saw different ICE peoples actually around this whole neighborhood. They were in different pockets and locations. I hadn’t even come to this street. I had gone to two streets down and then the next street right over and you could see where they were positioned. And then there was also one that was driving around that seemed to be sort of intimidating by chasing cars, which I thought was really strange behavior because you didn’t see anything on the vehicle to say who it was. It didn’t say police, it didn’t say anything. Didn’t have any markings on the cars. So we didn’t know who they were. Assumed they were ice and their lights were just kind of on. They’re just sitting in their cars parked on the street.

So then there was a call later. I was there about three hours and then somebody had just said they need people on this street specific. So I was like, “Well, I’ll just walk over.” And they said that there was one car that had a spotlight on protestors. And what they were apparently trying to do on this street was just line the sidewalk, a public space with protestors. So that was fine. So I was like, “All right, let me take my phone and go to the other side and get the perspective of the spotlight being put onto the protestors.” So I did that. I first took a bit of video from this side as an observer and then went to the other side and stood there and watched just cars. And then all of a sudden as I was standing on the sidewalk, I heard a siren go off, just a few bursts of it.

And I happened to turn my camera and there was a car on the sidewalk coming toward me and telling me, and everybody who’s on the sidewalk, “Move, move, get out of the way.” At some point they sa, “You’re impeding a federal investigation.”

Maximillian Alvarez:

We’re talking about a car driving up

Soolah:

Right

Maximillian Alvarez:

Here where we’re standing.

Soolah:

Right. On the sidewalk, public space.

Maximillian Alvarez:

These are people’s houses. They’re driving onto people’s property.

Soolah:

Well, and if you or I had done that, what would’ve happened to us?

Maximillian Alvarez:

Yeah, they’d throw my ass in jail.

Soolah:

Reckless endangerment of people. And it was crazy. They stopped for a hot second and I jumped onto the grass at first and then I stepped back onto the sidewalk because I was like, “I don’t know what’s happening.” Just a natural response. I was like, “Wait a minute, I’m on the sidewalk.” So I stepped back on the sidewalk and then he started really coming. He did not stop and he sped up toward me first and then there was a woman behind me. And then there was another person, another protestor that they did hit and started to push with their car.

Maximillian Alvarez:

So you were standing right around here?

Soolah:

I was right here. And there was a car there. There was a car across the street. So I had my camera on this car. There were protestors next to me. There were protestors across the street. And then I turned to this car and it was right here. And then I heard out of the side, the siren go off and I turned and here’s this car coming at me from on the sidewalk. I jumped over to here. He passed me. He hit another protestor and then pushed that protestor out of the way. And then the protestors at some point have been sitting down, just linked arms, sitting down, singing and chanting right in the middle of the street, which is fine. They can do whatever they want to.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Community members surrounding one of their neighbor’s homes to try to protect them. Yeah. And then agents of the state come in and start beating the hell out of them for it.

Soolah:

Yeah. So they sat in the road and then they did get up and did that protection. And it’s a typical thing that people do to blockade, but peacefully, they didn’t do anything. They just linked arms. You can’t do much when you’re linked arms. And it’s a whole group of people. And then all of a sudden Frederick Police were coming and then they moved up to the porch area and started beating them up.

Maximillian Alvarez:

You and I are standing here right now on this quiet residential street. People who are watching this may have only seen a small slice of this street on line. What they can’t see is that this is the quietest residential street you can imagine. There’s nothing happening here. You would think with all the ICE agents and vehicles that were here last week that this would be a hotbed of overrun with criminals and criminal activity. It’s just families and houses.

Soolah:

Yeah, it’s very quiet here. You can drive around here and people are working, people are doing their lives and that’s it. So it’d be like every day storm into your everyday world in your suburban America, and that’s what happened. And when you look at now, it’s quiet, it’s peaceful here. So they brought a sense of terror and they brought a sense of unsafety. So yeah, the main set of protestors, they’re stationed on the sidewalk here right at the stop sign. There’s a whole group here. And then there was an ice vehicle here. There was an ice vehicle behind –

Maximillian Alvarez:

Right behind

Soolah:

Where I’m standing. Right behind where you’re standing. Because they started sort of parading in, it looked like a little ice parade. And I’m just joking about that because it was so weird. Once they got into the house, I could hear up in one of the rooms them banging stuff around. And another protestor had asked me, who was observing, asked me, “Do you hear that?” I was like, “Oh yeah,” because it was loud. I don’t know how the house was on the inside when this was all done, but this was a lot. And then I actually went and looked through the back part. They had a shed or some kind of building out in the back there, and you could see these guys go into the back and they started searching. They didn’t know how to get open the shed or whatever because it’s big, but eventually they did.

And it was eerie. It was very eerie.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And it feels reminiscent of the Gestapo view.

Soolah:

It does because who bangs down a door like that? Who goes through looking for whomever? And apparently they didn’t take anybody. I don’t understand why it all happened in the first place.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Yeah. So all that terror for nothing?

Soolah:

All that terror for nothing.

Maximillian Alvarez:

How do you move on from something like this? How does this community move on? How are folks responding?

Soolah:

I know right now they’re collecting donations for the people who were beaten because they had hospital bills. And it’s really hard because I don’t know them all personally. I came because just like anybody else, we don’t know each other half the time, but we do see something in need. So they do have a donation set up for them specifically. I am not sure what the next steps are. I know that I have personally tried to contact the attorney general’s office a few times. I haven’t heard anything yet. And I’m hoping that somebody who’s above, in some kind of governmental stance or something, because who feels safe going to the police when you watch the police stand there? There’s the question. I didn’t report anything to them, even though I had a vehicle come at me on the sidewalk. I doubt anybody else is really going to feel comfortable or safe, and maybe that’s the point.

Maybe that was the point too. I can’t speak for that, but it’s just what goes in my head, why would I contact you to tell you what happened? So I want to go higher up.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And so when you were here and you had federal agents and unmarked cars and you also had local police, did you feel in that moment like the police were there to protect you?

Soolah:

No. And the wild thing too is on the car that, at least this car that came at me, you couldn’t tell who they were because their license plate was tinted out. There’s nothing identifying that either. So who are these people? I don’t know if Frederick Police had some kind of directive because I don’t know what even drew them out here in the first place. Maybe they heard that people were getting beat maybe, but they were here before that happened. So maybe they have to take a specific. I don’t know. I literally do not know. And if that’s the case, if they have a specific directive or they don’t know what to do, maybe that needs to be talked about. Maybe something like this, when you have unmarked cars doing reckless behavior with their cars, doing reckless behavior towards other people, what is the community’s protect and serve folks going to do for the community?

Yeah.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Who are you protecting? Who are you

Soolah:

Serving?

Maximillian Alvarez:

Not us.

Soolah:

There are tax dollars going into all of this too, that people are going to step back and go, “Wait a minute, what’s happening here? I’m putting money toward them and it’s whoever was called out here for that night.” Who knows? I don’t know. But at the end of the day, who are they protecting?

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Speaker 1:

We all are well aware that we’re not dealing with good faith actors when it comes to the people who want to build data centers.

Speaker 2:

I currently work at a data center. That doesn’t mean that I approve of data centers. Every

Speaker 3:

Every time it storms, it seems that a bunch of lights go down in the city. I’m confused why we’re even talking about a data center if we can’t keep our own lights on.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Baltimore currently has a moratorium on new data center development while a city study examines the potential impacts that data centers would have on our city. However, even though that study hasn’t been completed yet, a proposed city council bill has residents here nervous that the door is creaking open for data centers to come into the city and that city council views this as inevitable. Council Bill 260174, sponsored by city council member Felicia Porter, would require new data center projects to go through a conditional use approval process that includes a health equity assessment. Now, residents who are opposed to the bill say that the bill may be well intentioned, but what they want is a full data center ban in Baltimore, not stricter guidelines for data centers to operate in Baltimore. Now, the bill is going to get another public hearing in front of the Baltimore City Council’s Land Use and Transportation Committee on the fourth floor of City Hall on the morning of September 24th.

And that meeting is open to the public. Now, I was there in the room during the last public hearing on Council Bill 260174, which took place on August 27th when the bill was reviewed by the Baltimore City Planning Commission and residents were given a chance to voice their public comments. Now, the planning commission ultimately declined to support the bill and opposition from members of the public to data centers of any sort was frankly overwhelming, but you don’t got to take my word for it. Watch for yourself.

Andy Ellis:

We’re here at the Baltimore City Planning Commission getting ready to hear a bill that would allow data centers to come in if they had a health equity assessment into Baltimore. This happens despite the fact that we have an existing moratorium. And so we’re here today to testify against the bill because we think that the moratorium should be extended or made into a ban so that we can stop data centers from coming into the community.

Blaire Postman:

Hi, I’m Blaire from Cat Ladies for America. I’m a resident of Baltimore and I’m here today because even though there’s a moratorium on AI data centers in the city, it seems like they’re laying the groundwork for them to allow them and allow them to come in without a lot of oversight. And that makes me very angry. Claws out!

Speaker 8:

The next item is number eight, city council bill number 26-017 zoning conditional use, health equity assessment data centers.

Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:

I am Councilwoman Phylicia Porter and I represent Baltimore’s 10th District and chair of the Public Health and Environment Committee and bill sponsor for 26-0174. The data center industry is looking at Baltimore at the peninsula, Fairfield, Hawkins Point and other industrial areas. At the same time, the federal government is accelerating AI infrastructure development and scrutinizing state and local laws. It regards its obstacles to that development. This creates a real risk for jurisdictions relying only on a temporary moratorium without a permanent framework under development, which will face legal and economic pressure. Other jurisdictions have already quickly learned how that pressure can arrive. Hill County, Texas faced a hundred million dollars in federal lawsuit shortly after adopting its moratorium and rescinded under that pause under the weight of that litigation. This lesson is not that Baltimore should surrender its authority. This lesson is that Baltimore must exercise its authority carefully, deliberately, and now.

A moratorium alone without companion framework and process is exposed to taking legal challenges. Moving bill 26-0174 through this process, hearings, testimonies, amendments, votes itself is a part of that good faith planning effort that the Supreme Court has been requiring. Bill 26-0174 does not promote or green light data centers. It strategically and administratively blocks development at every step of the way that does not align with community. It creates public accountable process for deciding whether a qualifying data center is appropriate for a particular location and under what conditions it may process. This is the foundational right of the conditional use ordinance process. Traditional zoning asks whether proposed use is compatible with the land around it. A health equity assessment asks an equally important question, what will this decision mean for the people who already live in those conditions surrounding that land? Bill 26-0174 puts that cumulative reality into the decision making process of the city council before approval, not after residents become ill, household costs rise and public infrastructure is strained.

This is environmental justice and it’s basic due diligence.

Jon Laria:

There are maybe some questions, but it took me a while to sort of get this straight in my head, but there are only written submissions opposed to this bill by people who are opposed to data centers and so are you. Yes. So it’s kind of odd because they’re opposing a bill and I think the reason that’s happening is because most people are starting with the idea that there’s a moratorium, meaning zero data centers. And your bill provides a path, a difficult path, but a path to data centers. No,

Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:

That’s not correct. So it is not correct. So the study adds a legal framework attached to the moratorium right now as shared within my remarks, right now we are under a moratorium where we are legally unrestricted. We are unprotected right now under this moratorium without the conjoining health equity framework attached to it.

Jon Laria:

I’m not sure I understand.

Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:

Yeah. So no worries. So when you have a data center and we currently have, I will say if you have a data center that comes into the city that’s under a moratorium right now, if they sue Baltimore City, they sue Baltimore City saying this is unjust. We understand that data center developers are getting very crafty in their arguments. They’re arguing First Amendment rights. They are arguing other rights that provide them a pathway forward. We are seeing that those moratoriums are getting overturned. The successful moratoriums that have been upheld are always assigned and/or connected to a framework that allows good faith effort to showcase that they are doing some sort of regulatory footprint with that moratorium, not just saying that you want a moratorium. So that is the issue.

Jon Laria:

Okay. Although we are doing this study, I mean the moratorium is not just a moratorium. A moratorium that just says moratorium because we feel like it, I see the weakness that you’re describing, but a moratorium so we can study it seems like a defensible position.

Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:

It’s not because again, what was mentioned in the planning commission report was that there is a lack of health equity associated with the current moratorium. This answers that response.

Jon Laria:

But it is sort of an odd posture because I think, and people should speak for themselves, but we have all these people who are opposed to data centers and they will come and testify and they’ve submitted testimony saying no data centers because I think they see in your bill a pathway to data centers and their view is we don’t want them at all. And under the moratorium – I’m not arguing with anyone. I’m just trying to get straight because they have all these people who are going to come up and say no data centers because they perceive perhaps your bill as loosening the restrictions, which is actually not how you intend

Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:

To bill. It’s not the intent of the bill. And I will also caveat, how many data centers have an application now with the current city of Baltimore that once this moratorium goes away, if we do not have the regulatory framework in place, how many of them will be actually going through the process?

Speaker 1:

But if I’m understanding the bill correctly, basically we currently have a moratorium that is pending a health review, health study review in the findings there. And that the bill is saying we need to do something that is stricter than a review and stricter than a moratorium because a moratorium can be overturned. And basically the bill is saying we’re going to provide a path to a data center, but the path is going to be very difficult. And so the hope, I believe if I’m understanding correctly, is that with the difficulty of the path, the data center should not be able to be built unless it passes very strict scrutiny that it likely will not pass. My concern as a citizen of Baltimore is this. I understand we all know full well, we cannot legislate the hearts and minds of people. We cannot put into a bill.

We all have to be nice to each other. However, we all are well aware that we’re not dealing with good faith actors when it comes to the people who want to build data centers. We’ve already heard testimony that there are people in rooms looking, combing through every law, probably across the country with fine tooth combs to see where they can actually exploit loopholes. And my concern is a citizen of the city and someone who cares about the city, who has young people who I care about in the city, who I want them to grow up in a place with clean air, clean water, not having the sound pollution and the headaches and all the things that come with having a data center in their vicinity. My concern is that if we know that we’re dealing with bad faith actors, then is it not our responsibility as citizens and as people in government to deal with the world that we have and not the world that we want to be?

You know what I mean? Deal with the people who we know are building these, which are bad faith actors and not deal with the fantasy of, oh, well, it’s going to be really hard so people aren’t going to be able to pass the test when people are looking to do everything they can to subvert every possible obstacle to getting these built.

Speaker 2:

So I’m a longtime Baltimore resident, electrician with IBW. I’m here to speak against obviously data centers. Obviously the contradiction here is that majority of the work for the IBW right now is data centers. I currently work at a data center. That doesn’t mean that I approve of data centers. One of the things that I think that we’re all missing here is that Baltimore is a city that has suffered from de-industrialization for a long period of time. Obviously the shutdown of General Millers, the shutdown of Bethlehem Steel. What we could be talking about instead of wasting our time with this is we could be thinking about how can we generate the power that the grid demands for something like this. We could be talking about solar farms, wind generation, be talking about battery storage. If you look at PJM’s own records, they say that Baltimore and the mid-Atlantic region is at risk of rolling blackouts, as others have said, by 2028.

Obviously our grid needs investment. Our infrastructure needs investment. The city needs investment. Investment from Google Meta does not solve our issues. If we actually care about having a city that functions, we’re going to need to be thinking about where are we putting power, not where are we taking power to? It’s really just that simple. And on that topic, if we’re talking about actually maintaining a labor force, we should be talking about how do we get the young people in our city into the trades that this type of work demands by doing some type of local hire mandates, something to make sure that our young people are not just left in the wind. Roughly 25% of young black men in the city aren’t working. Why are we not talking about what we can be doing for our city? It pains me. I just see no solutions, but we’re talking about something that can help billionaires become trillionaires.

Speaker 10:

Baltimore ordered the nine month study specifically required to recommend conditional use standards for data centers, yet this bill is already establishing conditional use framework. Why not finish the study and let the evidence inform the legislation? Second, under this bill, the company seeking approval prepares the health equity assessment evaluating its project’s potential health and environmental impacts. Subjection C9 even requires that applicants to explain the compelling public interest in its own project would serve. When a company has financial stake in an outcome, relying heavily on evidence prepared by that same company creates a conflict of interest. Why isn’t this assessment independent from the applicant seeking approval? Where is the scientific independence in this process? Finally, if this legislation is truly about putting community first, where is the community process when this hearing is being held in the middle of the day? As other people have stated, my friend, she had to leave.

Many working class Baltimoreans cannot take off to participate. So we are urging that this study be completed, that we require independent assessment, give affected communities meaningful participation. Please oppose this bill and enact a ban on data centers.

Blaire Postman:

I’m a 29 year resident of Remington in Baltimore. I want to tell you about a new building that’s being built. I know this hearing is not about that, but it’s relevant. This new building is going to use more energy than Remington and Charles Village combined. It required the building of a new electric substation. It’s going to be as big as the convention center. It’s on the edge of Stony Run, ground not appropriate for such a large building requiring very deep pilings. It’s displacing animals already. There are deer on my street. For the first time in 29 years, there are deer on my street. My street is five blocks from any wooded area. Deer are walking five city blocks to come to my street to eat all my flowers. I don’t care that they’re eating my flowers because they’re hungry. This building also has a truck road.

It’s going to result in this destruction of over a hundred trees. There was strong community opposition to this building. We were told that this building would not be a data center. I personally don’t know if it’s a data center. The amount of power it’s using, the size of it makes me wonder. So I have some questions. How did this happen? What’s the definition of a data center? And I just want to say that’s why I want to ban. I don’t believe this is a legal issue. I believe it’s a trust issue. There are bad actors. The megas of the world are bad actors and often our representatives do not support us. Odette supported our community. We voiced our opposition and yet Zeke Cohen voted for this and said data centers are inevitable and we need them.

Speaker 11:

I want to also remind everybody that people in Baltimore City, many, many are living on the edge. They’re living week to week. They’re living month to month already. Now, data centers are needed for AI. So you have AI and data centers working together. For some reason, we’re rushing into unregulated, unplanned black box of technology. I don’t know why, except I think it’s the investors who are creating this, creating this need and creating this bubble. So we have people, regular people striving to just get by. AI on the one hand is displacing jobs. It has displaced jobs. Everybody involved in AI says it’s going to massively destroy jobs. Sam Altman bragged about it. On the other hand, we have data centers which have raised utility rates for people around the city. As they’re built, they will raise more utility rates. Now we have people who are barely getting by.

What happens to them?

Speaker 3:

I love Baltimore. It’s a fantastic city. Fell in love here. We’ll have lots of friends and I’m connected to a lot of local art communities. It’s an important city to me and everyone in this room. And I say that because there’s a lot of conversations going on about water, about power. Every time it storms, it seems that a bunch of lights go down in the city. I’m confused why we’re even talking about a data center if we can’t keep our own lights on. I see streets and potholes all over the place and I would really like Baltimore to be a city that is ready for something like a data center. And to be clear, I want a ban on data centers.

But if I’m looking at the infrastructure we currently have just to support homes, just to support me, just to support my friends and family using regular water, I turn the heat down on my water heater. I’m doing what I can to try to make sure that I’m a good citizen in a drought, in a moment of contention. So I am asking council to put a ban on data centers, period, until we deal with potholes, until I can drive my car and not worry about it, period, until we can deal with power outages after storms, until we can make sure that all of our neighbors have access to grocery stores that are healthy for them in their local neighborhoods.

Speaker 12:

I’m a longtime participant in Baltimore’s professional filmmaking community. I’m also a longtime member of IATSE Local 487. So I think I’ll kind of address my concerns in terms of in sort of a cinematic fashion with a metaphor of sorts. When I think of the evolution of data centers as a topic of debate in the public consciousness, I can’t help but think of vampires as a metaphor for what they offer, both in how they mystify the impressionable and how they have the power to leach resources and destroy communities. When I look at this bill, it almost feels like they’re saying, “Hey, vampires want to come to Baltimore. We want to lay the groundwork to only allow the right vampires to come into the city. Vampires are risky. We want to make sure we know what a vampire is and then we want to make sure we get the old money vampires who have accumulated their wealth over hundreds of years and only bite certain kinds of people, maybe vampires that’ll make some of us super hot and young forever.

We want the best vampires for the community.” I don’t think I’m alone when I think of that and I go, “What if we just did no vampires?

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

News Clip 1:

A massive explosion and fire in South Toledo led to two people killed earlier today.

News Clip 2:

Firefighters rushed to the scene just before five this morning. The fire is still burning.

News Clip 3:

I was kind of about ready to get out of bed, oh, give or take about 4:45, 4:50. And all of a sudden I heard this huge explosion. I was scared to get out of bed to go see what it was. And then I heard a second one. It’s like this is like God of a movie. And then I stepped outside and then everyone was out in the street. I did see the fire and the flames were hundreds of feet up in the air.

News Clip 4:

People from all over Northwest Ohio could see this thick black smoke just pouring into the air and out of the rubble. Part of the building also collapsed. Two employees were killed, a man and a woman. We did hear from the family of Mary Allen. They say she was one of the victims and had worked at Brent Industries for 13 years, a dedicated worker, mother, and grandmother. And officials here say that there are still hazardous chemicals on the property, but the air here is considered safe.

News Clip 3:

OSHA teams are now involved in the investigation.

Sara Locker:

This is residents nearby ask more questions about what they have potentially been exposed to.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Welcome everyone to Working People, a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. My name is Maximillian Alvarez, and today we are in Toledo, Ohio. And we’re talking about the terrifying story behind the news clips that you just heard. As the Associated Press reported on the morning of August 18th, “Explosions rocked an Ohio industrial recycling business early Tuesday, killing two workers and sparking a large fire,” officials said. Flames and dark smoke poured from Brandt Industries in Toledo as fire engines surrounded the building TV news video showed. Cruz later discovered the bodies of two employees, a man and a woman. “Inside the smoldering building, “said Toledo Fire Chief Allison Armstrong. “Two or three other employees had minor injuries,” she said. “Two explosions occurred shortly before 5:00 AM during a shift change, “Armstrong said. Crews had to deal with hazardous materials, runoff and the threat of more explosions while first searching for victims and accounting for the other employees,” she said.

Aerial images showed that nearly all of the building’s roof was gone and that the blast blew out its walls. The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, said it was investigating. “The agency has six months to conduct its investigation and it won’t release any more information until that’s completed,” officials said. Authorities encouraged people near the site who could see or smell smoke to keep windows and doors closed and avoid the area. Now the company, Brent Industries, based in Brent, Alabama, offers textile reconditioning and industrial recycling services aimed at reducing waste and saving money according to its website. It was founded in Alabama in 1977 and has operations in Brent and Toledo. The company’s Alabama location also had an explosion and fire in 2015 that killed one person. After that deadly explosion, OSHA determined that flammable vapor from mineral spirits, a petroleum solvent used for cleaning and other purposes, ignited in an industrial washing machine.

The company was cited for a half dozen violations and fined $27,000 according to OSHA records. Fire officials say tanks containing mineral spirits were at the Toledo plant. The company says on its website that it uses mineral spirits in the cleaning process for work gloves, wiping clothes and other textiles that contain hazardous substances. In 2004, OSHA cited Brent Industries for two serious violations at its Toledo plant, including failing to protect workers from death or serious harm when they were exposed to a 270 degree Fahrenheit or 97 degree Celsius steam release from a washing machine OSHA Records Show. So we got a lot to talk about here and to talk about all of this, I am really grateful to be joined today by a panel of guests who are all residents of Toledo, Ohio. Thank you all so much for joining me on the show today. I really appreciate it and I wish we were meeting under less horrifying circumstances.

And please, before we get rolling, introduce yourselves to our listeners.

Mike Balonek:

My name is Mike Balonek. I am a local filmmaker and advocate for Sacrifice Zones, have worked with Max in the past and worked on the East Palestine train derailment for the last three years.

Dr Brittany Jones:

Hi everyone. I am Dr. Brittany Jones, councilwoman at large, and I have basically been following a lot of these type of explosions and environmental hazards for quite some time. I would say that I’m very involved with trying to save our environment, but also with the health and the lives of our residents and just people in general surrounding these incidences is really what I want to focus on and try to provide more healthier living standards.

Sara Locker:

My name is Sara Locker. I live five doors down from the Brent Industries explosion. I’m here today to represent my fellow neighbors, my community, and the great city of Toledo, Ohio to make more people aware of it just doesn’t happen in East Palestine. It happens everywhere in a small little town like ours, in a small little neighborhood like ours, and our voices need to be heard and our questions need answers.

Kris Ramsdell:

And last but not least, I’m Kris Ramsdell. I live right around the corner from Brent Industries and I just want to call awareness so things like this don’t become the norm where a greedy business owner sacrifices not only his employees’ lives, but then also creates a disaster and a neighboring community in which their business operates in.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Well, again, thank you all so much for being here with us today, and I’m so, so incredibly sorry that you and your community are going through this. I really want listeners to hear directly from y’all what has been happening and what it was like to experience this firsthand. So can we please just start by going around the table and talk about the explosions at Brent Industries and the nightmarish 24 hours that followed? Walk us through what happened and how you experienced it all as it was unfolding.

Sara Locker:

Well, I had just gotten home from work early that morning, had just started to fall asleep. We have a train rail right behind us, so when the explosion happened, it was one of two things in my mind being ripped out of a deep sleep that either somebody hit a transformer or something happened in the train tracks behind us. It jolted our entire household awake. When the first explosion hit, it shook our house. It bowed our windows, it terrified our children. The second explosion hit almost immediately after, and that was when my husband flew out of bed and out the front doors and my 19-year-old followed behind and my 16-year-old and our nine-year-old little girl were absolutely terrified. They didn’t know what was going on. My husband ran down the street, phone in hand. I was trying to call 911. You couldn’t get through. 911, there was no 911 because of the flood of calls that was happening.

The mushroom cloud of smoke and flames that you could see, the smell, it was traumatizing. And then to realize what had happened and then finally see emergency crews showing up, the mounds of people that gathered in our front yard in tears crying. We actually had one lady that had reported to work that morning for her 5:00 AM shift, and she was absolutely horrified. My husband directed her to our house where she could park her car. She was crying. She had had a young lady in her car next to her, didn’t speak any English, and the look of terror on her face just broke my heart. I think we spent a better part of that day comforting neighbors and comforting people that were standing there wanting answers. They hadn’t heard from loved ones. They didn’t know if their family members were in that explosion. Unfortunately, two lives were lost innocently for no reason, no reason at all, and we have no answers, nothing.

Kris Ramsdell:

Yeah, and I’m just going to piggyback off of what Sara said. I was actually just getting up. First blast happened about, oh gosh, I want to say it was about 4:50, 4:55 AM. So I was just about to get ready to get out of bed, start my day. The first blast, it was so extreme. Well, they were both extreme, but the first blast was so extreme, I thought I must be kind of dreaming this. I didn’t really equate it to something that was actually happening. Well, then the second one happened a couple minutes later and it’s like, okay, this I’m not dreaming. This one actually, it shook my house and as I’ve described in the past, it felt like someone picked my house up and dropped it. Literally, it was that forceful.

At that point, I hate to admit this, but I was kind of scared to get out of bed because it’s like, well, did somebody run into my house? Did one half my house blow up? No. And I kind of stayed in my bedroom and I’m like, let me see if I smell anything. And thankfully I did. So I got out of my bedroom to see what was going on and seen everyone congregate down at the end of my street here. I should say, I do live two doors away from South Avenue. South Avenue is where Brun Industries is located. It’s about, I would say a block and a half away from my house. I knew it’s like if someone was even near that, I can’t imagine how anyone could have survived that. And so the first thing I thought of was, oh my God. God forbid, hopefully nobody was there.

Hopefully they only operate for second shift. I thought at one time they operated three shifts, but again, it was 4:00 AM, so my guess is the third shift was probably still on. So my first thing was hopefully no one got killed.

So within probably 15 minutes or so, this car comes speeding down the street and it was this girl, she was looking for her mother. And so similar to what Sarah had mentioned, my neighbor directed her to park in the driveway at the house next to me. It was vacant at the time and she’s like, “I need to go find my mother. My mother is there.” And I just put myself in her shoes going to find my own mother or going to find someone I love, not knowing, walking up to this building that has exploded, not knowing if your loved one was in there that may have perished in it. It’s got to be the worst thing to ever face in life and nobody should have to. Her car was parked there for several hours post the incident. I kept looking out my window every 20 minutes or so to see if I could see her, see if I could follow up with her.

I don’t know if she was one of the folks to which she lost someone in or not, but the car did end up leaving several hours later. So that’s my experience the day of the explosion.

Dr Brittany Jones:

Yeah. From my experience, I don’t live in the proximity of the actual incident, but I am on this side of town and I also have family on this side of town. And also a matter of fact, some of our staff from council, they actually live within the neighborhood. So when that happened, from what I can recall, as both Chris and Sarah had said, getting jolted out of the sleep, not because of the rumbling, but our electricity basically went out and came back on. And so when power comes back on, alarms and noises start happening and we were like, “What is going on?” So we’re just same as Sarah, probably somebody hit a transformer or something like that and didn’t think too much of it because the electricity was back on. So then my work phone started going off with text messages from our deputy mayor, also our safety director, and telling us about this explosion that just happened.

First and foremost, I definitely want to give thanks to fire and rescue and all of the first responders. There were about a hundred that were out there, if not more, and especially the residents around that was trying to do whatever they could to give comfort, give just any sort of support for that. And there’s not much you can do from an industry explosion, but that comfort is really what’s important. And just getting the reports, and especially afterwards, seeing all of the bad reviews, the citations of the actual company, that was something that was really concerning of me. Some of my colleagues, the next day they held a press conference and they came back and was saying that the smell, just the illness that they were feeling afterwards. And they were only out there for, I don’t know, maybe 20, 30 minutes, and they were already experiencing the symptoms of migraines and nausea and burning, chest burning.

And so it was very, very traumatic. And mind you, this was really coming off of the back-to-back incidences that we also had because we also had a fire at OmniSource, and then there was a tanker on the east side that had overturned that had hazardous materials. So there were three incidences within maybe three weeks of this caliber. And so that’s when a lot of questions started popping up like, “Well, what is the regulation and were they up to date with different things? And what more can we do, especially if people are experiencing these symptoms and having to go to the doctor if they can go to the doctor?” And it is just a lot of things that really bought to the forefront of what do we do as a city, as a neighborhood when it comes to these types of incidences moving forward really.

Mike Balonek:

So funny enough, I actually found out about this from some of my friends in East Palestine. They were messaging me, asking me if I was okay. Luckily, I don’t live in the immediate vicinity. However, just from some of the research that I’ve done on the weather patterns, how long this thing burned for, there’s a good part of the city that could have been affected by this. We don’t know because they’re not doing the kind of testing that’s necessary to find that out at this point. But for me, my initial reaction was, this looks serious. This looks like something that I’ve seen many times before. And as the day progressed, I kept following it. And within a few hours, the EPA came out and said that everything was safe, which I’ve heard this story before, and I know Max, you have as well over and over and over, unfortunately.

And so that was alarm bell number one, and I decided that I really need to start talking to some folks. Met Kris almost within the first 24 hours, I think, of all of this and just started talking about what was going on. Went down there myself for the press conference that Councilwoman Dr. Jones had mentioned, and I could taste it, I could feel it, all of the same things that I experienced in East Palestine. And so for me, immediately I knew this was something that was concerning. I wanted to do whatever I could to help because this is something that I’ve been doing for three years now, and anything that I can do to shine light on what residents are going through, I felt that it was something necessary for me to do.

Maximillian Alvarez:

I appreciate y’all so much laying this out, and I hate so much that this is a trauma that you have to relive because it’s a type of trauma that so many of us are getting a firsthand experience in, even if we though it might never happen to us. And I know what that feels like. Mike said we connected first in East Palestine, Ohio where that train derailed in 2023. And ever since then, I’ve had the same fear that I think so many have had who’s heard those stories is what if that happened in my hometown? What if that happened near my house or where my family lives? And then it happened to me in May of this year when I read the headlines, I wake up in the morning and I see GKN Aerospace facility experiencing a pressurized tank crisis. It could explode. 50,000 people have been evacuated.

Where? In Garden Grove, California, 10 minutes from where my family lives. And it was East Palestine residents, like you said, Mike, who were texting me about it, asking if my family was okay, asking if the EPA was giving everyone the same shtick and saying, “It’s all fine. Everyone go home. Whatever you’re breathing in is going to be okay.” And it was like seeing the same movie playing over again, but in my hometown. And I really can’t stress enough for people listening, if you think this shit can’t happen where you are, it can, and it may already be happening and you don’t even know about it. And again, we’re not equating all of these different catastrophes. Everyone is different. Every community is different, but the sort of larger increase in these types of explosions, derailments, toxic disasters, that doesn’t just come from nowhere. There is a larger kind of history here.

There’s a system here that is contributing to endangering frontline workers and fenceline communities all over the country, whether you’re in a city, rural area, if you think you’re in a “blue state” or red state, this crap is coming for all of us. So I’m going to get off my soapbox for a second, but just hearing y’all, I was just so overwhelmed with emotions that I had to say that, but I want to bring it back to what and who this is really about. And I wanted to ask if y’all could tell us what we know about the two workers who lost their lives in this explosion. What do we know about them and what is being done for their families?

Kris Ramsdell:

Well, I will just say this. The explosion happened on the 18th. We didn’t hear anything from the company in regards to their employees until the 27th, they released a public statement. And in the public statement, they said something to the effect of that they’ve been in contacts with the families that are affected. I don’t know if I believe that or not, but we’re talking several days that elapsed that these poor people that worked for this company, I can’t imagine they were paid more, a little bit maybe over minimum wage, probably were living paycheck to paycheck while this company is making millions of dollars off the back of these people and they don’t even have the decency to come out and make a statement saying that they’d mourn the loss of their employees. What is wrong with us? What’s wrong with our humanity? These people didn’t make their millions just from themselves.

They made it off the backs of these people. One of the victims, her name was Mary Allen, and then the other victim, I don’t know his first name, last name was Garcia Perez, I believe. And so Mary Allen, her family has been in the media and whatnot.

I regret I didn’t know her. She just sounded like an all around great person. And I don’t mean to sound mean or unprofessional, but it pisses me off to no end that her life got sacrificed because of someone’s greediness because that’s what this boils down to is corporate greed.

Sara Locker:

I have to agree with you, Kris. I’m actually upset at the fact that a woman that dedicated almost 14 years of her life to such a, I guess you can horrible company, horrible money hungry company and then not to speak out after so many days. What about Mr. Garcia? I haven’t heard anything about him. And what does that say? If people that have lived around here don’t know anything about the people that lost their lives so close to their homes, and with us being such a close-knit community and we’re worried about our neighbors, our community members, and for them to not even acknowledge the two lives lost and then to not even acknowledge the residents that live close by, to not say anything to anybody, they’re not compliant. My 16-year-old went to the city council meeting over Brent Industries and he came to us and said when I had to work and his dad had to work that he wanted to go to this city council meeting because as a child who’s 16 years old, people don’t take them very seriously because most of these kids run around and they don’t care about anything but what video game they’re playing or what friend’s house they’re going to.

But my son has been side by side with us and he likes Mike, he likes Sherry, he liked you. You are the few people that my son has felt comfortable enough to attend this city council meeting on behalf of kids his age to show the council members that we too are affected by this and he’s angry with Brent Industries. We live five doors down and it was like living in a sandstorm in the Sahara Desert for at least three days. The smell, the heartbreak that you feel for these families. We had to leave our home and go to a motel and people around here, we can’t afford that. Like you’ve said, we live paycheck to paycheck. And when we have to uproot the only place that these children call their safe place and it’s no longer safe, please explain to me how I explained that to my nine-year-old daughter who can’t sleep in her bedroom at night, who has migraines and stomach problems, who isn’t the same person.

She doesn’t like any loud noises anymore. My 19-year-old won’t come out of his room some days because his stomach hurts so bad. My 16-year-old has migraines and he’s puking every morning. He gets up.

The first week of school we thought, okay, the Brent Industries happened the 18th. They started school literally that next Monday and my daughter goes to Burroughs. What do you explain to these kids when she has questions and comes home about what happened? She came home and we thought she was back to school sniffles. No, she had a sore throat, itchy eyes, runny nose, congestion. It’s disgusting. And Brent Industries sits back and does absolutely nothing. We’re just going to continue to collect our money, but we owe the city of Toledo $20,000 in back taxes, a million dollar water bill. Where’s the accountability for them? They don’t have any. They feel like they’re untouchable and that’s not fair.

Kris Ramsdell:

And I will just kind of piggyback off Sara for a second. I’ve been kind of doing some digging on this company, looking at Ohio EPA records, and I think part of the cause might be a lack of regulation. We’ve had some conservative governors the past several years that have tried to make the state more business friendly, but I almost wonder if that’s kind of come to a cost of people’s lives. And I’ll cite to one example with one of the EPA inspections, I was kind of surprised to see where they were trying to schedule a time to go and inspect the facility. And of course you have to expect when you go and schedule an appointment to make sure a organization is in compliance with the law, you should expect that they’re going to put some kind of a show on. You’re not going to see the real deal as if you dropped in unexpectedly.

So I think that has not served us well. I’m all about providing opportunities for jobs and for folks to make a good living and whatnot, but at the same time, there’s got to be a decent handoff where we’re not exposing people to dangerous working conditions. And I kind of feel like the way our policies are written here in the state, we kind of enable this behavior, I guess might be a way to put it because we remain business friendly, but at what expense, at the expense of the two people who perished, I mean, absolutely not. Now all of us that live around here, I shouldn’t say all of us, but a lot of us are now experiencing the aftermaths of it. Meanwhile, this company, they’re living high on the hog, haven’t seen them. There’s no face in front to represent their company. We just get this little mediocre statement.

I mean, that’s nothing.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And I think so many people around the country are waking up to this reality because of all these goddamn data centers that are popping up everywhere. It’s like people are learning. They’re getting a crash course in how screwed up our regulatory apparatuses or lack of regulatory apparatus and all the ways that local regulatory control has been removed or legislated away in the dark years ago. And that has made communities increasingly more vulnerable to the predatory exploits of these companies. And we’re seeing it all over the country. We see it here in Baltimore all over the place. And so I wanted to kind of keep going in that direction and ask for folks who don’t live in Toledo, if y’all could keep help painting a picture for us about this area and the issues that Toledo has had with Brent Industries before and other industrial polluters in this area.

Mike Balonek:

I mean, just to paint a picture of Toledo for folks who aren’t familiar, Toledo’s a heavily industrial city. We’re the home of Jeep. We have a very long history of industry in Toledo with many similar kinds of disasters. There’s a lot of legacy chemicals and stuff that are already in the ground that have been affecting people’s health for probably the better part of a century at this point. And so this isn’t anything new for Toledo, but there’s a lot of history of this. However, this is becoming a pattern as Councilwoman Dr. Jones mentioned, within that same period of time, we had many incidences. In fact, the same day there were two incidences. There’s the Brent Industries and then there was another one. And so I mean, this is just a problem that is systemic. It’s a regulation issue. As you mentioned, Max, it’s not a red or blue issue necessarily because this happens everywhere.

This happened in your home state of California, which is about as blue as they get. And so I think that’s an important thing to recognize with people that this isn’t just one side that’s causing these problems. This is a long running issue. We can look back as far as Love Canal and Times Beach just in modern history, but it goes back further and a lot of this stuff has probably never been documented. So I mean, we as Toledoans, we’re very familiar with this. I feel very lucky that as a city, we do have leaders that are keen to this. I think that members of city council have been asking some really tough questions of city leadership of the EPA, hopefully that they can get answers to eventually. This is something that they don’t necessarily have in places like East Palestine. City leaders in East Palestine were mum the whole time, if not directly supportive of the narrative.

And so I think that’s a really good quality of Toledo. We are fighters here. We are people that aren’t afraid to stir the shit if we need to. And so I think this could be a moment for us as Nation to maybe stop and reflect and say, “Hey, we need to start looking into this.” I really hope that Toledo, even though it’s not going to be the last one, there’s already been other disasters after this, that we can be one of the last ones, that we can be the catalyst to start a national conversation to maybe fix this.

Dr Brittany Jones:

I really want to add to that because as Mike had said, we are heavily industrial, but we’re very dependent on industry as far as how we get our revenue, property taxes, income tax, majority of population is definitely working class, blue collar. I came from union family working at GM, and so that is literally our bread and butter. But now we’re moving into, we mentioned data centers, we’re talking about AI, we’re talking about automation. So that is adding an extra layer to this because if we’re having all of the technology, what does that regulation look like? Is it going to be even more dangerous? I mean, of course chemicals are very dangerous, but now we’re talking about more advanced technology. And what does that look like when it comes to disaster preparedness? Looking at and talking about this, we are very adamant as far as trying to get answers.

To this date, I don’t think we have even a list of who has been in the plant at that time. And at the committee meeting that Sarah had mentioned, we had talked with Chief Armstrong, we talked with police that were giving just the updates, talked with our environmental services as far as their monitoring, and they really haven’t heard anything from Brent as well. So this is a prime example of when you put profit over people instead of opposite. And that is really what we have to strive for as we’re moving forward as a city. We’re a legacy city. And so that’s just another term for post-industrial city. And as we’re coming into that redevelopment, kind of rebranding, this is what we have to keep in mind because our infrastructure is aging. Of course, that’s costing money, that’s going to have more regulation, that’s going to really have to have more accountability as we make this transition.

And hopefully, I say hopefully in quotes, there won’t be any shortchanging when it comes to these policies and regulation and things of that nature because it is seeming like that profit over people at this point. And I’m so glad, as Sarah had mentioned with her sons, and there was a couple of other young people there showing up and speaking out because they are the next generation. If they decide to stay in Toledo, this is what is going to be left of them. And I don’t want that. I have three little ones. I don’t know if they’re going to stay in Toledo, but if they do, I don’t want to leave it like this. I want it to be safe and I want everybody else’s future and legacy to be safe and secure as well. And so trying to get answers, and it’s really hard because they are a private industry, that is really going to take a lot of pushing, even from the mayor, even from our commissioners, Lucas County commissioners.

We have to have those questions. We have to get those answers, but they seem to be dodging. They had that statement as Chris had mentioned, but what does that mean? You’re not doing, you’re just issuing a public apology. There’s no disbursement of money to take care of medical needs. Houses may have been damaged, especially if they were right there. There was just nothing that was being offered and we’re still trying to get information. So it’s literally at this point, it’s trying to keep pushing and really keep asking those same questions and trying to figure out how do we take care of this with other industries that are within this city because Toledo is getting hot. If you’ve been reading the headlines, we’re most affordable. Everybody’s trying to move here. Since we’re talking about the environment, climate migration is real. People are coming to the Midwest.

So what does that look like? That’s more people. That means more services. That means more power that has to be used. If our systems are not up to date to take care of that capacity, we could have repeated incidences just like this. Then what? Now we’re going to have a population that’s sick because we don’t have the right processes and check-ins in place. We’re doing mediocre monitoring. I understand that our services, environmental services, EPA doing air monitoring, water pollution, they said that everything was fine. We were like, no. We need continued reporting. And their level of safe is probably just that little threshold to where you’re not dying. It’s not like you’re not sick, but you’re not dead. So I think that’s okay. And that’s how we should not be doing that right now. Actually ever. We should not ever do that because again, everything is connected.

If people are sick, people can’t go to work, they can’t provide for their family. Now you’re talking about you can’t provide housing, you can’t provide food. So now we’re talking about homelessness, starvation, it’s a domino effect. And that’s why we need to really hit hard with this and keep this going because it’s going to keep happening and they’re just going to keep doing it or keep coming to Toledo saying we’re offering you jobs, but it’s your safety that’s at risk. And whatever, if you get hurt or die, it doesn’t matter. We’re getting money anyway. That is not how Toledo needs to work. That is not how we should market ourselves and definitely should not be an acceptable reason for our residents just because to get a job. The safety protocols are just not in place right now. And this is clearly evident with all of the incidences that have been happening just around here and around the state as well.

Kris Ramsdell:

To piggyback off the councilwoman’s statement, I feel like sometimes in some cases, and I think we could apply this to this organization as well, that lives are disposable and they are absolutely not. And I ask myself this question, why doesn’t this type of thing happen in the wealthy neighborhoods? Why does it happen in neighborhoods like this? Are we lesser? Are the employees that provide that million dollar salary to the owners and shareholders and whatnot, is their life really disposable so they can make a quick buck? I think we really need to truly reevaluate our value system.

Sara Locker:

I a thousand percent agree with you, Kris and Councilwoman. I think you nailed everything that I’ve been feeling recently on the head. We have, not going to lie, have actually thought about leaving Toledo because it’s literally, that’s what we look at every day. That’s what we deal with every day. And being a born and raised Toledo, we’re a very proud city. We are very, very close. And I think we can all agree that Toledo hasn’t had the best rap lately. But when something like this happens, we come together as a community and we stand up for what we believe in. And for the EPA to come in and say, “Oh, it’s safe,” like Councilwoman said, to me it feels like Brent Industries is basically saying, “But did you die?” Well, two of your people did. And who’s to say six months from now, just like in East Palestine, just like in other places, that somebody doesn’t end up even sicker than what we are now.

I have blood clotting disorders. I have history of clots in my lungs. I’ve had two surgeries in the past. How do I know this isn’t going to cause a flare up and I end up with another clot? How do I know this isn’t going to result in my son’s asthma flaring up to the point where he can’t breathe? My 19-year-old was literally, I can’t breathe. I had to give him two back-to-back albuterol treatments just to bring him out of it.

And for Brent Industries to not be held accountable and for them to not stand up and say, “Hey, I apologize. This is what we’re willing to do to make you guys feel more comfortable about the situation.” I’m sorry. I don’t think they feel bad. I think they just feel like because this factory was in a lower class neighborhood, “Oh, well, we’ll let it die down till the dust settles. We’ll be forgotten about.” No, not today, sweetheart. No, ma’am.

Kris Ramsdell:

And I kind of worry too, and I had very extensive conversations with Mike when him and I connected about getting the word out. It’s like this is probably an annoyance to them, all of us speaking out and raising hell about this. And I sometimes wonder, these are well-connected folks. Am I going to be retaliated against? I think that’s a real thing too. All the way around, it’s unfortunate. And I must say too, it’s like the government we’re paying, and when I say government, I’m talking more state and federal, maybe not so much the state, but they too have a portion of this, especially the federal government. It’s like I am paying them taxes for an agency such as the EPA to work against me. It’s like they’re providing cover for this company and it’s like you’re supposed to be looking out for us, not looking out for this company.

And that’s what it feels like. I’ve asked if everything is kosher, my thing is show me the raw data. Tell me what you’re testing. Tell me what the limits are. If I have that and other scientists agree that it’s okay, experts and whatnot, then I will be quiet about this. But it’s the unknown, I think also that just is elevating this anxiety.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And it’s the goddamn gaslighting, right? I mean, because, again, everything that you guys are saying, like we were saying earlier in the conversation, it’s like I’m hearing the same script from different places. I found out that the EPA was telling my hometown community back in California during the GKN Aerospace facility crisis that they were using the same air monitors to test the safety levels of chemical exposure that they were using in East Palestine to tell people that it was fine when we know that it wasn’t, to tell people that they were safe when we know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals that were bioaccumulating in their bodies and harming their health and continue to harm their health. Now we’re seeing the cancer rates spike. They tell everyone it’s fine in the beginning and then years later we all see that it wasn’t. And not only that, but we learned that they knew that they were lying to us in the first place.

And so you can’t just come out and say everyone’s lying to us all the time. We have to make concerted decisions about finding the truth and knowing what the heck is happening and not jumping to conclusions. But the very agencies that we expect to be there to help us do that are demonstrating that that’s not what they’re there to do, that they’re not there to serve us. They’re there to serve the companies, they’re there to serve the political interests. But this kind of thing, just the script happens, a new disaster happens and all the same crap kicks into gear. And that’s why it’s so reminiscent of the story of East Palestine, Ohio and the train derailment and chemical disaster that happened there in 2023, which brought Mike and me together. And we filmed a Izzy Award-winning documentary in East Palestine about that catastrophe. Did it fix the problem?

No, because people continue to get sicker and their lives continue to get harder. Property values are going down, costs of living are going up, hospital bills are going up.

East Palestine became a national example of a preventable catastrophe with disastrous consequences for the people and hardly any for the company that caused their pain. And industrial disasters like this one in Toledo and Brent Industries and like the fires and explosions at Smitty Supply in Louisiana or the BioLab facility in Conyers, Georgia, or that deadly paper mill tank rupture disaster in Longview, Washington that happened earlier this year and it killed 11 workers. These kinds of disasters always trigger a sort of traumatic response in our consciousness and certainly in mine, and I know everyone who listens to the show. And so I kind of wanted to finish by asking in what ways has the explosions at Brent Industries been similar and different from what happened in East Palestine?

Mike Balonek:

I will say right off the bat, this isn’t as bad. What happened in East Palestine was on a scale nearly unimaginable. People had called it the Chernobyl of chemical disasters, and I think that’s accurate. However, what happened here is still absolutely devastating. Brent Industries is basically straddled by two pretty sizable neighborhoods. Basically just doing a little on the back of a napkin kind of math. I figure there could be potentially 20,000 people that were affected by this just based on the direction that the plume went initially. And so I think that in and of itself is very, very concerning. One of the things that I absolutely appreciate from Councilwoman Dr. Jones was that she was pushing for symptom tracking. I think that’s absolutely critical at this stage in what’s happening and the development of this. If we don’t start following this stuff now, when the cancers start happening, when the thyroid issues start happening, when the heart issues start happening down the road a year, two, three, five years from now, we will have no record of this.

There will be no evidence. And basically Brent Industries will have gotten away with it. And at this point, we have a moment where we can actually take care of that. And I think that’s very, very important. And Dr. Jones, if you would like to speak on that a little further, I think that would be really helpful.

Dr Brittany Jones:

Yeah, thank you for bringing that up. That was actually the next step of what I’m trying to push for. I’ve already talked to the director of the health department because at our committee meeting, that question just kept coming in my mind. Who can people go to? Who can people call in order for them to report their symptoms? Even though they’re not experiencing them at that moment, we’re talking about down the line because it’s still there. If you could still smell it and taste it and still having those symptoms, obviously something is still there. And so we need to keep track of that. Unfortunately, the health department does not have something like that. You have to call a number or you have to go to your primary caregiver and they would report back to them and that’s how they usually do the tracking. I said we can’t do that mainly because, like I said, some people can’t afford a doctor.

Some people don’t go to the doctor. And how can you rely on the information from the medical providers? Not saying it’s fraudulent, but as far as transferring that information, and then also what do you do with the data? How can you visualize it? How can you plan for it? How can you do strategy from it? Because we still have to understand that data does tell a story and data is proactive when used the right way. So looking at that, I think it’s very important to start doing this, especially if these incidences keep happening and have been happening. As Mike had said, we don’t know what’s down the line. And thinking about the children, the schools that are within that proximity, that’s young and they are very sensitive to a lot of things and that can develop over time. So now we’re not talking about physical, but we’re talking about mental, we’re talking about learning capabilities, talking about behavior because all of that can affect as they get older.

It’s stored in your system. And so looking at that, we need to start doing this now, have to update our disaster planning. I’ve been talking to the Lucas County commissioners about that. There is some plan that’s in existence. It needs to be updated. So I’m trying to get that updated, but I don’t understand why people are not seeing the urgency in this. So that is what I’m working on and I need some help in terms of pushing that and trying to get that going, but that is in the works right now. So I’m very adamant about that and this needs to be a normalized system, not just something that you do temporarily because of this, a normalized system that is part of every incident because we need to start understanding what we could possibly be getting into as a result of these explosions.

Kris Ramsdell:

I do want to say that our health department, Councilman, you might be aware, they did read a webpage which gives information to contact Poison Control. I guess they’re the ones that are doing some of our symptom tracking right now if I read.

Dr Brittany Jones:

No, you’re correct. And that was because I reached out to the director and said that he needs to do that. Thank you. That’s what I was talking about. Yeah. So that’s why that’s happening.

Kris Ramsdell:

So Max, that might be one thing you want to put in your report. I can actually give you the link to the Lucas County Health Department. That’s our county that we live in, the webpage that they set up that gives information on this. It’s still not adequate though, by the way. I say that, Councilwoman, I know you are doing great and I appreciate it. I’m talking overall, but we’re just not equipped as a jurisdiction to handle these types of things as of right now.

Sara Locker:

I’m going to take a nice little walk down to what we call ground zero. And I will, Max, I can email you some pictures, some videos, whatever you may need. I can send you the videos that my husband has as well for context. Councilwoman, I commend you. You’re doing a fabulous job. We as residents appreciate everything you’re trying to do to make sure that our voices are heard. Mike, you guys have been phenomenal. We appreciate you. I know Chris does, I do, the kids do. I think as residents, we grow more concerned every day because there hasn’t been answers. There hasn’t been any updates. And I understand Councilwoman Jones and the rest of the council members are doing everything that they can on a city level. Unfortunately, Brent Industries is going to stand by, “Oh, you’re going to be okay. We’ll live through it.” You’re not going to sit here and tell me that a chemical textile plant exploded five doors down from me and we’re safe.

I’m not going to buy it until I see hard proof, like I’ve said from day one, until I see hard proof that proves that I’m not going to believe it. We as a community need to stick together. We need to stay close to each other. We need to stay in contact with each other. We need to check on each other. I think as far as our kids are concerned, I’m going to follow up with the appointments, especially for our youngest, get her into some therapy for PTSD because clearly she has it. And like Councilwoman said, it’s affecting them all differently. And who’s to say six months down the road that one of us, I don’t develop a blood clot or my husband doesn’t, God forbid, develop something or one of my children. And Max, I’ve seen your video on East Palestine. Actually, before this podcast, I didn’t know who you were, so I did my research and I sat and cried when I saw that from East Palestine, just to see the emotion in them people and to see the fact that three years later and these poor folks are still living the same horrors that I couldn’t even imagine knowing what we go through.

It’s gut wrenching and it’s disgusting. And I think we as a community, we deserve the answers. Whether Brent wants to give them or not, we’re not going to stop until we get them.

Kris Ramsdell:

And I will just back up everything that Sarah said. I wholeheartedly agree with her. I will say I’ve kind of rethink everything and the things I’ve taken for granted, such as breathing decent air at least. Today here in State of Ohio, it’s in the 70s, perfect day to have my windows open. I’m scared to have them open. I have this cough. I feel like I’m going to cough my esophagus up. In fact, I was worried about having these coughing fits on the call. I can’t shake it.

Sara Locker:

The kids haven’t shaken it either. They’re still sick.

Kris Ramsdell:

Yeah. It’s a dry cough. Thankfully I was having immediately after the explosion, I was having these headaches. Thankfully that has gone away for myself. I’m only speaking for myself, but this cough that I have, it’s terrible. It’s absolutely terrible. Like I said, I can’t shake it and I cannot tell you the last time I’ve been sick.

Sara Locker:

This is our new norm in this household.

Kris Ramsdell:

Yeah.

Sara Locker:

When a 16-year-old has to take two of these just to go to school and two of them just to go to bed because his headaches are so bad, when you have to buy a bottle this big to last because everybody’s experiencing some sort of symptom, there’s an issue.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And I guess for folks listening, Sarah’s holding up an industrial size bottle of ibuprofen.

Kris Ramsdell:

That’s what greed will do to a community when they value the dollar over the lives of human beings, and it’s sad.

Mike Balonek:

I just want to add one experience I had as well. So we invited Scott Smith, the independent scientist who’s been going around to various sacrifice zones, blowing the whistle on the contamination there. And we went out on Saturday, we did most of our testing, but then Sunday before he left, this was at the end of August, we went back down just so he could get a few pictures and stuff before he headed out of town. It was a foggy kind of rainy day that day, and I’ve heard a lot from East Palestine residents about them experiencing smells and other issues on days like that. And the smell at Ground Zero was atrocious. It was more intense than anything I have ever, ever smelled in any of the disasters that I’ve been to. I’ve been into contaminated homes in East Palestine and I’ve never experienced anything like this.

I got a huge headbuzz. I’ve gotten head buzzes off of going into the creek with you, Max, when we went and filmed our documentary. I got head buzzes from going into residents’ homes, but these were slight to moderate. This was extreme.

I felt like I was going to throw up at one point. I was just so dizzy and just out of it basically. And so just that experience alone led me to believe that there is definitely some significant contamination there. We’ve smelled the smells coming out of the creek. We’ve seen the sheen in the creek behind Brent Industries, and I can only imagine what people who are living in it have to experience. I get to leave the area. I live several miles away, not downwind of it luckily. And so most of what I experience here at home isn’t even close to what residents in the immediate area are experiencing. And so I think that’s an important thing to recognize. I was outside. I wasn’t in somebody’s house like I had been before, and this just hit me like a ton of bricks, and that’s really concerning to me.

Kris Ramsdell:

And Max, another thing too, I know we got to wrap up real quick, but even after the fire department, and by the way, the entire city of Toledo dispatched their fire department. We had to call in neighboring communities to cover for the department, the areas that have to respond to this fire over here. But something else that I think should be pointed out here is even days following the explosion, we had these issues with reignition and the fire department would have to come back again. I can’t tell you how many times, at least three times where the scenes, everything’s all locked, gated up, but these chemicals would start mixing and they’d have a reaction and they would start to inflate again. So I think that just adds also to the toxicity of what is over there on that property.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Alright, gang. Well, that’s going to wrap things up for us today. I sincerely want to thank all of our guests from Toledo, Ohio, Councilwoman Dr. Brittany Jones, Mike Balonek, local filmmaker and sacrifice zone advocate, and Sara Locker and Kris Ramsdell, who both live right next to the Brent Industries facility where the deadly explosions happened on August 18th. And of course, I want to thank you all for listening, and I want to thank you for caring about this. We do all of this work for you, but we cannot do it without you. Working People is brought to you in partnership within these Times Magazine and the Real News Network. This show is produced by the great Jules Taylor and is a proud member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network. We’ll see y’all back here next time for another episode of Working People. And in the meantime, please go explore all the great work that we’re doing at the Real News Network, where we do grassroots reporting that lifts up the voices and stories from the front lines of struggle around the US and across the world.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel, check out our great podcasts like Under the Shadow and the Battle for Free Speech, and connect with us on social media and get updates on our reporting there. And please help us do more work like this by going to therealnews.com/donate and becoming a supporter today. I promise you guys, it really makes a difference. I’m Maximillian Alvarez. Take care of yourselves. Take care of each other. Solidarity forever.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to Rattling the Bars. I’m your host Mansa Musa. Today I’m joined by Lance Grandpre, political commentator with Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, to discuss his recent article for Baltimore Times, “The Dangers of ‘Law and Order’ Leftism—Toward a Black Power Public Safety.” Thank you for joining me, Lance.

Lawrence Grandpre:

Thank you for having me.

Mansa Musa:

Alright, so let’s start like this here. At one point we had in 2020 where you had a push for the abolishment of prisons and to dismantle the police system as we see it during that period. But immediately you had a pushback and the pushback came in the form of saying that this was woke. Now we look at the United States and mass incarceration, armed policing, and you juxtapose that with the lack of funds for healthcare, lack of funds for education and lack of funds for housing and the fact that the criminal injustice system is in itself painful when it comes to poor and oppressed people, mainly people of color. Let’s start with your article.

Lawrence Grandpre:

So this article stems out of a protest I went to because sometimes people say if you talk about police reform or defunding police, you don’t care about victims. And this protest was the opposite. This was a Black elder, a former member of the Baltimore Black Panther Party who was assaulted by many teenagers and it was caught on film. So of course Fox News, our local Fox News is showing this over and over again saying, “Lock them up, what’s wrong with these kids?” And these were community advocates, many of them women, Queen Mother Victorious who lost her son to gun violence, Mama Gwen, who was formerly incarcerated, coming together with community and saying these young people, what they did was a problem, not because it just violated the law, because it violated our community respect for elders. And we don’t want to just throw the cops at these kids and throw away the book, but if people know who these young people are, turn them into us, the Black community, so we can make sure that they are held accountable but not railroaded by the criminal legal system.

And I though the sophistication and intelligence of that response and even Baba Ade, the elder who was hurt, saying the Black Panther’s argument was that capitalism and racism breed criminality in the community.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Lawrence Grandpre:

And it’s not for us as the vanguard to educate ourselves and use political consciousness to eliminate criminality, not just from a material standpoint, but from a psycho-spiritual standpoint. And it was really interesting because this was a few days after AOC went on the news and said, “Nobody’s talking about defund anymore. Woke 1.0 was crazy.” So it was really interesting that the people who were supposed to be talking about social justice, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, some of these other so-called leftists,

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Lawrence Grandpre:

Even they were saying, “Defund—that was just people on Twitter trying to look woke. Nobody really talks about defund in real life.” And these Black elders, Black people in West Baltimore, were saying things like, “We have a $700 million police budget in Baltimore. How are we going to have that and schools and investments in the Black youth?” So these Black people who the left is telling us are conservative are actually more progressive than the DSA.

And I thought that was very telling that, in this moment, going into the midterms, there are these leftist democratic socialists who are trying to get elected, and because they want to get elected, they want to push away from radical rhetoric because they think it’s turning off voters. And I think that that goes to show you that when it comes to Black people, we need to have our own vision of public safety, because what’s being offered by even the left, the Democratic Socialists, is willing to push our issues aside, because they have a misunderstanding of our issues. They think it’s just a bunch of radicals on Twitter as opposed to Black folks been talking about Defund since the ’50s. And our visions of Defund are very different than what you saw on Twitter in 2020, but these folks wouldn’t know that.

Mansa Musa:

So how do you see the DSA in terms of how they look at the budget, just police budget and the fact that it’s undercutting the services of the very people they supposed to be representing?

Lawrence Grandpre:

It’s interesting because I think if you are a democratic socialist, it’s obvious you believe police are a tool to protect capitalism. So a world where if you’re a socialist, the idea that you wouldn’t talk about [how] protecting capitalism getting more money is a problem for you—it’s weird.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Lawrence Grandpre:

But these folks are a particular brand of socialist. Many of them were very much pro-Bernie Sanders. So when Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris used conversations about identity to attack Bernie, now a lot of these folks see all conversations about race as just distraction from class issues.

So, even when Black people talk about police, they say, “Well, it’s not serious. No one really talks about Defund. So you’re really just trying to attack the socialist candidates.” And it’s like, no, Black folks have been the community control of the police platform.

It wasn’t just invented by the Black Panther Party. It was talked about by Black activists in the ’40s and ’50s, in part because the understanding that if the police were seen as a solution to all social problems… it’s not just police, it’s police-ism: the idea that policing is the only solution to the problems facing all poor people, but especially Black poor people, that’s going to push money away from all the other programs we need in the Black community. So Black folks have been saying that, really, since the Northern migration.

So when we talk about community control of the police, part of that is having community control boards control the police themselves, hold them accountable. And we’ve worked on that as LBS, but it’s also community control of the institutions that produce public safety beyond police. So, housing, addiction, education. I mean, I love to point out that Bobby Seal, he was in AmeriCorps before he was a Panther. So he would be shooting dice with the Black kids trying to school them on AmeriCorps’ time. And part of his frustration is these nonprofits don’t let us actually do the training we need to do with these youth, but we got to get the money from the nonprofit because that’s the only job we got. So even the Black Panthers program was a push for Black control of resources to socialize our youth, specifically around things like violence prevention. And again, the idea that all of that is just under this large framework of “woke”… And again, the right wing hates woke, we know that, but even some of the Bernie folks—they really hate “woke,” because they associate it with the attacks on Bernie and they see all conversations about police as woke.

Mansa Musa:

Let’s unpack some more about DSA because we see upheaval of DSA type activity and we see in terms of midterm elections, some of the candidates that ran on DSA platform have made it through the primary. And so at the same token, what is their appeal? Because they vacillating when it come to social issues.

Lawrence Grandpre:

The federal government, in theory, can print money. So there’s this belief that if we just spent more money, things will get better, and the Democrats have been afraid to spend money. I think that in the DSA, it’s like, “Let’s really focus on, in theory, cut the military budget, invest in community through things like Medicare for Al”l. Now, if you don’t have the integrity to stand up for “Defund the Police,” why do you think we would believe that you have the integrity to stand up to “Cut the Military Budget? If you don’t see the connections between the violence of policing and the violence of militarism, why would we expect you to be able to push the military budget to community?” 

Lawrence Grandpre:

These are intelligent, college-educated voters who feel like the government needs to spend more money, in part, because it’s a job program for people like them. So they have an interest in fighting the austerity of the Democratic Party, in part, because they want to see conditions improve for the community, but also in part because it’s a business model for the voters of DSA. And that’s a big concern for us, because even with Medicare for All, there’s no world in which healthcare should be a for-profit enterprise. But it’s not just that doctors are racist. When you look at things like Black women get more cesarean sections than other women, So, literally, they’re getting cut open in these dangerous surgeries. Black women, if you have a child in the hospital, you are going to get a drug test. And even if you pop for that drug test from the epidural, the drugs they give you for the pain, they might take your kid away. So engagements with the medical system are not just imperfect for Black people; they are places of surveillance and violence.

So we, as Black people, need systems like a birthing center, like nutrition, upstream investments that are different than what the DSA crowd cares about. So the idea that we should just accept not talking about Defund to get Medicare for All ignores the fact that Black people—we don’t just need healthcare to not give us a bill. We need to change the vision of healthcare so we control it. And the DSA is not interested in that. They don’t really think that way. And they honestly believe the only way anything will get passed if it goes to everybody. Universal programs prevent racial backlash. Because we know any spending in America is seen as giving money to welfare queens. So we just got to give the same thing to everybody and that’ll deal with racial backlash.

And what we know is anything you do that gives out any tax money will deal with racial backlash, but also do things that don’t give Black people the power we need to build for ourselves. It will just put us in systems that really are built by other people that, even if it’s good for them, can often be violent for us.

Lawrence Grandpre:

But I think that, again, when you have a class-based vision of the world, that has become in some ways hostile to thinking about race because you had negative experiences with people weaponizing race against people like Bernie Sanders. You’re not thinking about what a political agenda would look like when you actually invest in… because we should do both. We should have a class-based redistribution of wealth, but that restribution should also be invested in community institutions that reflect the culture and history of specific communities, not just Medicare for All, but clinics that use the history and culture of the community to provide that healthcare. Nutrition that reflects the culture and the way communities like to be fed so that they can have upstream nutrition so they don’t need to go to the doctor in the first place.

These things should go hand in hand. And I think it’s concerning that it feels like, because DSA is becoming electorally viable in some spaces, that [they] only talk about affordability issues, only talk about Medicare for all, only talk about ending the war in Iran, without really thinking intelligently about a platform that would meet people’s needs for community control of public safety, broadly defined. So not just policing, but again, youth programming, schooling, getting nutrition. Our kids are literally hungry.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Lawrence Grandpre:

They’re fed junk food, but they’re undernourished. So we actually do have serious nutritional needs as we have obesity in the inner city. So what does it look like to build a food sovereignty ecosystem, whether it’s Black Yield, Black Church Food Security Network that can actually feed ourselves as opposed to just the DSA, it’s like, well just make sure they get food stamps. And food stamps are cool, but food stamps are not the vision of liberation for us.

Mansa Musa:

But talk about, because when we look at DSA, and it’s misnomer even to use the name socialist because when you look at. We got examples in Cuba and when they first took over, the literacy rate in the countryside was 90%. 90% of the people could not read or write. They organized, it’s a book out called Vincent Ramos. We were trying, that’s the name of it. And they organized all the college kids, all the intelligence and made them go in the countryside and stay to educate the people, to get them to read and write.

They didn’t say, “Oh, we’re going to create a system where they can come out the country, live in a project style housing dwelling and get them public schools that’s not going to teach them nothing.” They actually educated the people and a lot of that education led to what we see today in Cuba, got best medical, despite all the things going on. So when we talk about DSA, and I think this is a danger, and maybe you want to weigh in on it. I think it’s a danger that confronts that notion that this is a socialist party and because the right wing is going to put them right in the category like communists and they can resurrect that notion.

Lawrence Grandpre:

Socialism, to me, the key word is social. You either have the market making decisions about planning for the world or you have people doing it socially. It’s clearly better to do it socially, but there are divisions within that larger social body. And my concern is that even amongst some of the people in the DSA crowd, the leftists, some of the visions of what they would socially plan may like and lean on policing partially because they are afraid of being looked at as communist. So they might, for example, even in very, very progressive Bernie Crat, DSA San Francisco, there’s this push to, well, we got people homeless, they have mental illness. So they as individuals may not be rational, so we are going to use policing to bring them into drug treatment.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Lawrence Grandpre:

And again, this is like even Bernie people sometimes say this. So there are elements of even the less progressive mindset that are like, we as a society can’t let you be out here damn bad. We have to help you lift yourself up. And if that means we have to involuntarily commit you to treatment, and if we have to use police to do that, then we’ll do that. While one thing that we talk about here in Baltimore is, and Baltimore’s been a heroin town since the 60s and 70s. And it’s been really hard for us, but we’ve also had systems of informal community care that have been designed to address some of the worst exigencies of drug abuse. Nika Namdi from a program called Fight Light said that grandma’s basement was the first halfway house. We had systems where elders, you would be able to stay with family and you would be able to get certain stabilizing influences through your social network so you wouldn’t be out on the streets.

So in that worldview, we would look at something like making sure these abandoned homes get rehabbed and given to Black people in community. That’s partially an anti-homelessness effort.

That’s an anti-addiction effort. That’s a crime fighting effort. So it’s not just social housing, it’s not just public housing. It’s also making sure that Black people in communities can pass down their family homes

And they have a way to make sure that they’re affordable so they can stay housed because that produces capacities for people who do suffer from addiction to not be on the streets committing crime. And again, the DSA vision is so limited to what they see and what they know, they sometimes end up using police where it’s like, if we just had networks of people in community that could care for each other, we wouldn’t need police for that. But I also do think folks are afraid. I know academics are very afraid and some folks are afraid of looking too radical, looking like the rhetoric of 2020 was burn down the police station.

Mansa Musa:

And

Lawrence Grandpre:

I think that’s also part of what they want to distance from when they talk about we not doing defund no

Mansa Musa:

More. Part

Lawrence Grandpre:

Of it is the direct antagonism with the state, the cost of that has increased for them. What we know is that the cost is high for us, whether we’re openly antagonistic or not, we are politically antagonistic by making demands upon the state to recognize our humanity. So we’ve always had to deal with that potential backlash. And I think now for some folks they’re saying, oh, I can’t use that. We’re not trying to do that radical rhetoric no more

Mansa Musa:

Because

Lawrence Grandpre:

People are losing jobs, people are potentially getting deported. So it’s like the ’70s, marginally away from the rhetoric of the ’60s and leaving the Black radicals out to dry after the draft ended. I think the white radicals moved away from radicalism and that we’re seeing a similar

Mansa Musa:

Dynamic. Okay, but we know that this is the 60th year of the anniversary of the Black Panther Party. And I was talking to somebody about just like we’re not anti-police. The party wasn’t anti-police. One of the things they did, one initiative they took was, and this is a revolutionary suicide by Huey Newton, where they had this particular intersection that didn’t have no stoplight and it was in the Black community and kids was getting hit. So somebody came and said, “Man, they not doing nothing about this. We’ve been complaining.” So they went down there and became traffic guards, the members of the Black Panther Party. They held up the traffic, let the kids walk by, you know what I’m saying? And this is what they did. And they had guns with them because they had one part of their program was policing the police. The police in turn came and told them they stop.

Now you guys stop this. They said, “Well, we’ll stop this when y’all put a traffic light up there or y’all stop directing traffic. We don’t care which one you’re going to do, but you do or we going to continue to do.” They wind up putting the traffic light up there. So in terms of that particular example, what are the core aspects of the Black Power Public Safety?

Lawrence Grandpre:

I like your example because the party was a little bit different in different cities, but I think one thing that stands out to me is that they had questions about police, but the Black Panthers in some ways were law and order. It was law and order within the party. You cannot show up high, very much about discipline, law and order in the community. If you’re selling drugs, if you’re a parasite in our community, we’re going to deal with you. And I think that’s a perception, because this is something that happened in 2020, that there were white leftists being like, “Let’s just run wild and be anarchist and burn stuff down.” It’s always been Black people that’s been like, “We’re not doing that.” So the idea that somehow that is tied to Black issues, no, we’ve always been extremely serious about our liberation.

So when the Black Panther Party talks about doing a plebiscite in order to get Black sovereignty, I think that’s an example of why we need to think about community control of the police in terms of we have in Maryland, substantial police reform is nowhere near enough, but we need to have the ability for the community to have investigative power to be able to investigate police. We need to have community resources to be able to flow to community institutions so the community decides who’s doing public safety in that community. So when we talk about who’s funded to do violence prevention work, it shouldn’t just be the people who are tied into the police or the people that are tied into the nonprofit world. We got tons of people in community that have been doing work that have not

Mansa Musa:

Been funded.

Lawrence Grandpre:

And the fact that they are getting a little bit of money now, I think is part of why we’re seeing these unprecedented declines in violent crime. So Black power public safety isn’t just people getting grants. It is the community having the power to determine what the grant making criteria are. It’s the community being able to tax institutions in their community that they see as producing crime. And by that I mean Johns Hopkins. That’s

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Lawrence Grandpre:

Because Johns Hopkins gentrified the whole area of the

Mansa Musa:

City. The big colonial king in Baltimore.

Lawrence Grandpre:

And when you gentrify a whole part of the city, you’re moving people to different hoods and that creates a lot of possibility for conflict. My father was a cop for 20 years, so he talked about East Baltimore used to be called the country club because it was so quiet up there. But when Hopkins gentrified all those people out of the Middle East Baltimore, a lot of them moved to Northeast, which creates a ton of conflict, pretty much increased the murder rate in that part of the city. Hopkins should have to pay for that. They got a $13 billion endowment. So Black Power Public Safety is about us not tying in our future to gentrification, which is what the police really are a tool for. They’re a tool to produce gentrification. That’s good for that business model because gentrification needs policing.

Mansa Musa:

We

Lawrence Grandpre:

Should be able to put tax on the gentrifier so we can secure our communities so they can’t gentrify them, own our own property, stabilize our communities, but then invest in the capacity to take care of our youth, to do violence prevention, to take care of our health. All the things they stripped from us, they should have to pay us to be able to do for ourselves. In that world, I think we would have Black Power

Mansa Musa:

Public Safety. Right. And that’s basically what the Black Panther Party was doing because they had the survival program. Exactly. And the concept was Survival Pending Revolution. The Survival Program wasn’t like us being in a basement, taking guns apart in the dark with blindfolds, then putting them back together, making bombs, reading Ann Archer’s cookbook. No, survival program was the free breakfast program, free medical, sickle cell anemia, taking prison families to prison to visit them, alternative education. This was a survival program, survival pending revolution. And what the goal was, going back to your point, the goal was to stabilize the community for self to be able to be self-determined. So if I’m self-determined, I got self-determination. A great example for Baltimore would be the Clean Block because when they had Clean. And I remember I was locked up and I used to read the Afro. Afro had a big thing about Clean.

The sense of community that came out of that, the Clean Block, when they was able to say, “We recognizing this neighborhood for Clean Block.” But more importantly, that neighborhood not only had a clean block, but that neighborhood had policing. That neighborhood had a sense of identity that if I seen you, I know you Meryl’s son or Meryl’s daughter. I know you Tommy’s son or Tommy’s daughter. You know me and you know that if I see you doing something that you ain’t supposed to be doing, then I’m going to tell your parents the minute you see me, you’re going to alter your behavior because that became the sense of community. But like you say, once Hopkins got in the equation, and not only Hopkins, I remember when Shafer started when he did the Inner Harbor and they started pushing people out of certain areas in order to get to Inner Harbor and they pushed people into.

Either they pushed them out into the county or they pushed them into the interior of Baltimore in neighborhoods they wasn’t familiar with or neighborhoods they was familiar with and had issues with and would automatically create a conflict. But talk about how do you see, because what you just outlined is in fact a model that is one, inexpensive because it becomes self-contained. So the monies that you’re putting towards astronomical police budget can go towards stabilizing some of the projects that deal with housing, deal with substance, the people that’s actually doing the work.Like you say, you got people that actually going around taking people and putting them in a place and letting them drown. So we talk about how you see DSA and the gains that they’re getting and the models they’re using. How do they fit into this narrative? Are they rewriting the script and say they’re going to invest in this type of thinking or their model is, like you said earlier, we creating a cadre of intelligent people that can grant write and that’s going to become our funding source and not only our funding source, but create an infrastructure for doing case studies and then marketing these case studies, the new Jim Crow.

Lawrence Grandpre:

Yeah. I think it’s to be determined. We’re going to see a huge increase in DSA affiliated leftist people in Congress. Now, whether they’re going to be able to write bills, whether they’re just going to vote on stuff that comes from the Republicans, we’re going to see. I think the real test is going to be 2028 when it’s possible the Democrats will take the White House, Senate and the Congress. So it’s really going to be important for us these next two years for people that believe in the possibility of these folks doing good to push them. What is your actual proposal on how you can use the power of the federal government to enhance the ability of people On the ground locally to have more ownership and power and control over the institutions that impact their lives. Because policing is a state and local issue. Feds actually have relatively little control

Mansa Musa:

Over it,

Lawrence Grandpre:

Except given a few grants here or there. So really it is, do you have a vision for whether it’s through food sovereignty policy, whether it’s through manufacturing policy? The metric for us at least is again, local self-determination and the ability for local people on the ground to own the institutions that are doing this work. I think part of even going back to the New Deal, the frustration with these progressives is that sometimes they do these top down technocratic re-imaginings of what solutions look like that don’t involve community. Mamdani, people have called him a technocratic socialist.

Mansa Musa:

And

Lawrence Grandpre:

I think that’s not on some right wing stuff, but that’s scary from a Black power

Mansa Musa:

Perspective

Lawrence Grandpre:

Because technocracy oftentimes views Black peoples as widgets and inputs in someone else’s equation for progress and liberation. And I think part of the value of the Black Panther Party is they called themselves socialist, but in many places, in many ways they were also Pan-Africanist and Black nationalists. And they were combining them all to say that, yes, we will fight capitalism, but we will not just make the people this abstract proletariat to fit within a Eurocentric version

Mansa Musa:

Of

Lawrence Grandpre:

What a class centric revolution will look like. We are going to lead our people on our vision of what we think fighting capitalism looks like. And again, I think it’s going to be our job to force the DSA to not see that as woke, to actually recognize that that is just what black people demand. And that’s the cost of us being in political coalition is you respecting our self-determination.

Mansa Musa:

And I agree it’s to be determined because one, you gain electoral office through coalition building. That’s really where it come out of. And you’re able to get a common identity out of the coalition, common identity being what we want change, the change that we want to see. Harold Washington in Chicago, he was successful at building a coalition. And to his credit, he tried to maintain the standard, but they fought him tooth and nail at the state government. So he wasn’t able to get a lot of things done. But the fact of the matter, what we’re asking or we’re talking about is not really hypothetical because we see this in Europe and we see examples where police don’t have guns. They call in, if it’s a violent situation where a gun, they got a unit that comes in to deal with that. But outright, the police walk around with no weapons because the lack of fear towards the society.

Lawrence Grandpre:

You mentioned New Zealand, I think in that as

Mansa Musa:

Well.

Lawrence Grandpre:

But in New Zealand as well, the Aboriginal communities actually have really pushed a model for youth justice that places tribal elders and tribal institutions at the heart of restorative justice programming

Mansa Musa:

For

Lawrence Grandpre:

Youth who are engaged in acts of criminality. And so that’s been a big fight for Aboriginals in New Zealand and Australia to really demand tribal sovereignty over their youth as opposed to putting them into the juvenile justice system.

Mansa Musa:

But

Lawrence Grandpre:

Again, given the legacy of the private schools where they beat the Indian out of you and stuff like that. And again, I think it’s jarring for white people to think that we as black people are asking for something similar here in America because the joke is white people are so settled in America, they don’t even see themselves settler colonists no

Mansa Musa:

More.

Lawrence Grandpre:

And I think unfortunately that’s part of what’ happened with the DSA. It’s like the idea of black sovereignty is just jarring to them in a way that you’re an Australian, you know you took over Australia and there are people here that are really dark skinned, you’re not.

Mansa Musa:

But

Lawrence Grandpre:

I think in America, that basic concept of having to negotiate with people who have their own sovereign agendas is not something that they’re used to conceiving as anything other than a tool for the centrist to undermine the Bernie’s of the world.

Mansa Musa:

And

Lawrence Grandpre:

I just think the reality is if DSA is going to get Black support, it’s going to really have to reckon with the visions of the world that come from Black people, including our visions of public safety.

Mansa Musa:

Right. And before we close, you got any closing remarks?

Lawrence Grandpre:

I really appreciate this. Please check out our podcasts and search of Black Power and Political Commentary Corner. So those are on YouTube. Check us out at lbsbaltimore.com. We have all of our email updates about the work we’re doing in Annapolis to push criminal justice policy, reparations policy, which

Mansa Musa:

I’ve

Lawrence Grandpre:

Never seen DSA has been skeptical on, but we’re very adamant about its practical utility as a framework to invest in Black sovereignty here in Maryland. And you can find me on any social media at Neil Nubian, N-E, the number zero, Nubian, N-U-B-I-A-N. Right.

Mansa Musa:

And we ask our audience to really take deep thought on this particular subject matter. It’s not like say it loud, I’m Black and I’m proud. It’s not when Stokley Carmichael in the ’60s, they called Black Power, James Brown, Song and Song. We’re not in that state. We’re not trying to go back into that state of mind, that conditions created that state of mind. We’re talking about an analysis of having Black political power as it relates to our safety. We’re talking about because we’re the ones that’s unsafe, we’re the ones that this astronomical budget is being doled out to, to make us feel unsafe, to lock us up. Then we believe, as the brother was talking about Lawrence, that we believe that we have a right to define what is safe for us and what is not safe for us. And making that definition or defining that, we see the necessity to make an analysis and implement it.

And in this case, this is an analysis that we want to, I think the Gullah Geechee in South Carolina got a thing where they do restorative justice. And so the fact that you infringe on the community, that they might not put you out the community, but they’re going to put you in such a shameful state of mind and the fear of what you’re getting ready to lose or make you get the person to come back or people come back and lie in accordance with the social system that they set up. We ask that you continue to support the real news and rattling bars because guess what? We’re actually the real news. Thank you.

Suha Maqat, Palestinian Athlete: 

I’m in a wheelchair—how am I going to escape? 

Rabab Nawfal, Palestinian Athlete: 

There were days when we ate animal food, bird food. 

Suha Maqat, Palestinian Athlete: 

I lost my eye. What more do you want? 

Rabab Nawfal, Palestinian Athlete: 

My dreams have been shattered. 

Narrator: 

In Gaza, everyone is struggling to survive. But for people with disabilities, that struggle is multiplied. Rabab Nawfal and Suha Maqat – both wheelchair users – were champion athletes before this war. 

Rabab Nawfal, Palestinian Athlete: 

I’m one of those people who didn’t go to the south. I lived through famine twice. I lived it twice. No one asked after me. There were days when we didn’t eat anything. There were days when we ate animal food, bird food. We ate everything—animals, birds. Even those things were expensive, and then they were cut off. The day they were cut off, we stopped eating anything. 

Ramadan came during the famine. We didn’t eat anything. A long day passed, and we didn’t eat anything. We used to crave drinking water. We used to crave a piece of bread. We were hoping that the famine would never come back. But unfortunately, it did—and it’s still coming back. 

We’ve suffered a lot in life. I was abandoned. No one took responsibility for me. My mother and father used to take care of me, but they left. These days, my brother takes care of me—and he is injured. My life is ruined. No one is with me. No one cares. And the one person standing by me is injured. He can barely carry his own family. 

When we were displaced, he couldn’t help us. He wasn’t able. For people with disabilities like me, it’s been difficult to live through this war. Those who are not disabled can maybe manage their lives. They can move, walk long distances—but I can’t. 

Suha Maqat, Palestinian Athlete: 

The closest people to me abandoned me—they didn’t stand by me. They left me to fend for myself. I feel like I live in a forest with wolves and monsters. I can’t. I try to make things work,

but I can’t. I’m mentally exhausted. The circumstances of this war are incredibly difficult. Even the word displacement is difficult for the injured and disabled. 

When we left, my brother was injured and my sister was in a bad state. Even though he was injured, he was pushing my sister, as I pushed myself along. I got stuck in the sand, and they wanted to bomb the building next to us. It was the most difficult moment. I said to myself, now I’m going to be killed. It was the hardest moment of my life. 

I thought—how will I escape? How will I, in my wheelchair, escape? How am I going to get out? My brother was injured and couldn’t carry me. I thought, I’m done; there’s no life for me anymore. That’s it. I’m going to be killed. 

Rabab Nawfal, Palestinian Athlete: 

The hardest thing I’ve experienced in this war has been displacement. I woke up one day and saw the Israelis in front of us. I was all by myself. I rushed out, but I couldn’t continue. There was a lot of shelling, shooting, bombs. It was a miracle I got out alive. It happened again and again—the same scenario repeated a thousand times. 

Narrator: 

Both Suha and Rabab rely entirely on their wheelchairs to move. Without them, the most basic tasks become impossible. Israel’s blockade has meant that access to this crucial item has been cut off. 

Even with functioning wheelchairs, with 81% of roads in Gaza now damaged or destroyed, access and movement is extremely limited. 

Rabab Nawfal, Palestinian Athlete: 

There are no wheelchairs in Gaza. And without a wheelchair, I can’t move. The wheelchair takes me to my medicine, my food, my drink—I need it for everything. Right now, my chair is broken. I’ve lost all means of life. 

Suha Maqat, Palestinian Athlete: 

As you can see, my chair is broken. I push myself in it, I fall off all the time, I cut and bruise my legs. If someone kind is around, then I can move. Otherwise, I can’t. 

We requested wheelchairs, but it was no use. We asked and asked, and they said no. Rabab Nawfal, Palestinian Athlete: 

My life before the war was very beautiful. I was a champion of Palestine’s disabled national team for strength games—basketball, tennis. I used to do all kinds of sports that suited my disability. I was a success story. I was a hero. These days, I feel worthless. Nothing in life. I can’t even get from here to there. I can’t move from here to there in a wheelchair. My life is 

gone. There is no life.

These days, we only dream of having the most basic things: flour, water. The simplest things—we can’t get. Drinking water—we can’t get it. 

Suha Maqat, Palestinian Athlete: 

Suha before is different from Suha today. I used to be a champion of Palestine. Today, I’m nothing. Today, just a daughter who needs her mother—who needs her mother to help her. 

Rabab Nawfal, Palestinian Athlete: 

Two days before the war, we were playing qualifiers to represent Palestine internationally. But we didn’t manage it. On the day of the championship, the war erupted. So our dreams are gone. All our dreams are gone. My dreams have been shattered. 

I wanted to raise my son. I wanted to raise him well and teach him. Before the war, I wanted to enroll him in karate. I wanted him to become something. I couldn’t. I wanted him to be into sports like me—to become a doctor. I wanted him to grow up and help me in the future. But my dreams were shattered. I couldn’t do any of it. I can’t do anything. 

Narrator: 

According to the UN 4,800 amputations of limbs had been documented since the beginning of the war. Ten children were losing one or both legs every day. Gaza had become home to the largest group of child amputees in modern history. Not only is Israel making the lives of existing disabled people impossible, it is also creating an entirely new generation of people with disabilities. 

Suha Maqat, Palestinian Athlete: 

Gaza has become a city of ghosts. There is no life in Gaza. As you can see—look at how people are living. On sand! How can people live on sand? How can they occupy Gaza? How? 

We want peace of mind. We don’t want to lose any more loved ones. We’ve lost enough. Is it not enough that I lost my eye? What’s left? What more do you want? I lost my eye—what more do you want? What else should I lose? Nothing’s left. There’s nothing left in this world that I can lose. My family has left. I wish I could see my mother. See my father. 

Rabab Nawfal, Palestinian Athlete: 

Life has become unbearable. No matter how much I talk, I can’t describe what I am feeling or the life we are living. I used to be someone. Now I am nothing.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Michael Fox:

Hi folks. I’m your co-host, Michael Fox. This is the Battle for Free Speech, and this is the third bonus episode in this series. So this one is particularly important and timely as Brazil is heading into high stakes presidential elections this October. The race is between current leftist president Luis Ignacio Lula de Silva and Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro. If you have listened to episode six of this podcast series or my podcast series Brazil on Fire or the entire season two of my podcast Under the Shadow, then you know a little bit about where things are and where they’re headed. And this is another deep dive. Today, I’m bringing you my full conversation with Arturo Romeo. He’s a Brazilian journalist and the director for Latin America of the International NGO Reporters Without Borders. I spoke with him specifically for my episode about Brazil of the battle for free speech, but there was so much more from our conversation that I couldn’t fit into that episode.

In this conversation, Artur mentions a couple of things and I want to give you some context. First, Alexandre Morais is the Brazilian Supreme Court justice who led the investigations into fake news and Bolsonaro’s hate cabinet. He also oversaw the electoral court in the 2022 elections, and he was the guy who had the showdown with billionaire Elon Musk over Twitter back in 2024. In fact, Morais blocked the social media platform in Brazil for roughly two months after Musk refused to suspend a series of Brazilian accounts who were disseminating fake news. Then Musk pulled Twitter’s legal representation from the country. Musk later acquiesced and Twitter went back online. But that escapade has been used by the far right and even President Donald Trump to claim that Morais and the Lula government have been censoring free speech in the country. And in fact, that was one of the top reasons for the 50% tariff on Brazilian goods that Trump imposed last year on the country.

And it has been at the heart of Trump’s campaign against Brazil and Lula in an effort to influence the outcome of Brazil’s presidential elections this year. Okay, I think you are up to speed. Here is my full conversation with Artur Romeo in its entirety. We spoke last year, 2025, but it is more relevant than ever today. I hope you like it. Arturo, thank you so much for being with me today. Thank you so much for your availability. I really, really appreciate. Super excited to talk with you about all these things.

Artur Romeu:

Thank you, Michael. I’m also excited to talk about those issues with you. I

Michael Fox:

Say the same question to everybody. For you, what does free speech mean?

Artur Romeu:

It seems like a simple question, especially for an NGO working with press freedom for 40 years at the institution that I work for, the NGO, that I work for Reporters Without Borders, we have been working defending press freedom, not exactly free speech, but they kind of free speech and press freedom drink on the same fountain or same roots of freedom of expression more broadly. So free speech is the ability to essentially being able to impart ideas, opinions, views on the world around us without being harassed, persecuted, prosecuted, attacked by governments or other groups, can be religious groups, but also economic interests. So the ability to be able to, as an individual or a collective, to express yourself and your ideas and contribute to the public debate without fear for reprisal essentially.

Michael Fox:

And Artur, what is your analysis of the state of free speech today in the world in Brazil and the United States and elsewhere? Where are we?

Artur Romeu:

I think that there is a lot of confusion. Maybe I never saw as much confusion around those issues as we are seeing today. Basically, one of the things that scares me is the fact that free speech is being weaponized against press freedom, for example. Another issue is that we are focusing too much on the individualistic aspect of free speech, and we have to have this understanding that at least coming from a freedom of expression perspective, there are an individual dimension, but also a social and collective dimension of freedom of expression. It’s not just our ability to being able to express ourselves and to impart information and ideas, but also to receive those information and ideas from others. So the way we are talking about, or at least the way that some political groups and specifically the far right nowadays everywhere in the world, not specifically in the US, has been instrumentalizing the idea of free speech for their own political purpose and abandoning a key aspect, a key dimension of freedom of expression, which is this more social and collected dimension to receive plural, reliable, diverse and free information from others.

And a third issue, and I think that’s behind most of this confusion as well, is the role that big tech social media platforms are having on this discussion because we have the idea that regulating this economic activity sector would be the same as censorship, but actually better regulation, good regulation, democratic supervision, improve the condition for free speech and press freedom and the integrity of information in general. So this opposition between the ability to be able to impart your ideas and the need that governments have to find a way to regulate the digital sphere arena online is they are not opposed to each other, but it’s a complex discussion because emerging technology always poses new problems. And even if we are not saying that social media platforms are necessarily new to our political landscape, AI is becoming something more popularized and we don’t know the impact that AI will have in this cacophony, this, I don’t know, some people are calling it epidemics or this crisis of reliable information.

And the key problem here is all those things together are fragmenting public conversation, public debate, and public debate is at the core of our democracies. So there is a clear link between this fragmentation of public debate due to all this and the erosion of democracies everywhere.

Michael Fox:

Arturo, you’ve just mentioned everything you said, I was like, we need to talk more about that because this is at the root of all this is why it’s so important. Before we dive into more specifics of all those things that you just mentioned, I have this idea, this hypothesis, are we in a moment where the far right folks like Trump and Bolsonaro are trying to redefine free speech in their favor instead of what you mentioned, “Oh, we need actually some regulation so that we can have a field where we’re actually getting not just random information and fake lies and everything else for everybody else, but we’re actually getting information that is what we should be receiving.” Are we in a moment right now where certain groups are trying to redefine what free speech means so that they can use it to push their agenda?

Artur Romeu:

Of course, it’s very clear. It’s been happening for a while and it’s crazy how effective it is because I think people are very concerned with society in general every day on our daily lives, every citizen is concerned with their ability to basic freedom. And I think that for a very long time, at least in other democracies, this is something that was kind of taken for granted. And even if there were some complex discussions from time to time, there was at least this frame, this common ground, this common denominator where there were international standards in terms of human rights related to free speech, very clearly defined. But sometimes there is this complex issues where you have limits to free speech, right? It’s not an absolute right as a series of human rights. They are not absolute in themselves. There is a balance between rights. And for a long time, I think it generated some stress and tension, but it was kind of relevant discussions, philosophical discussions.

People may disagree, but still we had a common ground. And what we’ve been seeing lately for the past, I don’t know, 10 years at least, is that the way those limits are defined and their political appropriation is stressing this debate. And we are seeing a relevant debate for democracies and to ensure rights and public participation in general being distorted, inverted in a sense that a specific political group is using this to play the victims and saying that they are being oppressed by those ideas. And they made a political flag out of this, and it’s being very effective in terms of how this idea has permeated society and gaining capularity. And I think our field of organizations that are defending freedom of expression is having a lot of difficulty to fight back or reframe the debate. So we are talking about those issues from a rights-based approach and not from a political biased approach.

Just to give an example, specific example, in Brazil, there was a very important milestone march protest during the Independence Day of 2021 with Bolsonaro, thousands of people in the streets supporting Bolsonaro, supporters of Bolsonaro going to flooding the streets in every major capital. And researchers were the streets trying to survey why people were, in their views, going to protest. And one question was about what was their main motivation? And the first motivation was freedom of expression. So in theory, something good. But when they asked them, “And what are you fighting against?” And the first was the Supreme Court in Brazil, which is, I won’t go into the political context in Brazil, but a key issue here in terms of how the constitutional court and Supreme Court has been limiting transgressions and abuses of the executive branch. And the second was the press. So they were fighting against the press.

So they were defending press freedom by attacking the press. And so I think it’s a kind of a paradox where you see a very individualistic perspective. People want to be able to say whatever they want and less and less are accepting that the fact that we are living in a society, there are symmetries of powers, this speech has to be balanced with other rights. So this imbalance and the way it has been appropriated by and kind of really weaponized by the far right is having a major effect in creating this imbalance and making people forget why it’s important to balance a free speech, which is kind of incoherent, at least when you see what happened with Charlie Kirk and people were expressing their views on the fact that criticizing him some very harsh level and the same group that is defending that people should be able to speak wherever they want are doing their own witch hunt.

So you see how politically biased and how this weaponization appropriation of the idea of free speech or freedom of expression is a power struggle more than a philosophical and conceptual one.

Michael Fox:

Do you think that part of how we got to this point goes back to what you were mentioning before, the splintering of society. Now with social media, I get all of my news from here, you get all of your news from there, and so we’re allowed to attack the other because they’re the other rather than having this open debate. Is that part of what led us to this moment?

Artur Romeu:

Yeah. Social media had a major impact in the information ecosystem as a whole for better or for worse, kind of changed everything, how people are receiving, how we are less dependent of a few broadcasters. And now we feel that we are in this environment where we can speak freely. But actually what happened was the privatization of a public space, and you have this impression that you are in Agora, this public arena where there is this idealized perspective of the free flow of information, the free market of ideas, the better ideas will win. And actually this is happening in a specific space controlled by specific groups, interest groups, a very profit oriented perspective. No transparency at all on how those information are being moderated and gaining more or less reach. So yeah, definitely. I think the major shifts that those technologies had on our information space are partly not necessarily too blamed by their own, because I think also when we talk about censorship, it’s easier for us to think of a more classic censorship approach in the same way that when we think about a dictatorship or a coup d’etat, we have references from our past and we kind of compare what is happening now and our collective memory of what those words mean.

And freedom of expression was kind of invented to protect citizen rights, individual citizen rights to oppose all powerful state in a very different political landscape from centuries ago. And now censorship is not only having a propaganda ministry and having censors within newsrooms and journalists being detained and killed because of what they’re saying. Of course, it still happens a lot in several parts of the words, but censorship or at least freedom of expression and free speech is also eroded when not only the state. Because the idea behind this is that the state should restrain itself from any interference in the free flow of information. So any kind of interference equals bad, equals censorship. People should be able to speak freely without government or state interference, but that’s not enough. You also need positive obligation. And positive obligation means that the governments and states have to develop, establish public policies that will help the information space, the information ecosystem to balance assymetries.

For example, pluralism, diversity, reliability of information are key aspects of this, of a healthier information space. So for this to work, you need governments to create those policies, to establish these laws, policies, how antitrust policies, for example, to fight excessive media ownership concentration in the hands of few groups to help balance market asymmetries and to ensure that the rights of their citizens is assured also in terms of access to pluralistic and reliable information. With the social media and big text, what they are saying is that any regulation is bad, they are self-regulating by themselves, and they are at the end protecting their commercial interests and creating those regulatory backups where they can operate without accountability or any kind of accountability. And if we don’t do anything about it, we will keep seeing a disintegration of this information space.

Michael Fox:

Following from that point, can you talk a little bit about what we saw over the last year? For instance, this whole battle between Brazil, Aleshande Morais, Twitter, X, Musk, because I feel like that’s a perfect example of exactly what you’re talking about. And also these two visions where Brazil has this vision of saying, no, we’re going to regulate more because you can’t have just a get out of jail free card completely. And whereas the United States is much more laissez-fraire backed by Donald Trump and particularly now, but this was even before he came to office.

Artur Romeu:

First of all, you have different traditions, different countries, you have different traditions in terms of how you interpret law. Brazil’s approach to freedom of expression is closer to the European approach where there is a focus on this balance between rights than the US one where there is a broader, I don’t know, more elasticity when you are talking about freedom of expression. You have to have in mind that our legal tradition is closer to the European one in terms of philosophical, conceptual jurisprudence expiration. Within this context, have a very specific example. When former President Bolsonaro started saying that people should not trust on electoral results because digital ballot box are not reliable when he did not and still has not any kind of proof of this. And much on the contrary, by the way, the electoral system in Brazil is widely recognized and as a very strong electoral system.

When he started doing that, for example, calling a meeting with ambassadors from a bunch of different countries to give a press conference saying that before the election, one year before the elections, that people should not trust electoral results if we kept the system as it was. It’s very, very, very serious because he has a lot of supporters and echo chambers on social media, and this kind of information erodes trusts of society, on their political institutions and their electoral institutions. So basically you cannot argue that that’s within his absolute right of print of expression because it has very serious impact for democracy and it’s not because you are the president that you can say whatever you want without any kind of accountability. But from there, what happened is that this idea was widely spread by his supporters and political groups, and the social media had a huge impact on this.

So this is clearly organized, this information, casebook. It’s pretty straightforward. And this information in the sense that it has a set of cogs in the machines, and it’s not just one person saying something false, it’s how this information is being spread and the structure of this information, the different levels, actors, stakeholders involved in this, financed with public money, public funds, and social media companies within their codes of conduct, you cannot just let this level of disinformation spread, including the reach they’re having without, again, any accountabilities, they could have acted to limit the reach, not necessarily censoring the presidential Twitter account or something, but at least putting contextual information, whatever those links, I don’t know. But there are several possible strategies for those social media to limit those kinds of harmful disinformation. But since we did not have a regulatory framework for this, the Supreme Court took the responsibility to act and to investigate this fake news industry or disinformation industry, how it was being structured and its impact.

And by doing that, said explicitly that, I don’t know, judges could not be threatened, basic stuff. And starting, for example, Alishanj Morais, which is at the epicenter of all this, even if he’s, and I think this is a parenthesis here, Morais was very important within all this, but he himself, I mean as an individual judge, but we have to take into account always that his decision were being systematically validated by the other judges of the Supreme Court. So even if he was the one being more visible on all this, and even though that there were tensions between and discussions between the judges, the vast majority of all those decisions went through the plenary, all the judges. So we talk a lot about him, but it’s more like the Supreme Court itself. I think he’s the image of these fights in a way, but he wasn’t alone doing that.

It’s not all powerful judge that is doing that as a rogue mode and acting on his own. We had strong institutions and it worked in the sense that we had the highest body in the judiciary power acting on this and investigating those issues, how they were spreading and taking harsh measures to prevent the impact of what everything was happening be even higher. For example, closing, requesting for the suppression of individual accounts on social media, and that’s something that led to the blockage of acts here in Brazil because what happened is that Elon Musk decided that he would not accept sovereign decision from the Brazilian highest court. He just moved his policy team away from Brazil. There was no legal representation as a way clearly to escape Brazilian jurisdiction in a clearly politically motivated move. And what the court said is that you cannot do that if you are operating You have to operate within our laws.

So if you don’t have a legal representation here in Brazil, and if you do not accept court orders related to several specific measures to mitigate the impact of this information of what was happening, you could not operate. And he was not blaffing. I think for, I don’t know, 50 days, it took a while. And there was a lot of support because you could imagine that this kind of decision, it’s very unpopular. You have tons, millions of social media users, including a lot of journalists using those tools for their daily work. But the way it was done showed that there was at least an understanding from Brazilian society that it was a fair fight, that it was something legitimate. And you can go even backwards with the pandemic. I won’t go all the way there, but the way that Bolsonaro governed during the pandemic was a big disasters for several reasons, but also in terms of access to reliable information on health issues and the way that false information was spreading for, again, politically biased moves.

And I think he had a bet in the sense that he thought that by going this way, he would show a different path than other global leaders, but it was a big disaster, no surprise. And there was a lot of discussion around this time about disinformation as well. So it’s a discussion that has been going on in Brazil on how public and democratic institutions have to respond to widespread disinformation strategy, especially those coming from the highest ranking officials. It’s gained a lot of track and legitimacy. And I would dare even to say that we have now more than other countries an awareness about those issues where, for example, there was a, I don’t know if it’s very recent survey, I have to double check the numbers, but what I know for sure is that most of Brazilian society, a survey showed is in favor of regulating social media.

So you have this support, even of course, if it’s not, if you have clearly political groups which are very strong and a lot of debate on how you do it. I think the major question is how you do it because it’s not that the fact that you have to act, I think that’s pretty clear here and from every perspective. What is more difficult is how you do it to avoid a very obvious trap where by doing this, you are creating a censorship mechanism and more control over those tools, those technologies. So this should be actually the discussion, how you do it and not if you have to do it or not, why it’s important. I think we are well over the time where those discussions should have passed and now, I don’t know. I really don’t know. I feel that we are living parallel universes sometimes.

When you see, for example, Trump’s speech on the UN and Lula’s speech in the UN, we feel that we are living in parallel universes. So different periods of time. I think it’s clear for, there is a consensus among digital rights activists, organizations, even a part of mainstream progressive groups, NGOs working with freedom of expression that you have to create mechanisms to improve democratic supervisions of how those emerging technologies, especially social media, are creating those rifts in our democratic systems.

Michael Fox:

Artu, thank you so much. I just have two more really quick questions. And this is so important, this last point that you touched on, because particularly in the United States, even amongst folks on the left, because historically, obviously censorship has been used against usually marginalized communities, minority communities. And so the discourse is always, well, once you start to say, well, you can’t say this and these people can’t say that, well then that’s going to be used against always, eventually it’s going to be used against and particularly against minority communities and marginalized communities. The people with the least amount of voice are the ones that are going to have their voice taken away completely. And yet this question no one meant, I feel like this huge elephant in the room is always this question of fake news. I can believe what I want to believe, you can believe what you want to believe.

More or less we can talk, but you still can’t be spreading just complete disinformation and lies and yet that’s what we’re seeing. And unless you actually take that on and say, okay, well this is here and how do we try and roll this back? But I feel like so many people or organizations or individuals, it’s just kind of give it, well, no, we don’t want to do that because then that’s stopping people. But no, there are lies. There are people trying to manipulate this. And so it’s a huge, it’s a complicated debate to ask that question of even how do we do this? But I think that is the question of saying, no, we absolutely have to. We can’t even be discussing if we are going to or not. We need to be talking about how we do it in the most democratic way possible or else we’re just going to see more and more of our rights willed away and more and more of our ability to communicate as a people whittled away.

So it’s crazy.

Artur Romeu:

Yeah. Talking about more on journalism and how specifically on journalism, the way things are told nowadays, I mean in terms of how all this has been appropriated by this fear of censorship or by saying that any kind of regulation is censorship is creating this environment of a crisis of trust and polluting democratic public debate, but also it’s creating something that science and journalism are put in the same level as any other opinion. So this is my opinion. So I can say it because it’s my opinion. And if you have 30 pages special dossier done by one of the journalists working that biggest newsroom in the country and you take this and you say, “Well, they can say wherever they want, that’s my opinion and I’m against this.” Same thing with, I don’t know, climate denialism just to keep one specific issue related to science. So when you put everything, conspiracy theories, opinions, ideas at the same level of other kinds of expressions, they should not be able to say to disagree, of course, or to question, this is healthy for democratic debate, but you cannot dismiss investigative journalistic piece on a very key issue and that had multiple sources done in journalistic processes.

You have a process to doing journalism. It’s not ChatGPT, it’s those investigations in the same way that science has its processes of verification, experimentation, peer review, et cetera. Journalism has its own. And if this is not recognized as a positive incentive, a society to receive this information and to criticize or to discuss what is being said in a different way than just someone saying what they think, journalism have foundations in terms of what is being said. And ideas can have more or less, opinions can have more or less depending from if it’s coming from someone that has studied all his life, all her life about the specific issue and then is expressing of course an idea, a different idea or a position on this topic. But if we put everything at the same level, we won’t have a real conversation. We will be just everyone saying what they want.

And for democracies to work, we have to find commonplaces and those commonplaces have to be based on some kind of logic or some kind of method or some kind of common ground. And so this is a problem right now with journalism because it’s being treated as just another opinion.

And on our newsfeed on social media, it’s being treated as just another opinion. Even sometimes even dismissed or the reach of news articles and links are having a worse reach than other kinds of videos posted by influencers. But there’s no due prominence of journalistic content or scientific content. So the conversation

Is becoming more and more based on the rule of the stronger. If you appear to be stronger than others, your position can overlap all the others because you say so. That’s extremely dangerous for the kind of democracy we have been building. So this is a specific issue with journalism. And the other issue is media sustainability and news deserts and how those new technologies have shifted completely the business model of the media industry in just a few years. And it’s creating more fusions, less pluralism. You have this illusion of pluralism because you feel that there’s more people speaking than before where you have the gatekeepers and all this, but it’s noise. So there’s a lot of noise happening and noise is not necessarily pluralism because pluralism needs some kind of framework to be effective for a democratic debate. If it’s just a bunch of people in a room saying what they think about the problem, not necessarily the best idea or the idea that has the stronger chance to work will win.

So also this idea of a free market of ideas, we don’t live in a political vacuum. So a free market of ideas is completely dependent on the correlations of force between the different stakeholders in the ecosystem, the political landscape. You have a lot of social and economic inequalities. So talking about a free market of ideas with no kinds of balancing this just don’t work because ideas will step on others anyway. When we talk about AI regulation or digital service acts to regulate the social media and the whole industry behind it, you need to have some kind of how you can create mechanisms to create financial compensation for media. And there are a lot of taxating profits from big tech revenue, advertisement revenue of big tax, for example, and creating a fund and this fund being. I don’t know. There are several ideas going on, bargaining codes.

But the point is if we do nothing, what we are seeing is that the economic pressure on journalism, on public interest journalism is becoming asphyxiating. And what we will see soon is an environment, a media landscape with a lot of concentration of power and local news markets disappearing and being replaced by, we don’t really know, but what we’ve been seeing is that when a local news media disappear, there’s no empty space. This space is immediately occupied by propaganda, by this information, by other interests. So preserving journalism, especially local journalism, is a democratic imperative. And we have to understand how we can do this when discussing democratic regulations for social media and AI.

Michael Fox:

Artur, so great. My last really quick question is you mentioned toward the beginning something I thought was really important, you want to forget it, free speech being weaponized against press freedoms. Can you talk a little bit more about that? Where are we seeing that? What does that look like?

Artur Romeu:

We are seeing that in a daily basis in the US for sure. And I have very specific example. When Trump wrote a letter to President Lula to justify the tariffs, the letter mentioned Bolsonaro, the prosecution of Bolsonaro in Brazil, mentioned big tax and the fact that the rights of American citizens was being violated and companies was being violated by the judiciary in Brazil. And just after the letter itself, there was some kind of, I don’t know the name of it, but an order where there were more explanations of the reasons. It was like a one and a half page document and the expression like freedom of speech or free speech or freedom of expression or censorship was repeated at least 10 times in a letter basically saying that the US was imposing tariffs on Brazil because Brazil was promoting censorship. So when I say that free speech is being weaponized against freedom of expression, in parts it connects to this example where you make yourself look like as a free press paladin, but actually what your distorted vision of free speech is doing is fragmenting the idea, the different ideas behind what freedom of expression really is, and mostly the social and collective dimension of freedom of expression.

You are only saying that people should say whatever they want without any kind of interference. If that’s the case, you are basically ignoring completely the fact that people live in a society and part of the freedom of expression right is related to receive pluralistic, diverse, reliable information. When we see these kinds of marches that I’ve talked about in Brazil as well where you say you are there to defend freedom of expression, but actually your enemy is press freedom, you are again weaponizing this idea because what you are really interested in is being able to express your ideas without any kind of repercussions, any kind of accountability, because it’s a very empowering feeling. So I think what those leaders, Bolsonaro, Trump, Edogan, Obam, and others, Milei have been doing the media bashing and fueling general hostility towards journalism and not just journalists, but journalism, like the ideal of journalism, again, not just against the press, but the idea really of journalism is at the core of their political strategy.

It’s not isolated. It’s not something that’s part of their personality. It’s really something that has the ability to keep their electoral basis very mobilized. It’s a very effective way to polarize public debate. And those leaders, they are dependent on polarizations. They cannot leave, have a political career without these kinds of systematic polarization and attacking the press systematically. The press, the media institutions, journalism in general is very effective for your strategy and that’s why they keep doing. In Argentina, for example, recently Mile said, “The problem is we don’t hate journalists enough.” So these kind of ideas, Bukele in El Salvador, it’s really at the core of the political strategy. So again, instrumentalizing, weaponizing free speech to erode press freedom, to have more control over the public debate and less scrutiny in society. It’s much easier to kill the messenger than have to deal with whatever the report or the news article is discussing.

Michael Fox:

Artur, incredible. Thank you so, so much. I really appreciate your time. I know we went over a little bit, but I really appreciate it.

Artur Romeu:

Thank you, Michael.

Michael Fox:

Hi folks. I hope you enjoyed our conversation. As I mentioned before, this is the third bonus episode of this series. There are more on the way. Please watch out for those in your feed. This is the battle for free speech. This podcast is co-hosted by myself and Mark Steiner. This show is produced by The Real News. You can find out more about my work and this show on my Patreon. That’s www.patreon.com/mfox. As always, please make sure to sign up for the Real News Network’s newsletter so you never miss an episode. You can find that at therealnews.com. Thanks so much again for listening to this podcast. See you next time.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Howard Zinn:

Protest will always be useful. Protest will always be important. Protest always looks futile at the time that it takes place, but protest mounts up. If they though protest was futile, they wouldn’t send the police out every time. There’s a demonstration. Have you noticed that you set up a picket line of somewhere of seven people and 12 policemen show up? They must worry about protest because they know that small protests lead to large ones.

Maximillian Alvarez:

All right. Well, thank you all. It is such an honor to be here with y’all tonight in Red Emma’s cooperative bookstore and coffee house in our great city of Baltimore. Give it up. And I am really, really honored and excited that we get to chat to the man, the myth, legendary sports writer, book author, documentary maker, political thinker, a true love warrior and a true role model for so many of us of what it means to just be a good-hearted person and to fight for good. Dave Zirin, give it up for Dave, everybody. Now, brother Dave.

Dave Zirin:

Yes. Yes, sir.

Maximillian Alvarez:

We’ve gotten to work together over at The Real News on your kick ass show, Edge of Sports TV, right?

Dave Zirin:

Yes, sir.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And so many of us know you through your sports writing and your analysis and commentary on sports, but we’re here tonight to talk about your new book, which is decidedly not about sports. And it is The People’s Historian: The Outsized Life of Howard Zinn. So Dave, I want to start off this way. Who was Howard Zinn? Who is he to you? Why did you write a whole book about him and why was now the time to write that book?

Dave Zirin:

Wow. So great to be here. Such a terrific question. Just the quickest of side notes, that last clip of Howard that you saw, that was his last mass meeting that he ever did before he passed away in January 2010. And it was at the convention of the campaign to end the death penalty. And I just wanted to say we have someone here tonight who is as responsible as anybody for the fact that we don’t have the death penalty in Maryland right now. And that’s Kenny Collins. And I just want to – Yes.

A hard big enough to crush injustice sitting right over there. So for me, I got to know Howard at the end of his life. I got to travel with him to different places and interview him on stage because he was sharp as a tack at age like 86, 87 years old, but standing and doing a 45 minute lecture was just something he couldn’t do any longer. I’d gotten to know him by writing a book in the People’s History series called The People’s History of Sports in the United States. And so I would sit with Howard on stage in 2008, 2009, and he was just the easiest interview in the history of the world. You would just say, “Civil rights, your thoughts.” And then 30 minutes later, he’s interrupted five times by applause. And everybody’s standing up at the end cheering for him. And afterwards, people would come up to me and say, “Yo, you did a great interview.” And I’d be like, “I said 12 words.

It was awesome.” And I got to sort of bask in the refracted glow. And the thing about Howard is that when he would speak about himself, it’s so interesting thinking back to the pronouns he would use. It was always we, it was always us, it was always they. And sometimes he would say you, but it was always, “What do you think? What are you doing?” It was never about I or me. But backstage, of course, he would tell these incredible stories and it’s like out of nowhere. Oh, that time I marched with James Baldwin in Selma. And it’s like, oh sure, as one does. And so I said to him once, “What we need is a people’s history of Howard Zinn.”

And he laughed at that. And that was actually my first proposal for the title of the book. And my publisher said, “Well, that’s too inside baseball.” Which kind of insulted me because I’m a sports writer, so they thought the only way I’d understand it is if they said it was too inside baseball. I was like, “Oh, I get it. Okay, now I understand.” And then the second title I wanted was when I was going through Howard Zinn’s FBI files and they had this sheet that was sent to J. Edgar Hoover in 1950 about Howard Zinn, where they said he was 28 years old and they said, “We are convinced he is a subversive who wants to overthrow the United States. He is a spy maybe for the Soviets. And the proof of this is that he has an alias.” And so you look closely and you’re like, “What’s the alias?” And it’s listed right there and it’s Howie.

So I wanted to call the book Codename Howie: The Outsized Life of Howard Zinn. And I never thought I would write a book about Howard Zinn when he passed away in 2010. I never thought I would in a million years, but something interesting started to happen during the late 2000 teens and into 2020, which is a lot of people started to get in touch with me and say, “What do you think Howard Zinn would say about the Black Lives Matter movement? What do you think Howard Zinn would say about the rise of Trumpism? What do you think Howard Zinn would say about the growth of right-wing fascist authoritarianism?” And they would ask this question kind of gingerly and even a little bit scared. Was Howard Zinn wrong that struggle is how the world changes? Because we’ve struggled and look where we are. Donald Trump is in charge.

So what if struggle just doesn’t work? And they asked this with fear as if somebody has the God failed was almost with the question, that kind of sadness. And I was thinking about some of the stories that Howard told me who threw his life and thought to myself, you know what? I’m not going to try to write anything or even say something that tries to answer that question for somebody who’s no longer with us. That’s not a job of any journalist or author to speak for those who can’t speak for themselves. But he left behind so many breadcrumbs from his life about how to fight right wing tyranny, about how to maintain in difficult times, about how to ride through movements when they’re at their most perilous, that it’s just like his life is an example for us about how to survive the 2020s. And the fact that somebody born in 1922 who died 16 years ago could generate a crowd like this in Baltimore and generate crowds like this or bigger in cities that I’ve been to, it just speaks to the fact not only of his influence, but the fact that we’re all trying to wrestle with these questions right now of hope, optimism, and how change can happen in very difficult times.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Oh yeah. Well, beautifully and powerfully put as always, brother. And I think one of the many things I love about this book is not just that I get to enjoy more of your writing, which is really chicken soup for my weary radical soul these days. And I know I speak for a lot of us when I say that, but there’s so much of Howie in this book. You did find so many quotes that feel so perfectly and gently and gingerly and rightly placed in the book. And I wanted to actually have you read one without giving us context up front, but the one there on page 21, read that passage from Howard Zinn and then I’ll throw a question at you about it.

Dave Zirin:

Absolutely. You want just the red part, right, that he read? Okay. This is from when Howard was – No context. No context. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Exactly at 10, banners unfurled. People started chanting. It was fantastic. So my friend and I relieved two women holding a banner and then we heard sirens. And before I knew it, cops with clubs began beating the demonstrators. I was spun around and got hit on the side of my head. I was out. I woke up in a doorway. The demonstration was being scattered and it was an absolute shocking experience because I had no idea the police would react like this to an innocent demonstration, that an innocent group of people could be perceived as that menacing. From that moment on, I was no longer a liberal, a believer in the self-correcting character of American democracy. I was a radical believing that something fundamental was wrong in this country, not just the existence of poverty amidst great wealth, not just the horrible treatment of black and brown people, but something rotten at the root.

Since then, I’ve come to understand we need not just a new president or new laws, but an uprooting of the old order, the introduction of a new kind of society, cooperative, peaceful, egalitarian.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Hell yeah. So first give it up for Howie on that one. Okay. Now, if you please give us the context of that story that Zinn is telling us and what it means for him to make that journey from being what he calls a liberal to being a radical.

Dave Zirin:

Absolutely. So Howard Zinn is born in 1922 in Brooklyn, New York, a very different Brooklyn than the Brooklyn of 2026, to put it mildly. And his childhood was a childhood of poverty, of going from tenement to tenement of outrunning landlords as a young child with his immigrant parents and his three brothers just going from apartment to apartment. And he’d written, and I spoke to him about how he still had this fear of rats to this day because of how they would appear in the apartment and how they would cuddle up in their blankets because they were so scared of getting rat bites. And it’s one of the things about Howard Zinn that I always so respected is that he would thunder and he would rarely get mad, but he would thunder angrily about people who were poor, who became wealthier, who would romanticize their poverty.

And he would say, “We must never romanticize poverty. Poverty is violence and I will never romanticize my own upbringing.” And he became this incredible reader growing up and finding books on the street and reading them, things like Charles Dickens was his first love. And then his parents, they had very little money, but they signed him up for an encyclopedia chapter of the month club through the newspaper. So he’s just reading encyclopedias and whatever he could get his hands on. And the Brooklyn of, now we’re into the 1930s, was also just this absolute hotbed of political activism. I mean, as one person said, who I interviewed, if you weren’t some kind of communist, anarchist or socialist, we really thought you were just dead from the neck up in the 1930s of Brooklyn. And Howard Zinn was somebody who just loved arguing with people on street corners, loved talking politics.

He was very radicalized, not just by the poverty and the racism and the segregation of Brooklyn of the 1930s, but also radicalized by the anti-fascist movement in Europe at that time. I mean, imagine being a working class kid in Brooklyn in the 30s and you see a poster of somebody from your neighborhood who you knew who’s returning from Spain because they were over there with what were called the Abraham Lincoln Brigades fighting Franco’s fascism. So you’re a working class kid in Brooklyn and you’re seeing a kid just like you who’s back from Spain where he was on the anti-fascist front lines. So an incredibly sort of radicalizing experience for him, but he still wasn’t somebody with a clear kind of set of politics in terms of this system actually needs to be uprooted and changed. And that changed for him dramatically as a teenager when one of the street corner radicals invited him to that demonstration that you talked about.

And that was in Union Square, New York over on 14th Street. Again, Union Square, very different today than it was in the late 1930s. And it was there where he got knocked upside the head by the police and actually generations of radicals certainly I think share this experience is that when you come into direct contact with the state,

It changes you forever and very fundamentally.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Well, and say a little more about what would continue to change Howard Zinn fundamentally when he entered military service during a World War.

Dave Zirin:

Well, first I got to say, how many people have seen the movie Forrest Gump, out of curiosity? Imagine if Forrest Gump was directed by John Sayles,

Like radical working class filmmaker. That’s like Howard Zinn’s life. And imagine if instead of Forrest Gump, you have this learned historian and he’s just at these incredible junctures of US history bearing witness. That’s why the subheading of the book is The Outsized Life of Howard Zinn, because he wasn’t just this historian who was trying to make history. He wasn’t just somebody going to demonstrations. He’s in these cinematic landscapes. We just talked about Brooklyn, the Depression, the 1930s. Then he becomes a bombardier during World War II because he wants to fight fascism. He becomes a bombardier even though he’d never been on a plane. That’s how much he hated fascism. He’s like, “I’m going to get on a plane and fight fascism.” But he leaves World War II, committed at this time, he called himself a pacifist and somebody who was anti-war for the rest of his life.

That was one of the results of his experience after being asked and told and ordered to bomb civilians in a French resort town called Royan, a place he later visited in 1966. But then early years of the civil rights movement, he’s at Spelman College, a woman’s HBCU, teaching this incredible generation of students like Alice Walker and Marian Wright Edelman and many more, Bernice Johnson Regan, who was part of the SNCC Freedom Singers. And so he’s there at ground zero of the start of the civil rights movement. And then he becomes the adult advisor along with someone you might have heard of named Ella Baker of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the 1960s. And then he’s at the center of the anti-war movement against the war on the people of Vietnam in the ’60s. And so he’s just at these moments where he’s able to play this role in helping make history, but also playing a role that I think we have a lot to learn from, particularly as I say in one chapter, as a white guy in the Black freedom struggle, his behaviors as a white person I think are actually a model for how white people need to approach anti-racist struggle.

And the fact that he was doing that decades before we started even having those conversations seriously is really interesting to me. Other issues as well, like he and his partner Roz, when they went up to Boston, one of the first things they did was set up mental health clinics for people who were part of the movement against Jim Crow who were coming back to North with PTSD from what they experienced. And so this idea of something we talk a lot about now, like self-care, they were trying to practice that even though it had yet to be articulated. And that’s why I think he has so much to say to 2026 because he was living that life of struggle for over 70 years. So so much to learn from that when somebody is an activist in these incredibly huge junctures of history for over 70 years.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Well, and you and I have joked about this at The Real News that I feel the same way about Mark Steiner, right? Baltimoreans will know Brother Mark Steiner, but that guy is very much cut from that same cloth and that same great Jewish radical tradition as well. But speaking of which, I wanted – The Jewish

Dave Zirin:

Part’s important, but we can talk about that later. Well,

Maximillian Alvarez:

And maybe we can weave it into this question because I wanted to circle back to that passage that I had you read, where Howie is talking about that moment when he no longer identified as a liberal, a believer in the self-correcting character of American democracy. I was a radical believing that something fundamental was wrong in this country, not just the existence of poverty amidst great wealth, not just the horrible treatment of black and brown people, but something rotten at the root. I wanted to ask you, Dave Zyran, if you had a moment like that in your life.

Dave Zirin:

Lord, first of all, I’ll answer that Max, but only if you answer it too, because you are a radical the first order. So your story demands to be heard. Is that a deal?

Howard Zinn:

Deal. All

Dave Zirin:

Right. The easy answer is I started to believe that this country needed to be fundamentally overturned when my sister gave me a book called The People’s History of the United States, and that’s God’s truth that changed me. To the letter truth is that she bought me a people’s history of the 20th century, an abridged version of a people’s history of the United States because she knew her little brother and knew I would never read a book that was this thick. It would’ve ended up a doorstop in my house or my dorm. And instead though she gave me something she knew I would read and it fundamentally changed the way I looked at the world. It changed the way I looked at sports, which was my obsession. So that’s the easy answer to say I read this book and it changed me. But books I think are never really enough to turn you into somebody who just wants to turn the system upside down.

And my answer to that where I was just like,

Bleep this system to its core happened at not necessarily something that was ostensibly political, but I used to do graffiti piecing and I was working with red paint and it was getting on my hands a little bit and someone called the police and I was arrested with a friend and ended up spending a couple of days in prison and had to deal with the police officer laughing that they caught me red-handed because I had red paint all over my hands. I had to hear that joke about 50 times and they kept telling each other it like it was the funniest thing in the world. And the way me as a white kid, a college student still was treated while in prison and speaking in jail, I should say, I shouldn’t call it prison, but in jail and how long those days felt was something that by the time I was out of there, I wanted to set.

I don’t know if I should say this too. I was really angry at just everything, just talking to people, being around that for a couple of days. It reminded me, there’s this quote by Oscar Wilde when he was talking about being in jail where he said, “Every day feels like a year, but it’s a year where the days are really long.”

And it’s just that idea. And I don’t for one second want to make it in any way sound. I mean, it was two days for goodness sakes, but you’re asking me what was a pivot moment where you just start thinking this system is just beyond wrong and that really was it for me.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Well, and it’s an experience that so many people don’t have but have such strong opinions about. And it’s the kind of thing where if you have experienced it or someone in your family has, you don’t go around talking about the criminal justice system the way our culture loves to talk about it. I mean, I work with Mansamusa who was locked up for 48 years, you know him

Howard Zinn:

Well,

Maximillian Alvarez:

Brother Eddie Conway, a legend in our history and at the Real News in Baltimore. He was in there for 44 years. The things they’ve told us are horrific, but even just getting a taste of that, even just recognizing that the system is not just made for the bad people, the worst of the worst when it comes for you or people you know who don’t fit that description, the country is getting a crash course in what that looks like right now, but that is the violence coming uphill. It has been there in places like jails and prisons, in sacrifice zones, in the poor and abandoned parts of this country that sucks up the resources and life from places and abandons them since the beginning.

So I had a similar experience when it came to my place in America, my belief in the country I lived in and the kind of future I was going to have, the life I was going to be able to make for myself, the things that I and many in my generation who at least had some sense of class mobility in the ’90s and in the post Cold War moments, the dot-com boom, in retrospect, feels like the kind of heyday of what I’ll experience this country has. But so many things that felt possible then don’t anymore. And what really made me and my family learn that was the crash

Howard Zinn:

In

Maximillian Alvarez:

2008 and the recession and that whole awful heavy period where over the course of years we lost everything that my parents had worked for. We were the American dream. We were a mixed immigrant family, middle class, Orange County. It was great. And then it all went away. We lost the house I grew up in. We lost so much of ourselves and the family we were before that. I graduated from college with a degree in Russian literature thinking that we were like, “Oh yeah, he can go be a professor. They make good money, they’re respected.” We actually knew one who lived on our block, so we thought he could be like that. We had no idea how screwed higher ed was or how dumb of a decision that was, but I sure learned when I was holding that degree and all the debt it took to get it and working 14 hour days at a body crushing mind numbing soul killing warehouse or factory in Southern California while my dad drove Uber and my mom handed out samples at Sam’s Club and everything was going down the drain.

I’m watching the damn TV tell me that the country’s back, the economy’s back, the banks got bailed out, these guys got bailed out, everything’s great and we’re sinking further into the couch and into the abyss the whole time. And that period taught me a lot. I wasn’t radical by any means. I was conservative. I grew up very conservative. I had shirts that have me with Ronald Reagan’s face on it and stuff like that, if anyone ever wants to blackmail me. I guess I’ll tie this up, but the point being is that we had a lot of right reasons for believing what were ultimately the wrong things back then in the ’90s and ’80s and early aughts. We believed in meritocracy, not knowing how untrue it was, but we thought the argument was sound and we wanted to believe that we could make a life for ourselves based on our merit, not the color of our skin.

That’s why that spoke to us. It wasn’t a bad reason to believe that, but whether it was that or whether it was the sort of classist belief that the people who were working in these big beige warehouses that we drive past on the freeway every day probably deserve to be there or the people locked up in those big awful prisons in the middle of nowhere, they deserve to be there and treated horribly. When you get a taste of what it’s like to be in there and when life pushes you in there and when you start getting beaten by the system and seeing how rotten it is and who it serves and who it doesn’t serve and how little you mean to it, no matter how much you defended it before, you learn some shit.

Dave Zirin:

Changes you. Yeah.

Maximillian Alvarez:

All right. Now I want to shut up and go back to you because this is your book top.

Dave Zirin:

So true though. No, well said, Max.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Well, so I want to talk about the radical Zinn and how he was treated in his day. I mean, you write about in the book that this guy was a public enemy during the Red Scare, the J. Edgar Hoover hated him. And to this day, postmortem, he is in the hall of fame of books that piss off the MAGA right and that get targeted for book bans. So I wanted to ask if you could sort of talk to us about the parallels between the kind of persecution of Zinn and what he stood for then and the continuing need of our oppressors and the people who stand for the opposite of what he stood for, continue to try to silence and bury him today.

Dave Zirin:

Yeah. Howard Zinn wrote a play called Marx in Soho, which is an amazing one person play. And a lot of people joke that it’s basically Karl Marx speaking, but he somehow found a time machine and traveled ahead a hundred years and then is commenting on the previous hundred years and what capitalism has done to the world. And it’s very funny, much funnier than I think Karl Marx ever was. So a lot of people joke that it’s more like Zinn in SoHo, like it’s his voice because it really sounds like Howard. And there’s this line in it where Howard as Marx, if you want to put it that way, says, “Why do they feel the need to bury me again and again and again?” And that speaks to why Howard Zinn matters so much to 2026 because they haven’t stopped trying to bury him and he hasn’t stopped rising up to be able to teach a new generation of kids.

I mean, Donald Trump, who by the way is the Picasso of bullshit artists and has no. I guarantee you, he has no idea who Howard Zinn is. Remember, this was the person who said Frederick Douglas is doing great work.

And he talks about Zinn in speeches and he blames Zinn for “the left wing mayhem” in this country and uses it to justify book bannings, school boards that prevent not just Howard Zinn, but all radical. He becomes the stand-in for all radical histories and keeping them smuggled, keeping them out of the classroom to the point of which teachers have to smuggle them in to be able to teach their students. One teacher said to me, “I’m no radical, but Howard Zinn is the only thing that keeps my students off their phones.” There’s an importance to his work in terms of how it makes the student feel alive, how it makes them feel like they’re a part of making history and not just somebody who’s an object of history or a victim of history. I can be somebody who fights back. I can be someone who makes history.

Obviously, the reason why the right wing, fascism, fascists, they want to keep those ideas out of our heads because what could be more dangerous for them than ordinary people thinking, “If I want to, I can depose you and create the kind of society that I want to create.” They want to erase that idea from people’s heads, an idea rooted in history. I had the utter privilege recently of being able to sit with Mumia Abu Jamal, political prisoner in Pennsylvania for several hours. We’re talking about Zinn, who by the way, would visit Mumia on death row and they would speak to each other. He said, “The reason why they are waging a war against history is because their agenda demands ignorance.” Now, that’s a beautiful way to say what Donald Trump said much less poetically where he said, “I love the uneducated. They’re my favorite people.” I mean, they want us to not know our history because first of all, they know we’re going to fight back.

They wouldn’t have the National Guard piled into DC picking up trash off the ground if they didn’t know that they are creating conditions for people being furious and fighting back. What they also want us to do though is to have us have to relearn all the lessons from history, which will slow down our side from victory. They don’t want us to know our history. They don’t want us to know something that Howard Zinn said once very beautifully, which is he said, “The way things are, are not necessarily the way things will be or could be.” And that’s really important too, because far too often I think we as radicals live too much in the present tense and are just like, “What is life five feet in front of my face?” And that’s what politics are. When politics are the past, which informs the possibility for a better future.

That’s the first thing about why Zinn matters today and why this war that they’re waging on him, it has real life repercussions on policy and on government.

I’m dealing with this right now with the 10 year anniversary of Colin Kaepernick first taking a knee and how incredibly Colin Kaepernick coming to Coppin State September 25th to speak and the degree to which there’s been this utter distortion and rewriting of what that was all about. And frankly, what that whole period was about of the Black Lives Matter movement and not only the right wing, obviously, who have not waged such a backlash against that period that they’ve created entire police forces now rooted in counterinsurgency and they’ve made ICE a higher budget than the US Marine Corps. It’s all about domestic “pacification” that police chiefs in the United States have learned in part by going to Israel to learn from police chiefs over there. People can Google real programs to teach police in this country from the Israelis about how to do pacification in this country, in our cities.

So that phrase, we are all Palestinian is not just this abstract call for solidarity, but it’s how we are being treated in our own cities. And so that’s very real. I’m sorry to go off on that tangent, but it’s just – Brother,

Maximillian Alvarez:

It ain’t no tangent. We all came out to hear you

Dave Zirin:

Talk about this.

So you’ve got the backlash on the right. The Black Lives Matter movement scared the holy shit out of them. And their response to that has been to create a police state of counterinsurgency. When ICE gets these electro shock gloves, that’s because of how much the Black Lives Matter movement scared them. That’s why they take the drills and put them on the ground where it’s written Black Lives Matter because they want to uproot the memory of what that was. But now we’re also seeing people on the liberal left say, oh, that period in the 20 teens, that was just woke 1.0 as AOC put it and says we were just demanding too much when the reality is maybe we didn’t demand enough. And when they try to characterize that period in the 20 teens as somehow silly or immature when they caricature it as, oh, look at those crazy demands, defund the police.

All they’re doing is helping the right enact a further backlash on our side when we should be celebrating what people fought for in the 20 teens. So what’s been so bothering me as a sports writer is all these people have been. There’s several writers have been like Colin Kaepernick. It was quite a moment, but I guess it wasn’t a movement. And it wasn’t a movement. It was a movement that in the modern sense, first of all, it goes back hundreds of years if we’re talking about the struggle for black liberation, but in the more recent sense, it started the day George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin in 2012. It extended through Ferguson, Missouri. Colin Kaepernick became a sports amplifier of that movement because of the police murders of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. And then that grew out into hundreds of high school athletes around the country taking a knee when that anthem would play.

That is a movement. Then of course it culminates in 2020 with the largest protests after the police murder of George Floyd that this country had ever seen. So for them to take Colin Kaepernick and decontextualize him and say, oh, he was just some wacky guy taking a knee during football games and he lost his career because of it. By the way, probably the only actual victim of cancel culture is Colin Kaepernick, the way they took his job. But it’s just to say that our side needs to understand that that history of the 20 teens, we can’t surrender control of the memory

Of that decade because in a bipartisan sense, they are trying to rewrite. Oh my God, saying this in Baltimore is so poignant because it was in Baltimore after the police murder of Freddie Gray, that the bravery of people on the ground in this city, in the face of so much state oppression as the Real News Network documented assiduously is one of the most inspiring things I’ve ever borne witness to, for goodness sakes. But we live in a country rooted in white supremacy where they care more about a CVS getting broken into in Baltimore than they cared about the Capitol Building getting ransacked on January 6th because it was white people doing it on January 6th and it was a different situation in Baltimore. So it says something about they cared more. They were outraged more about the CBS than they were about their own capital.

But it’s just to say, if I could, I’m sorry to go on. No, go on. So long with this stuff. I’m sorry. Go on

Maximillian Alvarez:

Baby.

Dave Zirin:

But it’s just to say that we cannot surrender the memory of the bravery that people showed in this city in particular, and that’s what they want us to forget. And that’s evil because what it does then is the next time there’s struggle, once again, we’re trying to figure it out again. We’re not carrying the lessons forward. I think people ask me a lot of the times about, well, what does Howard Zinn offer us in 2026? Because optimism, whatever, pie in the sky is fine. He was an optimist, but he wasn’t just an optimist. He was somebody who dealt with facts and dealt with history. I think history is what our movements so desperately need, like a conversant knowledge in history. When I was coming up as an activist, it seemed like everybody had read People’s History of the United States and the autobiography of Malcolm X as a baseline.

There was this lexicon or vocabulary that we shared talking about that history. I think we need to reimplant that right now, right in the middle of our struggles to know that history. That what Howard Zinn brings to the table today in 2026.

Maximillian Alvarez:

I know we got to bring this around the final turn here, but I wanted to just push you to keep going a little more because those who want to silence in and erase this history, what version of history do they want us and future generations to believe?

Dave Zirin:

They want us to believe one of two things. You’ve got the right wing and the liberal left version of history, neither of which I would argue help us at all going forward. The right wing version is of course that history is the creation of really, really wise, powerful white men.

Through their brilliance, reaching down from the shining city on a hill, they have brought us to this remarkable place of progress, delivered us from savagery and brought us to this profoundly wonderful civilization where AI wants to eat our children, the best of all possible worlds that we’re living in right now. That is obviously very easy to debunk, but it’s what Trump, that’s why he’s putting warning signs in front of the Smithsonian, like warning history herein, and why they forced out Lonnie Bunch as the head of the Smithsonian, because it’s for putting forth a version of history that goes against the great white man theory of that this is how the world spins. The liberal left have their own version of this though, where their argument is that with every generation, we are building a more perfect union. Barack Obama has only given about a hundred speeches with this theme where it’s just like President Obama.

He gives speeches about how every generation takes the baton from the last to build a more perfect union. We keep improving. Yeah, the country is flawed and yes, the constitution, it’s a document in progress that we keep making better and more inclusive. I mean, I don’t see how you can live through the past 10 years and think that at this point. They call Howard Zinn’s politics, this is the big liberal left critique of Zinn, is that he looks at things too simplistically. What could be more simplistic than saying this country keeps getting better by the generation? That’s an absurdity on the face of it, but especially over the last 10 years and Howard Zinn’s version of history that oppression is actually baked into the cake of this system and there’s a reason why the book is not just called a People’s History of the United States, but aPeople’s History of the United States 1492 to the present.

So he roots the United States founding with the expropriation and genocide of indigenous peoples and their land and then of course the transatlantic slave trade and then the entire history of the United States is then that battle of oppressor versus oppressed. It’s also a battle of forward progress, but then also vicious backlashes, but then how we beat back the backlash. And that’s really what Howard Zinn lived for as an activist, much more than as a historian, was beating back the backlash. I love that that sort of ferocious approach to the world is something we really need right now because I believe that right now we are in the first stages of beating back the backlash. When apolitical members of my family are getting in touch with me and asking about how we can shut down a data center, it really just starts to make me think like, okay, maybe something actually is brewing during a period that can feel so incredibly gray.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Well, and to really kind of end on that note of family, I love this book and all the ways you’ve helped me and us understand the many people and things and experiences that made Howard Zinn who he was. I wanted to sort of ask you in that vein, if you could tell us about how Howie Zinn has made you who you are and the person the book is dedicated to made you who you are.

Dave Zirin:

Oh Lord. Let’s just keep the. All right. My mom passed away during the writing of the book. It took six years to write and about year three she passed. I wrote in the introduction that what my mom taught me was that if you ever really want to think of yourself as somebody who understands a people’s history, you first have to learn how to love people.

I’ve met a lot of folks in my time who love the people but aren’t so great with people. It was what my mom taught me to the core of my being. Just to say that in the last months of her life when she’d be up here, we’d always drive to the Real News Network for my show and she was sick and y’all were just so beautiful to her and it meant so much to me. I really want to thank you for that, Max, so much. Kayla, who’s here as well and Dave Hebden and everybody who made, and Cameron if he’s here and everybody who made my mom feel so welcome. She just loved y’all.

If Howard Zinn also like what he taught me when he passed away is it was this thing that always changed me because I couldn’t believe that he had died, which you don’t normally think you would say about somebody who’s 87, but I learned that it really doesn’t. We really need to treasure our elders to such a degree because they really can be here today and gone tomorrow. I also interviewed several. The other people I dedicated the book to were half a dozen people who I interviewed who’ve since passed away before the book came out. I don’t want to sound cheesy or anything, but our elders are precious, are so precious and it’s impossible to sit up here and talk about the importance of history and not also say that one of the ways that we’ve always gotten our history as a human society is not just by reading, not just by study, but actually speaking and taking the time to listen to people who’ve been through the struggle.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Let’s give it up for Dave’s Zirin, everybody.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Michael Fox:

Fernando Cerimedo, a name that unless you follow Latin America closely, you likely have never heard. He’s been called MAGA’s man in Latin America, and he’s at the heart of a shocking scandal that includes election rigging, fake news, disinformation, and powerful political ties to far right presidents across Latin America, and even the White House under Donald Trump. It’s big news in Latin America, even though it’s been largely under the radar in the United States until now. The scandal has dire implications for the legitimacy of elections up and down the Americas, including elections where US President Donald Trump has been throwing his weight around over the last year. Elections where right-wingers have won close but shocking victories. Like Lawyer Abelardo de la Estrella’s right-wing defeat of the leftist candidate Ivan Cepeda in Columbia in June, he won by less than 1% of the vote.

Donald Trump:

He called me at 8:30 in the evening just to thank me very much. And I said, “You ran a great campaign?” He’s LT Gray, right?

Journalist:

And what do you anticipate for the relation with Colombia? Good,

Donald Trump:

Much better. It’ll be better. He’s going to be a great president.

Michael Fox:

And big elections are coming up in Brazil and elsewhere. We begin here. That’s him, Fernando Cerimedo, walking down a hallway lined with people ahead of Chile’s new far right president, Antonio Cast. Cerimedo puts a hand on his back and ushers him into a side room to meet with a group of men in suits. Cerimedo is a 45-year-old strategist and publicist from Argentina. He’s a co-founder of the right-wing Argentine outlet, La Dereche Diario. And in recent years, he’s become perhaps the most prominent political consultant for the far right in Latin America. But as we will see in this episode, he’s much more than a consultant. I think you could call him an election fixer and not in a democratic way.

Jake Johnston:

So you’ve had this sort of network of far right leaders who’ve shown a lot of affinity for one another, traveling to each other’s countries, supporting each other, this sort of broad network. And behind that, there’s been this sort of digital infrastructure that is built out to support this sort of new wave of far right leaders in Latin America.

Michael Fox:

I asked Jake Johnston from the Center for Economic and Policy Research to set the scene here.

Jake Johnston:

I mean, if you’ve spent any time on social media, you have seen the bots, you’ve potentially been attacked by the bots. You see this happening every day and you’ve seen it in all of these elections, many of which it should be noted were extraordinarily close elections. I mean, less than one percentage point separating the winner from the loser. And throughout this last year, year and a half, there has been one very prominent person sort of parading around the hemisphere and claiming credit for a lot of these electoral wins. And it’s just this guy, an Argentine political consultant that apparently used to drive a taxi in Argentina and has sort of risen to the top of the food chain in Latin American politics is Fernando Serimedo.

Michael Fox:

Here is the reason why we’re all talking about him right now.

Last month on August 18th, 2026, Cerimedo was arrested at Bolivia’s Viru Vero Airport after attempting to board a flight to Buenos Aires, Argentina. He was accused of ordering a hit on his pregnant girlfriend. Her name is Nadia Bayer. She’s a Bolivian lawyer and a political analyst. She’s a former supporter of leftist president Eva Morales, turned staunch critic. She was shot three times by two armed gunmen the day before outside of a hotel in the Bolivian lowland capital city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra. That’s the heart of Bolivia’s agricultural heartland and one of the most conservative regions in the country. She survived. From her hospital room, she asked to speak to press.

This is the video. You can find it online. She’s laying in a hospital bed, the back slightly raised, so she’s kind of sitting up. She wears a white and gray striped hospital gown. She has several bandages and she’s attached to some machines. She sounds exhausted. “I’ve requested the presence of DTV to make a live statement because they tried to silence me,” she says. “And I’m absolutely sure that if I don’t speak out to the Bolivian people, they’re going to finish what they tried to do today. They’re going to end my life.” She speaks for 15 minutes about her relationship with Fernando Cerimedo, about his physical abuse, his cheating on her and others, and then she reveals dirt on Cerimedo and his underhanded political dealings across the region, including in high, high places.

She discusses Cerimedo’s ties to Trump’s former campaign manager, Brad Pascali, referring to Parscale as a member of the CIA. She describes her personal knowledge of corruption committed by Cerimedo and Bolivia’s new right-wing president, Rodrigo Pas and his family. Pas is the eldest son of the former Bolivian president, Jaime Pasamora. He was born in Spain, went to college in the United States, and Fernando Cerimedo helped to lift him into the presidency last year. “The government is the main one interested in silencing me,” she says. Rodrigo Pas, his wife, his family, they make the biggest deals with the brokers, with all of the insurance companies of all the state companies. They are the ones who negotiate the broker’s commission. “Do you have proof of all that?” Asked the man interviewing her behind the camera. “I have proof of many extremes,” she says. She also details Cerimedo’s power in Bolivia and abroad.

“Rodrigo Pas does not govern here,” she says. Fernando Cerimedo governs and they will absolutely cover it. He manages a group of the police that supposedly operates around the hotel where he made me go. That was the hotel where she was shot. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg about Cerimedo, the disinformation campaign he concocted, and the right-wing election wins he had a large hand in securing across the region.

Jake Johnston:

This is a door that is opening to a world that has largely been closed. I think that’s the interesting part about this. It’s what does this tell us about the broader infrastructure that exists in the region and likely elsewhere across the globe that is using digital sort of shock troops, bots, disinformation, media polarization to try and skew electoral outcomes, even at the margins where it might have a tremendously large impact, even if the operation itself seems sort of small.

Michael Fox:

All of that in a minute. This is Under the Shadow, an investigative narrative podcast series that looks at the role of the United States abroad in the past and the very present. This podcast is a co-production in partnership with The Real News and NACLA. I’m your host, Michael Fox, longtime radio reporter, editor, journalist, the producer and host of the podcast, Brazil on Fire: Stories of Resistance, and my new series, The Battle for Free Speech. I’ve spent the better part of the last 20 years in Latin America. I’ve seen firsthand the role of the US government abroad, and most often sadly, it is not for the better. Invasions, coups, sanctions, support for authoritarian regimes. Politically and economically, the United States has cast a long shadow over Latin America for the past 200 years. It still does. This is season two of Under the Shadow: Trump’s attack, episode 14, Fernando Cerimedo.

It’s February 10th this year. A passionate man is speaking in Spanish on a stage in Mar-a-Lago, Florida. This is Trump’s Hispanic prosperity gala. The back wall of the stage is plastered with a logo of a bull’s head and the words Latino Wall Street, Spanish language financial website. The name of the man on stage is Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of Brazil’s former president, Jair Bolsonaro, and brother of the current far right presidential candidate, Flavio Bolsonaro. Eduardo resigned as a member of Congress in 2025 and moved to the United States after he came under investigation for trying to pressure the Supreme Court in defense of his father, who is now on house arrest for couplotting. The Bolsonaro family are close allies of President Trump, and Eduardo Bolsonaro has close ties with Trump’s former campaign manager, Steve Bannon. On stage, Eduardo Bolsonaro is praising Fernando Cerimedo. They’ve reportedly known each other for years, since 2010 when they met in the United States.

Eduardo invites Cerimedo to the podium. So I have the great pleasure, a great honor, he says, to call here on the stage Fernando Cerimedo, a brave Argentine who had the courage to denounce the bad things that happen in the world.

Eduardo Bolsonaro presents Fernando Cerimedo with the award for Best Hispanic Political Consultant of the Year. Cerimedo is wearing a black suit, white shirt, black tie. He has a bald head. Fernando and Eduardo embrace, and then they pose for the cameras with a tiny statue. Then Cerimedo walks to the podium. 2025 was a very good year for us. Together with our team, we won two elections, he says, Bolivia and Honduras. Serimedo also gives a shout out to the Bolivian First Lady and her daughter who he says are in the audience. Serimedo then turns and thanks his connection with the Trump administration.

Fernando Cerimedo:

I want to say something in English. Thank you to Brad Parscale for believing me all the time and give me your technology and Tim Dunn for do the fighting in Latin America against socialism. Thank you, Brad.

Michael Fox:

Tim Dunn is a Trump allied businessman from Texas. He’s in oil and gas, and he’s a big financial supporter of conservative causes. As for Brad Parscale, if you remember, Serimedo’s girlfriend mentioned him in her hospital interview. She said he was tied to US intelligence. He is a digital consultant with deep ties to the White House and Mar-a-Lago. He ran digital media for both Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns. Since 2025, he’s been the chief strategy officer at the right-wing Christian Conservative Media Corporation, Salem Media Group. In May, The Intercept reported that he had been hired by the Israeli government to push pro-Israeli views over conservative media. Serimedo closes his acceptance speech.

“The message I want to give you is that it’s not about winning elections,” he told the audience. “That can even seem easy. If we don’t help our candidates govern so that the left never returns to those governments, our work will never be finished. So let’s keep fighting the cultural battle. That’s not just winning elections and taking positions. It’s battling every day to be able to regain freedom in Latin America. Thank you all very much and goodnight, “he said. Fernando Cerimedo. This guy is no ordinary political consultant. The things he has done that helped him win that award presented by Trump allies and Mar-a-Lago have included using underhanded, dirty, and other illegal means to help his candidates win elections, candidates who are all right-wing or far-right Trump allies. And look, he allegedly even tried to kill his own girlfriend to silence her. Cerimedo is just one man, but he’s part of a much broader network.

And for them, pushing their agenda is not politics as usual within democratic systems. As Cerimedo mentioned at that award ceremony, this is a culture war and they are fighting to win by any means necessary. It all calls into question many of these victories that the right has been winning across Latin America in recent years. Jake Johnston.

Jake Johnston:

But of course he’s not operating alone and his business partner in his company, Neumann Advisors, which was actually first registered in Florida, is Brad Parscale, who is Trump’s former campaign manager. And the way that it has been described, and Saramedo has given some interviews on this in the past, is that Parscale provides a sort of digital infrastructure that was implemented in the United States during Trump’s election and is sort of exporting that to the region. And the connection to all of these far right Latin American leaders in these networks between Parscale and them is Fernando Ceramedo.

Michael Fox:

Jake says that a key mouthpiece of this right-wing network has been La Derecho Diario, a right-wing news and opinion site founded by Serimedo and two of his colleagues around the year 2020. La Derecho Diario is now partially owned by Javier Negre, a Spanish right-wing media entrepreneur and disinformation broker.

Jake Johnston:

Now, in parallel to this, you’ve had this sort of digital media outlet, Ladarecho Diario, that has sort of risen to prominence as big promoters of the new far right in Latin America, sort of classic disinformation campaigns and things like this, but always sort of in support of these candidates and have been extremely active in a number of these electoral races and have sort of begun to expand both in Mexico and certainly are looking at Brazil, and Sarameto was also a partial owner of that operation. And of course, this is nothing new, right? I mean, this network of right-wing political operatives has been extremely active in Spain and Europe, but also in Latin America for any number of years, going back decades and following a lot of these folks’ work. What’s changed is that they now have an administration in Washington that is directly supporting the same agenda.

Donald Trump:

Found out in Chile, the person I endorsed who was not leading ended up winning quite easily, so I look forward to paying my respects to him. I hear he’s a very good person.

Jake Johnston:

And so that has sort of elevated it to a different level and certainly sort of just put a lot of money in the pockets of a lot of people who have an interest in promoting this new far right in Latin America.

Michael Fox:

The other thing is that we don’t actually know the true extent of everything. We have clues. Many are really concerning, but not all the dots connect. Just remember that as we continue. It’s been reported that Serimedo has had a role in the political victories of the right and far right in at least seven countries over the last four years, including Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Polivia, and Peru. That is not a bad record. The first place I want to visit though, came before all of those in Brazil in late 2022. It’s election night, October 30th, 2022. Former Brazilian President Luis Ignacio Lula de Silva wins the vote by a slim margin, defeating Trump ally and incumbent far-right President Jair Bolsonaro in a huge victory for the left. But the next morning. Bolsonaro supporters hit the streets in protest, claiming the election was stolen. A claim Bolsonaro himself had spread ahead of the vote.

They shut down highways. They set up vigils in front of military barracks demanding the country’s armed forces rise up to overturn the results.

Amid this chaos, Jair Bolsonaro’s son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, who we heard from earlier, is interviewed by a right-wing Argentine media outlet where he spreads lies about Brazil’s electoral system. The interview was aired just three days before the vote. According to news reports at the time, the video had a live audience of more than 400,000 viewers. I remember this. It was a big deal because what Eduardo Bolsonaro did was actually illegal in Brazil. You can’t disparage the country’s electoral system, particularly just days before the vote. That’s why Eduardo Bolsonaro did the live in Argentina. Anyway, what most of us only realized recently is that the guy who interviewed Eduardo Bolsonaro during that live was Fernando Cerimero, and that outlet was Cerimedo’s La Derechediario. You can think of it as something akin to the bright part of Argentina. That live, I’ve been looking for it to play a clip here, but it was taken down shortly afterwards in Brazil.

It still had a wide reach though. It was shared across WhatsApp groups and far right media spheres. It reportedly played a significant role in undermining the election result and intensifying the widespread protests by Bolsonaro supporters in the wake of the 2022 elections.

All of this stoking of Bolsonaro’s base would of course culminate in the January 8th, 2023 invasion of Brazil’s capital by Bolsonaro supporters. They wreaked havoc, causing millions of dollars of property damage in Congress and the Supreme Court in a copycat performance of the January 6th US Capitol invasion in 2021. There was pushback against Laderecha Diario in Brazil.

Maria Martha Bruno:

And because of that live broadcasting and because of Cerimero’s intervention after Lula has won, actually the Brazilian electoral justice decided to suspend Laderecha Diario’s account in social media because it identified that it was a source of falsehoods and rumors that had been extensively dismissed by the Brazilian authorities.

Michael Fox:

Maria Marta Bruno is a journalist at Ajin Shepublica, the largest nonprofit investigative newsroom in Brazil. That outlet did an in-depth investigation in 2023 into the so-called digital militias and the use of internet, bots, disinformation, fake news, and media manipulation to sway opinions and elections across Latin America.

Maria Martha Bruno:

And the investigation is named the digital mercenaries. And Fernando Serimero is a core figure in this ecosystem because he orbited between Brazil, Argentina, and more recently we knew that he was also participating in the electoral process in Honduras in 2025.

Michael Fox:

Maria Marta actually spoke with Serimero for their report.

Maria Martha Bruno:

But Fernando Serimedo, when he talked to and to our partners at the Central Latin American he actually admitted in some of the interviews that he twisted and that he put many informations out of context just to make the case that he want to make the case. He admitted that that was sort of his strategy.

Michael Fox:

It’s a strategy that has been deployed across the region. Last month, Brazil’s Folio de Sao Paulo newspaper interviewed Nalia Bayer about Fernando Serimedo’s work fixing elections around Latin America. Remember, Bayer is Serimero’s ex-girlfriend who he allegedly tried to kill. This video was published eight days after the attempt on her life. She’s laying in bed and looking up at a cell phone through which she’s doing the interview. She spoke about the cases that she remembers where Serimedo used bots to sway public opinion online ahead of the election.

“I knew that in Honduras,” she says. “I knew that in Chile, in the constitutional assembly vote. I knew that in Brazil, in Bolivia, obviously in Argentina, in Columbia, they were going to do it, but I think they didn’t get to do it. I don’t know why. I think maybe it was because of economic agreements that weren’t closed or unless they had told me later that they had done it. But there were some negotiations with Spain as well, she says. I don’t know if you caught that, but she just said that he was even supporting Jair Bolsonaro’s digital campaign in Brazil in 2022. Maria Marta Bruno.

Maria Martha Bruno:

Fernando Serimedo, it’s a very key example of a core figure that get all those notes together, all those wires together across Latin America and help to boost this very successful digital communication ecosystem that has been helping the right and the far right in the past eight or so years.

Michael Fox:

The Brazilian outlet released the Fordham has reported that during an investigation into Serimedo’s properties, investigators discovered a mini bot farm worth more than $40,000 with a digital infrastructure to coordinate campaigns over social media. Jake Johnston.

Jake Johnston:

There’ve been a lot of allegations around. I mean, he’s even bragged around his control of hundreds of thousands of bots and things like this. And I think we do have to take a second to think like, okay, putting aside any legality or anything like this, or whether this is electoral interference or electoral fraud or anything, just put it aside. I mean, could this have had an effect on these elections? And I think you start to look at that, you say, “Well, these elections where there’s less than 1% difference between a winner and a loser, yeah, these sorts of interventions may have had a really profound effect in shaping this narrative that we have today of this rightward shift in Latin America, and how much of that narrative is really the product of a sort of digital army of folks all associated in one way or another with Serameto and with connections right back to the Trump.

Donald Trump:

When people like me, I like them. It’s very simple. It’s a very simple formula, and I like him. He said really nice things about me and the job we’ve done in the United States, and very, very powerful.

Michael Fox:

Here’s the thing, and Jake mentioned this earlier, this Cerimeto scandal has opened a window into the underhanded or dirty maneuvers one man has taken, in part on behalf of the Trump administration, to win elections for the far right in Brazil, but we don’t really know the full extent of what was done behind the scenes to sway the vote.

Jake Johnston:

It is important to note, we really don’t know much of what these people were doing, right? I mean, that is, I think, hopefully what we can learn through these investigations that are happening in Bolivia, through what I think should be far greater attention from the US media about the role of Brad Parscale and Trump connected officials with him and what they’re actually doing. What is the gangway? How have they helped these campaigns or interacted with these campaigns?

Michael Fox:

We do have a glimpse into actions that Serimeto took to allegedly help the right return to power in Honduras last year, and it is extremely concerning. Honduras. It’s just after the country’s election on November 30th, 2025. The race was so close the winner won’t be announced for weeks.

The conservative candidate Nazri Asfurda has faced off against leftist Rixi Muncada and Centris Salvador Nasraya. The leftist Libre Party has run the country for the previous four years. Before then, the US back right-wing national party held onto the presidency through violence, repression, and fraudulent elections. They took power after the 2009 coup. The president who ruled the country for much of that time with an iron fist was named Juan Orlando Hernandez. At that point last year, he was in a West Virginia prison serving a 45-year sentence for drug trafficking. We looked at a bunch of this in episode 12 about Honduras Gate. If you miss that, you can go back and listen. But here’s the thing. There’s a new audio clip about Honduras that was only released last month. It’s a one-minute, 30-second voice message from political consultant Fernando Serimedo to a member of the electoral campaign of Nasri Asfura.

He’s the right-wing candidate, Trump ally, and the man who would be declared president in late December after a protracted recount. I just have to tell you, this voice message gives me the chills. In it, Serimedo says not to worry that they’ve rigged the election, stuffed ballot boxes where necessary, and removed votes elsewhere, all with the support of members of the armed forces who are stationed at polling stations. Serimedo is confident about their victory.

“Yes, from all of this, the only thing we can learn is that the area where the votes are coming in right now is where Tito wins, “says Serimedo. Tito is the nickname of Nasri Asfura, the national party candidate who is now president. “In the second place, the locations where more national party votes are going to come in, if there were votes from somebody else, those were taken out. Those are being fixed,” he says. “We already have the numbers. According to what I’m seeing, we already have people aligned in the armed forces. It seems that everything is going well, “he says. “If we have the votes and we know where we lost the election, that’s where we place more votes, and they talk to everyone at each polling station. “That’s all that matters. We don’t have to worry,” he says.

This audio was released publicly last month by Marlon Ochoa. He’s a former member of the country’s electoral court who had to flee Honduras over death threats against him. He said he handed over the audio evidence in December 2025 before the election results were finalized, but investigations didn’t move forward and election authorities rubber stamped Asfura’s win. Ochoa did not reveal how he obtained the damning audio. I’m left with so many questions. Did Seri Medo really rig the elections for Nasre Asfura? If so, did the United States know? Did Israel? Both of them are staunch allies of former right-wing president Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was sentenced to decades in a US prison for drug trafficking and who Trump pardoned just after last year’s vote. Most importantly, if Seri Maedo rigged the elections in Honduras, did he also do it elsewhere? In Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru?

Even if he didn’t stuff ballots everywhere, it’s clear he was willing to use whatever means necessary to get his candidate elected, including spreading disinformation or fake news during the campaigns and even about the country’s electoral system. And this is “MAGA’s man in Latin America. Democracy itself is at risk.” Serimado is now in custody. He’s being investigated for attempted femicide. Many of his former staunch allies are trying to distance themselves. Jake Johnston.

Jake Johnston:

And so this has been a huge scandal and the investigation in Bolivia has expanded to move from femicide to illicit enrichment to the protection of drug traffickers. And so there’s at least three now investigations taking place in Bolivia. And one of the most shocking things is just the way in which all of the politicians who just a few months ago were working quite closely with Sarameta. Now totally wash their hands. I don’t know who this guy is. Rodrigo Paz, the new president in Bolivia says, “Oh, he was involved a little bit in the campaign, but I don’t know who he is.” There are photos of him meeting with Marco Rubio and the Bolivian president from just a couple months ago. So this is a total sort of hand wash. You saw the same thing in Argentina where Sarameto was very involved in the campaign of Javier Millet.

Now Miley said, “Oh no, he has nothing to do with us. Of course, it just came out that he visited the Casa Rosada 14 times last year.” So you see this all over the hemisphere. He was obviously very involved in Honduras and very publicly involved in Honduras and that electoral process. Again, another razor thin electoral margin there. I mean, obviously this fits into a much broader conversation around social media disinformation and what its effect is on democracy, on political processes more broadly. It’s certainly a conversation that has been quite prevalent in the United States for a long time now that is extremely relevant for the upcoming election in Brazil.

Michael Fox:

Jake says it’s not just about what Serimedo has or hasn’t done in these other elections. It’s about what underhanded tactics may still be used in future elections with or without Serimedo, and not just in Latin America, but in Spain and elsewhere where right-wing parties are gaining ground.

Jake Johnston:

There is a lot of people who are looking to make money off the political changes that are happening in Latin America, and they can sell their access to the Trump administration, their access to this legislator, this lobbyist, this business, and they play up those connections to get a contract, to get a consulting gig. And this is sort of the brave new world of the Don Roe doctrine in Latin America where it’s not just Sara Mato, it’s not just Brad Parscali and Javier Negre and Londoreche Diario. I mean, this is happening all over the place. You can see these lobbying filings that are coming in every day with different people hiring Trump connected folks. And so they’re all sort of competing for this space and to influence pedal and make money doing so in the region and take advantage of the sort of political interventionism and rightborn shift that we’re seeing.

And so this is just one piece of it.

Michael Fox:

In other words, this doesn’t begin or end with Serimado, but as Jake Johnston said in the beginning, this is a door that is opening to a world that has largely been closed. And there is so much more we need to understand and consider about how US President Donald Trump is using his power to influence elections around the region. This is where we’re headed next time. In the lead up to high stakes elections in Brazil in October where Trump is vying to help the son of the former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro win the election. Trump has levied tariffs and revoked the visa of the Brazilian ambassador to the United States and state department officials are allegedly courting journalists in order to spread the US narrative around the country’s elections. That is next time on Under the Shadow.

Folks, first off, I have big news. I’ve just launched a new website called Pan-American Dispatch. It’s a project of The Real News. We are translating daily articles from Portuguese and Spanish into English for a US audience. Over the next two months, we’re exclusively focused on the Brazilian election and Trump’s attempts to influence it. Please check it out. You can find us at panamericandispatch.org. As always, you can find me at patreon.com/mfox. There you can also support my work, become a monthly sustainer or sign up to stay abreast of all the latest on this podcast and my other reporting across Latin America. You can find a ton of content there exclusively for my supporters. Many, many thanks to SIEPR’s Jake Johnston and Ajin Shepublica’s Maria Marta Bruno. It was a pleasure to speak with you. I’ll add links to some of the reporting from their outlets in the show notes.

As always, if you’re looking for more information, news and reporting on Trump’s onslaught, both on communities within the United States and abroad, please check out The Real News and NACLA. Both of them are publishing daily indispensable reporting. The theme music is by my band, Monte Perdido. You can find us on Spotify or wherever you stream music. This closing music playing right now is off our 2024 album, Ofrenda. I hope you check it out. Under the Shadow is a co-production of The Real News and NACLA, it’s produced in partnership with Global Exchange. This episode was written, researched, reported, and produced by me, Michael Fox. The script was edited by Heather Geis. Thanks for listening. See you next time.