S1: Welcome in San Diego , it's Jade Hindman. Today we're talking with Congressman Mike Levin about how Democrats are reacting as Donald Trump tests presidential powers and how that could impact Californians. This is KPBS Midday Edition. Connecting our communities through conversation. In the first month of his second term , President Donald Trump has brought sweeping changes to the federal government. Many of his actions have scholars worried about a constitutional crisis. Democrats in Congress are clashing over how to respond to Trump's actions as he and Elon Musk test the limits of presidential power. One of those Democrats is Mike Levin. He represents the 49th district , which includes large parts of north San Diego , County down to Delmar and part of south Orange County. Congressman Levin joins me now. Welcome to Midday Edition.
S2: Thank you. Jade. Good to be with you.
S1: Glad to have you here. So the list is long. Of the ways in which these federal changes could impact Californians and really , people across the country. So I'll start with the more than 20,000 federal workers who have been laid off in an indiscriminate purge led by Elon Musk.
S2: And let's not forget that about a third of these employees were veterans that were laid off , and also that a lot of them , you know , the the idea was for for Doge , which I , I think stands for destruction of government by Elon to let go of probationary workers. That was who they focus on first. But I think a lot of people don't know that probationary doesn't necessarily mean you're a new employee ? It could also mean you were just promoted to be a manager or a supervisor. So they had a lot of people across the federal government who were just promoted to a supervisory role because of their good work there , their excellent performance reviews and the stories of people that we are hearing from Jade across the federal government are incredibly alarming. And and some of the , you know , sort of Keystone Cops element of all this , you know , I I'm now on the Appropriations Committee and one of the agencies that I have oversight and jurisdiction over is the national , the National Nuclear Security Administration and NSA. Those are the people that are responsible for managing the nuclear stockpile. 300 of them were let go indiscriminately as part of DOJ's first round of cuts. And then they realize how bad of an idea that is , to let go of the people in charge of our nuclear stockpile. So then they try to rehire them , but they couldn't find their contact information. That's one of many examples of sort of the ready , fire , aim approach that Musk and Doge has taken. And one of the questions that I have , Jade , is , why is this happening ? Why is Elon Musk championing this initiative ? And for Elon Musk , who , among other things , has a AI company called x AI ? I think it's all about dominating the market for artificial intelligence , he has said. Musk has said that efficiency for him really means AI replacing workers. My concern is that to the extent that the Doge folks , the 20 somethings that Musk has put at these federal agencies now have access to federal data , they may be using that data to train Musk's AI model , which is called grok. And if that's actually happening , that's probably a violation of several federal laws and needs to be investigated. At the end of the day , though , it is a complete abdication by all the Republicans who were elected also and took an oath to defend the Constitution and took took that oath , including article one authority with the power of the purse to just cede control of these agencies , whether it's USAID or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And in some cases , the entire agency is being wiped out so that Elon Musk can get his way. By the way , for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , I think it's fairly clear that one of the reasons that Musk targeted that agency is because he has a payment platform , X pay , that he's trying to grow as well. And now Doge has confidential data about all the competitors in that space , everyone from Zelle to Venmo to the Cash App , all the people that he competes against. So my view is fairly simple. You know , Elon is not a philanthropist. Elon is a businessman and he wants to dominate AI. He wants to dominate payments , and he's using Doge as a front to do those things , in my opinion. All right.
S1: And so you mentioned that this will probably all be investigated.
S2: I know there are over 100 lawsuits now and a lot of different successful outcomes , frankly , against the administration and against Doge and their access to some of this data. Uh , and the next several months are going to be incredibly important. Jade , because my hope is , at the end of the day , the Supreme Court will reaffirm the Empowerment Control Act of 1974 and another law called the Anti Deficiency Act , which says that only the Congress can appropriate funds. Congress has the power of the purse and being an appropriate or I care about this very much. And the administration and the president a portions the funds pursuant to how Congress appropriates them. They can't make wholesale changes. And so hopefully the Supreme Court will come out on the right side of that. The other is something called the Anti Deficiency Act , which says that the president cannot unilaterally appropriate money. So for example , this idea of a buyout that Elon Musk and Doge offered to federal employees , the email that they sent saying fork in the road , we think there's around 75,000 federal employees that have taken that buyout. My concern is that Congress has not appropriated a penny for this. We have an authorized these buyouts. And so I don't think that these federal employees are going to get the money. And my understanding is they've all signed an agreement that limits their recourse in the event that they are short changed. Short change by Musk and by Doge. So Elon Musk is going into the federal government similar to how he would go into a startup business , breaking stuff and then worrying about the consequences. But you can't do that with the federal government. We all want to see efficiency , and we don't like bureaucracy for its own sake. But he is ripping through our federal government with a chainsaw and people are getting hurt as a result.
S1: And he's already got access to the data of millions of Americans.
S2: And at the end of the day , I think there are laws that give citizens who are impacted by this and damaged by this. A private right of action , potentially against Musk , if in fact , it is demonstrated that he's used this data in a way to damage them. And so when I say investigations , it's going to be Congress , but it's going to be private litigants. It's going to be state attorneys general. It's going to be others who were harmed by Musk and DOJ's actions. So all of that is going on. And at the same time , we've got our House Republican friends going after Medicaid , going after nutrition assistance. So there's a lot going on. And , you know , we have every single day , it seems like something else that we have to react to. But I'm doing my very best to stay focused and to do everything we can to fight back with the tools that we do have in our toolkit , whether it's through litigation , legislation , procedural maneuvers that we have in the House , uh , or mobilization of the grassroots and In communication.
S1: The field is certainly being flooded. Onto more cuts. On Friday , it was announced that 5400 civilian jobs would be cut in the Defense Department. We have a large military presence here.
S2: And the Marines and sailors that I represent at Camp Pendleton are the best of the best , and I'm going to do everything I can as an appropriator to make sure they have the tools , the training , the resources they need for their warfighting mission , but also to have a decent place to live. That's the other thing I've been working very hard on. So when I see 8% cuts across the board with specific categorical exclusions for a handful of things , I worry about all the stuff that I've been working on with the full support and cooperation of military leadership , um , around just simple things like the habitability of barracks and making sure that the physical infrastructure at our installations is is just being maintained. So I'm very concerned about it. I'm going to dig into the details of it. I think there are ways that we all can tighten our belts , whether it's defense or non-defense , but it's up to Congress to have that debate and to have that discussion , and to do so in a way that is consistent with the Constitution and the oath that we all take. And that's simply not happening right now. And to my Republican colleagues or any Republicans who are listening to this , I try to remind everyone , Donald Trump's not going to be president forever. Do you want the next Democratic president to operate with no guardrails , no checks and balances , no restraint ? Because that's the precedent that you're setting now , and it's a very dangerous and , dare I say , un-American precedent.
S1: The VA has now fired 2400 workers.
S2: And if you weaken the VA and you start indiscriminately cutting staff , whether it's on the health care side or on the benefits side , the veterans crisis line , we know people were let go from that. At the end of the day , this is all about those who would want to privatize the benefits , the services and the care that veterans receive. And overwhelmingly , veterans do not want that to happen. They want an option to be able to go to a specialist outside the VA , or if they're in a rural community , they want the option to be able to go to a facility outside the VA. But in San Diego , we have an amazing VA in La Jolla. I've got a great clinic in Oceanside. We've got great VA facilities that are doing right by our veterans. We need to protect and strengthen those facilities , not undermine them. Because every dollar that we send to private care is you talk about efficiency. It's inefficient to be doing that. For example , you have a veteran that goes to a civilian emergency room when they can go to a VA emergency room , the VA might have to reimburse 5 or 10 x what it would have cost for them to go to that , uh , VA emergency room as one of many example. So I'm very concerned when I see indiscriminate cuts in any agency , but particularly when we're talking about veterans care and benefits.
S1: And these cuts also threaten our environment. Many national forest workers have been laid off , and now a funding freeze has stopped. The work of of those still employed. Uh , one major concern I'm hearing is that this could limit our ability to be prepared for wildfires. Um.
S2: Dr.. It's a big acronym , but basically disaster recovery , the very people that are interfacing with the wildfire victims in Pacific Palisades and Altadena , whether they be at HUD or FEMA , they're all at risk. And knowing what I know , having been to those communities that were devastated , uh , by those wildfires , uh , in , in LA , knowing full well that those people are doing a really good job managing an extremely difficult situation. For them to be on the chopping block makes no sense. And and that HUD , the HUD resources that will be needed , along with SBA , along with FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers , I'm very concerned about those across the board cuts. And frankly , uh , earlier today , I had the opportunity to ask questions of the Army Corps of Engineers at our hearing , at our appropriations hearing about what happened with the water being allowed to run to the lake where it evaporated. It never got to LA , and even if it had got to LA , the fires were already contained. So I asked them about that photo op and how the Army Corps sees it when they have statute that directly contradicts executive orders. Who do they listen to ? Statute and Congress needs to prevail over executive orders , particularly when those executive orders are not based on science or common sense.
S1: I want to move our conversation now to immigration. You've faced some criticism for your vote on the Lincoln Riley Act , which Donald Trump signed into law late last month.
S2: And we had two bills that came up recently. There was the Riley Act , and there was also the Gonzalez act. And they're both sort of these these bills that are not addressing the heart of the issue , as I just mentioned , border security and a path to citizenship , trying to come to some sort of common ground. I voted yes on one of them and no on the other. And I'll explain why. Every piece of legislation that I get , I asked two key questions will it do more good or more harm ? And what impact will it specifically have on my community and my region ? In the case of the Riley Act , that basically says that if an undocumented immigrant is found to have committed a properly related offense , that they will be detained , not deported , but detained pending the adjudication of their case , they still have due process rights , they still have habeas corpus rights , but they will be detained pending adjudication. In our communities , we have had scores of burglary , uh , tourism of South American crime groups that have committed , uh , a series of burglaries all throughout our district. A lot of it has occurred in Orange County , Los Angeles County , Riverside , San Bernardino and San Diego. And I believe that that bill could be an effective deterrent against the Chilean nationals and others who have committed a number of those crimes. And I have heard firsthand from our law enforcement community about the challenges that they have faced to be able to crack down on the South American theft rings. The same with organized retail thefts. Those are real challenges in our community. But as I said , that Bill , in my view , upheld due process and habeas corpus rights. Contrast that with the Gonzalez Act , which is similarly targeted and undocumented immigrants , but does not protect due process rights , does not protect habeas corpus rights. And as a result , I voted against that one. So I think at the end of the day , uh , you know , I make the best decisions I can on the on the substance of the legislation. I take great pain to read the legislation and just know that I certainly have heard a variety of views from the community , and I welcome those views.
S1: But the Riley Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain some immigrants who are charged with the crimes that you mentioned burglary , shoplifting. Um , but also even if they have not been convicted of those crimes. And so critics say that detaining people who are simply accused of a crime may lead to due process violations.
S2: I think they have due process pending the adjudication of their case. They are not deported. They still have the right to an attorney. They have all the other rights provided by the Constitution. And I'm I'm a lawyer myself. So I looked into this quite a bit. I spoke with a variety of people , uh , about this legislation. I came out on the side I did , and just the same in the Gonzalez Act , which was a similar bill , and that it's trying to deal with a piece of the immigration or border security challenge that deported people who were simply accused rather than detain them , pending the adjudication of the case. The Gonzalez Act did not protect due process rights , did not protect habeas corpus rights against wrongful detention. And so I voted against it. So again , is it the bill I would have written ? None of these are the bill I would have written. I want to see a good bipartisan bill. We have one called the Dignity Act that we've had now with about 30 of us , about 15 Democrats and 15 Republicans. We've had this bill in the works now for a number of years , but it hasn't gotten traction with more than that because there's a lot of fear and trepidation , I think , particularly on the Republican side , to be caught working with Democrats on the border issue and the immigration issue. And what I have experienced , Jade , is you have a lot of people who are in political office who want to run on the issue of immigration and demonize and , and , you know , turn it into an electoral issue for me. My grandparents on my mom's side came from Mexico when they were very young. You wouldn't know it by my last name , but my mom's parents were Mexican immigrants , and they came when they my my grandfather was 12 , my grandmother was four. They didn't have any money , speak English , have any formal education. They worked incredibly hard. And the question I ask is , is their story even possible today ? Could a dreamer come from Mexico or any other country and , uh , have a grandchild who becomes a member of Congress ? And and despite the fact that my grandparents did not graduate from high school , they had four girls , including my mom , all of whom graduated from college , three with advanced degrees. And now their youngest grandson is a member of Congress. So that the lens that I look through a lot of this legislation is , what would they say ? In fact , on the Riley bill , I asked my mom , what would my grandparents have thought about that bill ? And my mom agrees that they probably would have agreed with my decision.
S1: We've certainly run through a list , and still it seems as though it's a short list of of all of the challenges and the changes coming down. But I want to ask you this because , you know , Democrats have taken a lot of heat for not doing enough to stop a second Trump presidency and the executive orders being doled out. How do you respond to criticism that Democrats just aren't doing enough , aren't organized enough , and really are kind of there's there's this infighting even.
S2: There's something called a discharge petition that I think you're going to be hearing a lot more about , where if a majority of the House agrees that we ought to advance legislation , that we can do so even over the objection of the speaker of the House. So stay tuned. In terms of how we use that , there are procedural motions that we can use. There's obviously litigation strategy , and I'm on a litigation taskforce that's being run by Jamie Raskin. There's about 15 or 20 of us in the House Democrats that are on this task force that are former , you know , litigators that want to see how Congress can support private , state , local litigants , but also to the extent that members of Congress have standing themselves. So we're exploring all options there. And then , of course , the most impactful thing is mobilization from the grassroots. So I would just encourage everybody listening. Don't wait for Congress to act. All of us have agency. Everyone has agency. When you think about what led 2017 , 2018 through to 2020 , when we took back the House in 18. And when Donald Trump lost in 2020 , a lot of the activism , the energy , it came from the grassroots. And it didn't come from anybody here in Washington , D.C. , that's for sure , because there's communities all across the country , Jade , where people are going to be hurt by consequence of these actions. In our district , for example , 82,000 people on Medi-Cal , including about 33,000 kids , tens of thousands could lose their health care if the Republicans get their way. People are on the the cusp of losing the food security that they've got , because Snap or Cal Fresh is about to be taken away. These are real world consequences. We've got to do everything we can to make sure people understand those consequences and stand against it , and also understand why it's happening , so that a massive tax cut can continue. For billionaires like Elon Musk , it's unconscionable , and I hope that people understand what's happening and that they too have agency to say something and do something.
S1: All right. I've been speaking with Mike Levin. He represents the 49th district , which includes large parts of north San Diego , County down to Delmar and part of south Orange County. Congressman Levin , thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you.
S2: Jade , good to be with you.
S1: That's our show for today. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
