Trump gets BAD NEWS amid effort to use military at polls

I'm joined now by the governor of. Illinois, J.B. Pritzker. Governor, thanks for joining me. >> Great to be here, Brian. >> So, we have seen Donald Trump really. double down on this idea that there's. going to be some election interference. We've heard uh about reporting that he's. drafting an executive order um as a. result of China interfering in the 2020. election that would quote unlock. extraordinary presidential powers over. voting. Not Not withstanding the fact. that the president doesn't have powers. over voting. Uh voting belongs entirely. to the states. Still, that's not going.

to stop stop Trump from thinking that he. does or trying to exercise this idea. that he does. And so, what is the plan. in your state of Illinois in the event. that in what feels like the inevitable. event that Donald Trump does try to um. you know, usurp control of our. elections? >> We should begin by just saying it is. clear that he is going to use either ICE. and Customs and Border Patrol uh with. their uniforms and their automatic. weapons uh or he'll try to use National.

Guard to. protect uh the polling places. And I. have no doubt that that part of that. plan is potentially. uh to claim fraud and to seize ballot. boxes in order to count the votes. himself. So, he knows he's going to lose. this election. And so, he's got to find. some fraudulent means to uh overturn. what the voters want. So, I you know, the protection aspect of.

this we've been working on for some. time. And I I will start by saying I. don't want to share with you everything. that we're talking about. I've talked to. a number of governors about what their. plans are. I can say that all of us have. thought long and hard about how do we. protect the elections? Uh it starts of. course from the cyber perspective uh. because it wouldn't I wouldn't put it. past Donald Trump to be um you know, interfering with the systems uh the way. that we heard Russia and China have been.

attempting to do. for some number of years now. We have a an advantage here in Illinois, which is that our elections are not run. on a statewide basis. They're actually. run in the 102 county. clerks' offices, so there it's very. dispersed. We think that's a big. advantage here and run by the elected. clerks. So, we don't have a Secretary of. State, for example, overseeing our. entire election. We have a Board of. Elections, but. it is really the county clerks in.

charge. So, so part of it is making sure that we. have a lot of poll watchers. Some of them being deputized by the. state. A lot of it is making sure that we have. attorneys available and on call cuz you. can't have one at every polling place, but you can have one in every region, at. least where you expect that there might. be some. effort by the administration to overturn. our elections. I also think that Illinois is probably. not their number one target for what.

they're, you know, hoping to overturn. I'm guessing that it'll be specifically. in those states where you've got a. Senate race that they think is going to. be very close or where they've got a. Republican incumbent that could be. thrown out of office. We've got a Senate race, don't get me. wrong, and it's going to be very. important, but my guess is they're not. prioritizing Illinois. >> Is there a world where. given the fact that they're probably not. going to prioritize Illinois, they're. going to look at states like North. Carolina and Maine and Ohio,

Alaska, maybe Texas. Is there a world. where some of the states that have less. of a risk and and probably more, you. know, additional resources where those can be. shared with some of the states that are. more at risk? >> Yes, indeed. And you can imagine that a. big city like Chicago, a state like. Illinois has more lawyers, let's say, than uh some other places in the country. where you need to guard against the.

election uh interference by Trump. So, uh that doesn't mean that they're uh. licensed to do uh to practice law in. those other states, but having that. legal background and being there uh in. those states is also something that can. be done. So, yes, um let's just give as. examples let, you know, uh we have. historically in Illinois uh had. activists who've gone, just the example. here would be have gone to Wisconsin, right? It's a nearby state where there. were have been important elections,

presidential elections, for example. Um. and people have gone in busloads and. we've, you know, sponsored that. Uh we, meaning Democrats at the Democratic. Party, have sponsored that sending them. to other states. I I'm very much a. believer in taking the talent that we've. got here when we don't need it here and. sending it to other states where it is. needed. >> The DNC just filed a lawsuit against the. Trump administration for pretty much. exactly the reason that you laid out at. the top. They wanted to get any They.

basically tried to FOIA uh Freedom of. Information Act request, any info from. the White House where there were plans. that were that that were in process that. would describe any effort to send um. uh ICE agents or law enforcement agents. or the US military into these polling. places. The fact that they had to to. file this this uh this FOIA request and. and sue for it is a testament to the. fact that the administration isn't. trying to reveal any of this publicly. So, does that suggest, in in in your.

opinion, that this is exactly what's. going on to the point where where a. lawsuit would even be required? >> Yeah, and it's not just the recent. evidence that that backs me up on this. I mean, I've been saying this literally. since a couple of days after the 2024. election. um that that, you know, he has a history. and you know, Michael Flynn. was the one who suggested it very. publicly that that of let's use the. military to seize ballot boxes.

So. >> Well, he tried to do it in 2020. He he. tried to seize the seize the the voting. machines in 2020 in Georgia. So this is. not even theoretical. >> No, and Flynn actually said it in 2020. in December. that that that's what Trump should be. doing is seizing the ballot boxes. So. so this is not a new idea for them. They didn't do it back then. My guess is. that Trump thinks that now you know, he's got free reign to do it. So this is hugely challenging. Now as.

you point out, there is a memo that got. revealed very recently. I think it was. in Daily Beast but elsewhere someone. revealed a memo that at DOD that is a. preparation for using troops in the. elections. To supposedly protect the election. So. I this is happening. This is happening. and I know that when I was saying it. back in January and February and March. of last year, people thought oh it's a conspiracy. theory. That's never going to happen. I.

don't think anybody thinks it's a just a. conspiracy theory or just a you know, flight of fancy now. I think we all. understand that that is precisely what. he's doing and you heard just the other. day that you know, his purpose in trying. to pass the save America what he's. calling the save America Act is. precisely because he thinks that that. will help Republicans win the election. and that they will you know, that that's. going to guarantee them the election if. they can toss people off the voter. rolls, if they can keep people from.

voting because they're afraid to go or. people who just don't have. you know, the. the ID that they're demanding in the. bill. So this is I mean anybody who. hasn't heard this before, anybody who. doesn't think it's true, pay attention. now cuz it is happening. >> In terms of the Save America Act, there's some reporting now that, you. know, especially led by these. Republicans who are vying for Trump's. endorsement in Texas, that they're even. willing to to nuke the filibuster to get.

this thing through because, as Trump. says, if they're able to get it through, they won't win another they won't lose. another election for 50 years. And so, can I have your reaction to the prospect. of the filibuster being nuked so that. Trump can shoehorn in the exact bill. that would that would have, you know, you just listed all of the things that. that that would do to suppress voting in. this country. >> Yeah, I think that the reluctance on the. part of Thune and and a few others of. the leadership of Republicans in the. Senate.

has been because they understand that if. they do this, that there is a future in which. Democrats will take over the Senate and. Democrats will be able to shove down. their throats the things that, you know, the opposite of what they're trying to. shove down our throats now. And again, we can talk about the. situations in which there've been, you. know, the filibuster's been used against. Democratic priorities, but I do think that this is a situation.

where there are some Republicans who. just can't fathom the idea that. democracy truly would be, you know, tossed out the window. if they pass the Save America Act. I. have a lot of women that I know, single women, people who are getting. married, people who've recently been. married, just as one example of of. people who would not be able to vote if. they pass this law because who's walking. around with proof that, well, yeah, I.

just got married and my last name has. changed, etc. Nobody's doing that and we. can go through all the examples of. people who will be prevented from. voting, homeless people, et cetera. Uh that's just precisely what Donald. Trump and the Republicans want. But, I. don't think that they will uh in the. Senate I shouldn't say that. I do not. know anymore uh whether Republicans will. act uh in a constitutional fashion or. act in a fashion that they understand. what the meaning of changing the. filibuster will will do, but um but I am.

you know, John Thune used to be a. rational human being. Um maybe somewhere deep down he still. is. >> You know, you you had uh just I just. want to add one thing to a point that. you made is is uh preventing certain. people from voting. Like if if they if. they preserve for themselves the ability. to prevent certain women from voting, for example, people would say, "Oh, well, they're not going to just prevent. women from voting. Women vote for. Republicans, too." But, the Save America. Act also um allows the states or allows. the federal government to see the voter.

rolls. And so, they would know who that. they who they want to target. And so, if. they know, for example, that certain. voters are registered as Democrats. because they've taken the voter rolls. from the states into the federal. government, now it gives them uh the. information that they would need so that. if they do want to uh prevent certain. people from voting um given the the. reasons that they've that they've uh uh. um reserved for themselves, now they. would know exactly who to target. And. so, this is all like small parts of a. larger whole in terms of what the Save. America Act would do. Um I want I have a.

question. >> to that, Brian, sorry to interrupt, but. add to that that that you know, obviously the demand for the voter rolls. by the Department of Justice is all. wrapped in, and that's actually what I. was founding my original belief about. this uh seizing the ballot boxes and. interfering with the elections came. from. Why would they be uh you know, when. there's so little uh voter fraud that's. been proven anywhere in the country, um. why would they want to grab all of the. data from the voter rolls in every.

state? Why? Because they want to claim. more broadly fraud in the election. So, this is all part of a broad scheme to. keep people from voting and then to. change the outcome of the election once. they have voted. >> Yeah, that's perfectly put. And also, I. would add, you know, there was the most. extensive study that we have on on. ballot fraud or voter fraud in this. country was a study from 2000 to 2014. And that study focused on a billion. ballots, a billion with a B. And there. were all of 31 cases of of voter fraud.

or ballot fraud. So, this is a solution. uh this is uh this is a a a a solution. in search of a problem, basically, when. it comes to to this issue. You had. mentioned poll watchers. And you know, we're we're talking about this idea of. of the federal government using the. military or using law enforcement. agencies to go to the polls um uh when. voting comes around. And you had. mentioned this idea of of poll watchers. And I think that's going to be important. because. you know, a. a big issue that I think we're. contending with is until it happens,

there's no standing to sue for it. Now, maybe there's a world in which if if. these FOIA requests um actually get. these documents released, these plans. released, and then, you know, then there. might be standing because now the plans. are already being laid out. And and, you. know, we can hopefully see some some. attorneys litigate that. I'd spoken. about uh this issue with Mark Elias as. well. But in the meantime, are the states recognizing that the way. to to, you know, make sure that these uh.

law enforcement agencies or military. members standing at the polls, the way. to to make sure that they're not just. that they don't have carte blanche is so. that there is, you know, other people. there uh to push back against what. they're doing. Are there budgets for. these poll watchers in the. in the states and the other have have. the other governors that you've spoken. with said that this is a priority that. they're uh that they're going to make. sure to counteract these members of the. military with either attorneys or or. trained poll watchers so that those. people aren't acting alone or with.

impunity. >> So, there are certain aspects of that. that can be covered by, you know, a. traditional state budget. And there are. certain aspects of that that have to be. covered by the state parties. Um so, you know, you can have put when. you talk about poll watchers, I mean, there are people who can man the polls. whose job it is to make sure the law is. being followed. Um. the problem is those are tend to be. people who have. a higher level of sophistication so they.

can sort of call it out and deal with it. right on the spot. Um and then there's, you know, the what I would describe as. regular rank-and-file volunteer, you. know, or even paid uh sort of canvasser. type uh poll watchers uh who may or may. not know, but they have the phone number. of somebody who can deal with it. And so. that it's eyes on that that's helping. And so that that's sort of like two. levels of it. I think the following the. law part absolutely can be done through.

a state budget. Um the kind of calling. it out when you see it probably needs to. be done by uh you know, by volunteers. So, two aspects of it. All right, is. there a budget for it? Well, there never. before has been. >> Right. >> Um but we've never been before been in. this situation where literally we know. that the federal government and Donald. Trump in particular are threatening the. elections. >> Yeah. >> And I would add one other one other. thing, you know, um I don't know if. you're aware.

that uh there is a federal law that. allows states to have something called a. state guard. Are you aware of this? >> No. >> So, it's a very interesting uh point to. to uh to bring to your attention. There's a National Guard, we all know, and we know what the rules are around. National Guard cuz unfortunately we've. been dealing with Donald Trump on it. Um. so, people have paid attention. They can be federalized by the president. and sent overseas and or any use that.

is you know is according to the act. A state guard is something was created. during World War when national guard. were actually called up and sent. overseas and states didn't have the. ability to call up their national guard. because they were gone. And so they gave. states the ability to create a state. guard which does not have any. federalizing associated with it. So just. under the control of governors. The state of Florida I only learned. about this honestly because.

under DeSantis he. funded his state guard to do things that. were frankly seemingly hyper political. But. but who knew this existed. It turns out that we all have the. ability to create a state guard. New. York a state has a state guard that's in. existence with people who belong to it. Has to be funded by the state budget. But that's an example of you don't have. to use that method but it's an example.

of you could recruit people. By the way. state guard can be you can call them. generals and captains and you know. enlisted people or you can call them. poll watchers. So that's something that could be done. in various states. Every state has the. ability to do it. It's under federal. law. >> Good flag on that and and you've spoken. with other governors on that as well. >> Yes. >> Okay. So I want to switch gears here to. to housing and that's an issue that. often goes completely ignored.

and. and it's also one of the most important. issues for people around the country and. I think as we head toward a midterm. cycle where you know look. in the last few elections we've seen a. massive realignment and it's not. guaranteed that certain voters or. certain demographics are going to vote. for a political party. I think people. are desperate for um someone. uh uh who is actually going to focus on. the issues that they're contending with, and it feels very much like. you know, you you've had years and years. and years of politicians saying one. thing and doing the other, and Trump.

exploited that uh in the lead-up to the. 2024 election. And of course, now he's. in a position where, you know, he said. that we're we're finally going to focus. on regular people. We're finally going. to going to focus on the cost of housing. and rent and groceries and eggs. And. yet, here we are like a a year in uh a. little more than a year in and and of. course, we're we're dropping bombs in. the Middle East, and there's plenty of. money for that, but not enough money to. fund Medicaid, not enough money to fund. the ACA, not enough money to fund food. assistance, rent is rising, mortgages.

are rising, costs are rising, and Trump. doesn't seem to give a And so, um. what are what is your focus in terms of. housing? >> Yeah, you you didn't mention the $60. billion. additional for ICE, uh you know, that that could be spent on. things that actually matter to to. regular people. Um so, I housing let's. start with this that that, you know, in. this world where the federal government. is making it harder to balance budgets. at the state level. I the you know, so there's it's hard to.

just come up with new money in an. operating budget to pay for housing. On. the other hand, we traditionally have. always really um had affordable housing. focus. That's a lot of it funded by the. federal government, but the state's been. involved in that, too. But no effort. really or money traditionally on what I. call middle housing. So, people who make. $80,000 to $180,000. a year.

historically have been able to buy a. home, and in the Midwest, more. affordable homes. But not anymore. You can't afford it. with all the rising costs of everything. else, can't afford to buy a home. Many. people can't afford to rent a home. But. the point being that that we have to. solve the problem not just for people. who don't have any housing at all. and provide affordable housing as it's. traditionally been defined, which. typically are people who are at 80% or.

below of median income. Here we've got people who are you know, average working folks who are making 80. to 180, they can't buy or find a home. So, that is what we're trying we were. trying to address with a proposal that I. made that goes along with our affordable. housing agenda as well. The idea here is. there are obstacles. We we're not we. can't write checks for everybody to get. a home, but what we can do is provide a. little bit of help on your down payment. And importantly, we can remove some of.

the barriers to the development of. >> That was That was going to be my next. question because I you know, I I live in. Los Angeles. This is like the Mecca of. of red tape and it's and it's really. difficult to build and a lot of what um. California Democrats are doing is. focusing on on deconstructing a lot of. that red tape and those barriers to. actually um uh to to build that makes it. that makes it you know, um impossible for for developers or. contractors to even start the process.

because it's not financially viable for. them. >> That's right and we need about 225,000. new. homes for people. between now and 2030 here in Illinois. The challenge and you're raising it when. you talk about Los Angeles is when you. start to think about each. township and each city and each. municipality and all the different red. tape and all of those places and how. over the years that red tape just piles. up and piles up. Nobody ever removes any.

barriers. That you know, we need to do. something about that and I think now. I'll give you the example in my state of. you know Rivian the electric electric. car company is based in Normal Illinois. next to Bloomington Bloomington Normal. in the center of my state that's where. their large plant is where they're. producing. >> I was before but where I thought you. were just saying like as opposed to like. the abnormal part of Illinois but go on. okay. >> It's a town called Normal. I.

and and they that's where they produce. the R1 and the R2 vehicles the R2 is. just coming out now. and that because of their growth when I. took office there were 27 people working. at Rivian there now more than 8,000 in. Normal. and. the housing stock you know that was. necessary for people to take the jobs. there didn't exist and and it still. doesn't there still isn't enough housing. they've taken over hotels there and.

basically house people in those hotels. so they need a lot more housing the. problem is there aren't a lot of. developers in the area and there's red. tape that takes too long for that. housing to be developed I give that as. the example because we had we are. continuing in a crisis for a place like. Bloomington Normal and the same thing's. happening in a place like Rockford. Illinois which has gone from a place. that had high unemployment to a place. that's just booming. and and we we need more housing Chicago.

of course that's the case so what I'm. saying is each one of these places has a. different set of barriers that you've. got to remove but the answer is we need. something that's Statewide that says. that they've got to approve permits. within a certain period of time or else. there is going to be a third-party. method of getting those permits approved. the same thing goes for other of the. local regulation that's just I mean for.

many developers they say, "I don't even. want to do business in these places. where they need houses.". >> Yeah. >> So, I we're working very hard on that. I. put a proposal before the legislature. that will not only deal with the. developers and help them develop more. housing, but also the problem of in a. lot of jurisdictions, you know, you've. got an apartment over a. a garage, for example, and the. jurisdiction won't let you rent that. out. That's a home for somebody. >> Yeah.

>> Um and yet it might sit empty. It could. be income for the family that owns the. home next to the garage. So, we've got a. lot of those situations where we just. need to loosen it up a bit and let. people do what they naturally would like. to do. This isn't about stuffing. communities with. you know, a let's say a middle-class or. an upper, you know, middle-class. community with low-income housing. That's not what we're talking about. What we are talking about is just using. available housing stock. Uh that could.

be homes that were at a moment when we. really do need some new homes. And that would take for my 225,000. need, that would be about 100,000 of. those 225,000, just the available. housing stock today. >> Now, you had mentioned that something. needs to be done on the state level. Is. that Is that in the works right now? Is. there Is there legislation being drafted. in the legislature to actually get this. done? >> It has been. I In fact, I I gave in my. state of the state speech, which was.

just a couple of weeks ago, I talked. specifically about this proposal, the. various elements of it, and the fact. that we've got to just think anew about. housing. This isn't just about building, it's also about existing housing stock, and very importantly, you shouldn't have. to wait till you're 40 years old to be. able to afford to buy a home. >> Last question here. How are you thinking. about. the issue of housing in relation to the. 2030 census and and blue states like.

yours not losing seats in deference to. red states down south. >> Yeah. This has always been a challenge. particularly because Midwest in general. has had a, you know, migration of people. to warmer parts of the country. Um. what's interesting is if you look at the. latest data, what you're seeing is that. with There is an expectation that there. will be a reverse of that migration back. to the Midwest. You know why? Because we.

have all the water. I mean literally 80% of the nation's. fresh water is here in the Midwest. >> Yeah. >> And you think about a place like Arizona. which has had so much migration out. there, they no longer have the water. that they once had. Uh California. suffers from that as well. The Colorado. River isn't going to be able to feed. California the way that it California. needs. So uh people are actually And not. to mention industry, you know, is it.

needs fresh water as well. So we're. expecting and seeing already a kind of a. reversal of that migration pattern. Um. so that's something that we are. challenged with uh in Illinois that kind. of being ready for that reverse of. migration. Look, uh you know, I'm I'm not going to. be governor forever although I've been. governor for 7 years and I'm running for. re-election, but the truth is that that. migration is going to occur over. decades. But we've got to be ready for it and. we've got to continue our process of.

adding more existing I mean more. available housing stock among the. existing as well as building new. >> Well, I appreciate it. Governor Pritzker. as always, thanks so much for the time. >> Good to see you, Brad.