David Remnick: In Donald Trump's first term in office, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU filed 434 lawsuits against the administration. They included suits against the so called Muslim ban and family separation at the border and many more. There is no telling how many lawsuits they will file in a second Donald Trump administration.

The Executive Director of the ACLU is Anthony Romero. Romero has held the job since 2001, September 2001, to be exact. He started in the role just a few days before the September 11th attack. Romero has done the job under four presidents. Since Donald Trump's second inauguration, the ACLU has filed suits to block executive orders ending birthright citizenship, defunding gender affirming health care, and much more. I spoke with Anthony Romero last week.

[music]

Let's begin with the most essential question, legal and political. Are we, less than a month into the second Trump administration, on the brink of a constitutional crisis?

Anthony Romero: I think we could very well be there. We're at the rubicon. Whether we've crossed it is yet to be determined.

David Remnick: Well, describe what the rubicon is. What is the rubicon?

Anthony Romero: The rubicon is the flagrant abuse of judicial administration. If the Trump administration decides to run the gauntlet and openly defy a judicial order in a way that is not about an appeal, it's not about clarifying, it's not about getting a congressional fix, but an open defiance to a judicial order, then I think we're there.

David Remnick: What are the issues where that's a possibility?

Anthony Romero: Well, there are 40 cases, David. There have been a bunch of lawsuits around the DOGE and whether or not the DOGE and Elon Musk have overextended their power.

David Remnick: This is the Department of Government Efficiency led by Elon Musk.

Anthony Romero: Exactly. There are some who say that they're violating the Privacy Act, that they're accessing personal identifiable information on American citizens, their Social Security numbers, their tax returns, all sorts of information that are in the government data banks. Now, whether or not they've actually accessed that, whether there's harm, whether or not the individuals who are bringing cases have standing, those are all to be determined by the judges. There are about four cases, I think, that have been filed there thus far.

Then there's all the questions around shutting down or the closure of grants from the federal government, from USAID and other agencies.

David Remnick: This is considered illegal by legal experts because?

Anthony Romero: Congress appropriates the money. It's not the President's power to rewrite the appropriation from Congress.

David Remnick: Now, you have the Vice President of the United States saying the following. Judges are not allowed to Control the executive's legitimate power. What say you as the head of the ACLU?

Anthony Romero: Legitimate. That's the word that jumped at me. That's what we're arguing about, whether it's a legitimate use of the executive branch power. It's not a new controversy. We've had these debates before, the unitary executive. Remember that back in the days of George Bush. Of course, most presidents have tried to exert a much more muscular approach to executive power than I think the courts or Congress often give them the room for.

David Remnick: We've seen the Republican Party become the party of Trump, and its awareness that if they defy Trump in any way, they're going to lose their seat. Doesn't give you a lot of confidence, does it?

Anthony Romero: Well, the other thing to play on confidence is look at the Supreme Court. The Merrick Garland moment, when they were able to replace that appointment with one of their own. Six to three. It has been a generational shift in the consolidation of conservative power in the Supreme Court. If I'm a good old conservative, I'm not going to fritter away that power. Why would I immediately allow my Supreme Court and my federal judges to be diminished in their status and power? I think there will be moments when good people of conscience will stand up. I do.

David Remnick: What stands between us and the ruination of the Constitution is the conscience of good people.

Anthony Romero: It's judges. The judges are the front line right now. It's not people in the streets as much. It's really the judges who are playing a critical role in this effort.

David Remnick: Where do you think the rubicon will be, on what issue and in what court?

Anthony Romero: I think the one I'm most worried about is birthright citizenship.

David Remnick: Tell me about that.

Anthony Romero: That was the first executive order. That was the first case we filed two hours after he signed it. They want to eliminate the right to citizenship if you are born here.

David Remnick: Which was established when?

Anthony Romero: It was in the 14th amendment. It's also in the statute. It's how we created the American citizens out of the children of slaves. It's also the way that we became a nation of immigrants and leveled the playing field. It's the great equalizer, David. To go at it and say an executive order saying, "I'm going to repeal birthright citizenship," is both trying to undo a core tenet of the Constitution and also the statutory provisions, which are equally clear. We have belt and suspenders on when it comes to birthright citizenship, and they're trying to rip them both Off. That's what's so--

David Remnick: Do what? If birthright citizenship goes the direction that the Trump administration wants to, which is to say, get rid of it, what are the repercussions and what are the actions that could follow?

Anthony Romero: If they were allowed to repeal birthright citizenship, that means that people even who are here lawfully and whose kid is born here would not be a US Citizen.

David Remnick: Do we have any sense of the number of people that would be in jeopardy?

Anthony Romero: There would be hundreds of thousands. We have clients already in our litigation who are pregnant women whose children will be born after the date of the executive order, whose citizenship would be called into question.

David Remnick: Siblings would be potentially rent apart, and parents and children would be rent apart as well.

Anthony Romero: You would have this-- You would create a legal vehicle for intergenerational stigma and discrimination. It's like any of us who've traveled to places like Germany or Japan, these countries still struggle with what it means to be a German citizen or a Japanese citizen. You see the discrimination against Koreans in Japan. That's generations. That's because they haven't had a concept like birthright citizenship like the way we do.

David Remnick: What court is your suit filed in?

Anthony Romero: It's in the First Circuit, it's in federal court.

David Remnick: Describe the First Circuit and the potential fate of this case.

Anthony Romero: It's good. We picked the First Circuit. We're good lawyers, so we think about the clients. There are four different lawsuits that I keep track of. Ours was the first two hours after he signed. That means that we were working up this lawsuit-

David Remnick: For months.

Anthony Romero: -months, identifying the clients, identifying the theories, identifying the venues, honing the pleadings. As soon as we could see the executive order, we could fill it in and file, literally on a federal holiday, Martin Luther King Day.

David Remnick: Who else has filed birthright citizenship?

Anthony Romero: We have the attorneys general. We have many of them on the East Coast. I think there are two cases on the East Coast, one case on the West Coast. The attorneys general are important contributions because they're making administrative arguments like, "How the hell are we supposed to implement this?" I looked at my birth certificate. I found it. It basically said, Anthony D. Romero, son of Demetrio and Coralie Romero, born in New York City.

There's no vehicle for these states to corroborate the citizenship of the parents. How are they going to do the administrative investigations on whether or not you're a citizen?

David Remnick: If you lose--

Anthony Romero: We ain't going to lose.

David Remnick: Okay, but if you lose, that court could then send it -- It would then be sent to the Supreme Court.

Anthony Romero: It would go up. It would go up into the federal Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court.

David Remnick: Knowing what you know about the Supreme Court, ideologically, politically.

Anthony Romero: I think we win.

David Remnick: You win anyway.

Anthony Romero: We win anyway.

David Remnick: Because you have to say that.

Anthony Romero: No, no. I've never been this bold. I've been in my job 23 years. I don't usually predict the outcome of our cases because my heart's been broken multiple times.

David Remnick: You do think your heart will be broken again?

Anthony Romero: No.

David Remnick: Why?

Anthony Romero: Because I think this is really, really going a step too far. I think Roberts and the majority of the court-- Alito and Thomas are the only ones I can't bet on but I think even Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and certainly the three liberals are there at a point where the Supreme Court would eviscerate their legitimacy among constituents and audiences that really care. I care a lot about the Supreme Court.

David Remnick: Is your confidence specific to birthright citizenship, or is it across the board-

Anthony Romero: No.

David Remnick: -executive power.

Anthony Romero: It's birthright citizenship. The rest of it is more up for grabs.

David Remnick: Where else could you locate a constitutional crisis that's now happening or in the process of happening?

Anthony Romero: I think these other suits around congressional appropriation of funds that are now being disregarded by the executive branch. Those very well could be the precipitating factor for a constitutional crisis.

David Remnick: What happens when and if there is a constitutional crisis? What happens if a White House refuses to obey a court order? A federal judge called out the Trump administration for blatantly ignoring an order to resume federal funding for the Office of Management and Budget that had been frozen. What can you do if Trump simply ignores the judges and doesn't want to listen to anybody and just directs his people to keep doing what they're doing? What possible authority or power does anyone have in this, much less the ACLU?

Anthony Romero: I keep running the gauntlet. That judge, Judge McConnell, that's the Rhode island judge I you're referencing.

David Remnick: That's right.

Anthony Romero: Basically, the Trump administration is arguing, not that we don't have to heed you. They argue in their response to the judge. No, we are heeding you. We think your order was more limited. The judge then clarified on, I think, Monday, earlier in the week, saying that no, he had meant for them to reinstate all the grants writ large. This will continue to move up the food chain.

The crisis moment comes when the Supreme Court rules, let's say, with Judge McConnell and says the Trump administration has fragrantly disregarded a clear judicial order, and thou must comply. If they don't comply, then we're in a different moment. We have to exhaust all the remedies. We have to get fines. We have to ask for incarceration of individuals who flagrantly disregard judicial orders.

David Remnick: That includes?

Anthony Romero: That includes the federal agency heads.

David Remnick: It also includes the President of the United States.

Anthony Romero: He himself or the vice president. Sure. No one's above the law. Right?

[music]

David Remnick: Anthony Romero is the director of the American Civil Liberties Union. We'll continue our conversation in a moment. This is The New Yorker Radio Hour.

[music]

This is The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick, and I'm speaking today with the director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony Romero. The ACLU is one of the oldest civil rights organization in the country. It dates back to 1920. When it comes to issues of free speech, the ACLU has defended the Ku Klux Klan and more recently, the organizers of the 2017 Charlottesville rally in the Westboro Baptist Church, which is often called a hate group.

The ACLU is closely associated as well with liberal causes. It's fought the Trump administration and state officials tooth and nail on issues like immigration. I'll continue my conversation now with the ACLU's Anthony Romero.

Anthony Romero: We've been here before. For instance, we've had two lawsuits. I dug them up yesterday. We've had two different lawsuits years ago against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Kris Kobach.

David Remnick: Back up and explain those cases a little bit.

Anthony Romero: Sheriff Joe Arpaio was someone who was trying to round up immigrants. He was tough on immigrants in Arizona. SB 1070, show me your papers guy. He was corralling people up and having Gestapo-like law enforcement efforts focus on immigrants. Kris Kobach was the one who was trying to purge people from the polls who he thought--

David Remnick: Which was where?

Anthony Romero: In Kansas. Both of these individuals, we sued and we won. They didn't like the fact that we won, and so they tried to defy these court orders in both of those instances. We would have to litigate the implementation of their contempt. You would threaten them with fines and threaten them with incarceration. Ultimately--

David Remnick: You're going to do that with the President of the United States?

Anthony Romero: You bet. Part of it is to figure out how you can bring in people into the debate who are otherwise on the side of Donald Trump and Elon Musk and to say, "Wait a minute. This is a step too far."

David Remnick: Who are we talking about?

Anthony Romero: There are many conservatives. Some of them I've just begun to talk to yesterday to run by them. If he openly defies a court order, what can we do together? Now, if we do not succeed, let's say no one comes, the cavalry doesn't ride, and the Alamo is by itself-

David Remnick: Then what?

Anthony Romero: -then we've got to take to the streets in a different way. We've got to shut down this country and people of right and left.

David Remnick: What does that mean?

Anthony Romero: We're just beginning to think it through. We're talking with colleagues and other organizations. There's got to be a moment when people of goodwill will just say, "This is way too far." I do think--

David Remnick: What's the historical precedent for that anywhere?

Anthony Romero: Well, there have been efforts. Marbury versus Madison was a case when the original, the crucial case when the government tried to snub its nose at the role of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was not what it was. It's not as powerful or established institution is today. You had FDR who tried to pack the court. It's not new that presidents bristle at judicial oversight. Clinton passed some of the most egregious court stripping measures.

David Remnick: For example.

Anthony Romero: Where he basically tried to get the courts out of the business of looking at prisons rights cases or immigrants rights cases. That had to be litigated and you had to check the Clinton effort to say, "Hey, I'm not--

David Remnick: I can just hear the listener's mind saying, "Okay, that was Bill Clinton, and that was bad enough. This is a person, an executive, a politician of a very, very different world."

Anthony Romero: Totally agree. We've got to take it one step at a time.

David Remnick: When you say shut the country down and take to the streets, who's doing that? What does that mean?

Anthony Romero: I think you have to call on, for instance, corporate leaders. We'll have to yank them into the pool with us. If they believe that part of what is going to protect good corporate interests or the workings of the economy is rule of law, there's got to be a moment when people are saying, "Can you countenance this?" President Biden had a number of instances where he also bristled at judicial oversight and judicial review.

He hated the effort to shut down his student loan program. That's one of his signature programs. Never got it through because the courts got in his way. But it's really quite another matter when there's a final order of the highest court of the land and the president just says, "Doesn't bother me. Don't have to heed you or hear you." That is a moment when I think we'll be able to harvest the opinions of people and get people engaged in a very different way. It won't matter the content. It will matter whether or not we will allow an executive branch to assume such extreme power.

David Remnick: Haven't the courts, though, changed in recent years? Donald Trump had a healthy long time to install a lot of--

Anthony Romero: 28% of the federal judges are Trump's appointees.

David Remnick: Have you sensed that difference in your cases?

Anthony Romero: Sure. They're on the bench and sometimes they watch his back and sometimes they rule in ways that are head scratching in terms of how far they will go to protect the person who put them on the bench. Also true, 65% of the judges have been appointed by Obama and Biden so there's a larger number of them. That will change as they start to move judicial appointments. What's in front of us? Let's talk a little bit what else might be in front of us, right?

That's not just the onslaught of the executive orders. Now, this is where I'm going to curl or uncurl your listener's hair, depending on their hair. I have no hair. For instance, we have yet not seen the mass deportations that I think are on the horizon. When they start revving up that machinery, that's going to be massive. That's number one. I think the deportations is something to watch out for.

David Remnick: Have you looked at the polls on how people favor deportations?

Anthony Romero: Yes, but when they start seeing that their nannies or their gardeners or their fellow workers or the local shoeshine guy-

David Remnick: Or their neighbors.

Anthony Romero: -or their neighbors are getting ripped up, and the US Citizen kids are put in then family protective services as a result of it, when they start seeing-- What they ran on was saying we're going to get rid of the criminals. Well, that's clearly not what they're doing already but when they really ramp up and they start grabbing all these individuals who are part of the social fabric, I think we'll harvest that.

David Remnick: Now, we've already seen ICE scoop up US Citizens and immigrants not convicted of crimes. What's the legal path to protect people in schools, in churches, daycare centers from the threat of deportation?

Anthony Romero: Well, there are sanctuary city laws and sanctuary jurisdiction laws and that could be defended.

David Remnick: Which are the source of contempt for the Republican Party.

Anthony Romero: Yes. They can be defended. It's important that, for instance, the litigation they're bringing against the city of Chicago, we think is really far afield. They cannot use the power of the purse in pulling money from roads and hospitals and schools to pressure them on immigration. That's got to be challenged in court. The governors and the state attorneys general, especially in the blue states, have enormous power to put up roadblocks. For instance, one of the things that Trump administration--

David Remnick: You find that they're feeling their sense of authority or are they backing off?

Anthony Romero: I think some of the governors are beginning to find their sense of authority in Colorado, in New Mexico.

David Remnick: How about New York?

Anthony Romero: In New York. We're working on it.

David Remnick: You're not confident of Governor Hochul?

Anthony Romero: Well, I think the governor's really working with us. I think the mayor is a bit more complicated on the immigrants rights issue.

David Remnick: Eric Adams in New York.

Anthony Romero: I think it's complicated.

David Remnick: Complicated is a euphemism for what?

Anthony Romero: For not what we like it to be.

David Remnick: For not standing up.

[laughter]

Anthony Romero: Not what we want it to be.

David Remnick: You talk about a firewall of freedom. A firewall of freedom using state and local laws to protect people from federal actions that might violate their rights. What legal protections need support?

Anthony Romero: I think on immigrants in particular, I think the governors have enormous power and latitude. They can obstruct federal immigration enforcement, but they don't have to collude. There are shield laws that I think the governors can also enact for trans kids, for trans individuals. You saw Letitia James in New York when this one executive order then triggered the shutting down of access to medical care in New York City hospitals with people who had private insurance, the New York attorney general stepped up and said, "Wait a minute. If you start canceling those appointments, you're going to run afoul of our state laws."

David Remnick: Let's talk about that. You're suing the Trump administration for his executive order forcing passports to reflect gender assigned at birth, which has laid out a very narrow binary definition of gender, as many people understand it. What's the point of Trump making that claim? How do you form a legal case against it and him?

Anthony Romero: It's fear mongering. It's clear it's fear mongering. It's a card that he played in the election. You saw the ads he ran. It's also--

David Remnick: The ads being?

Anthony Romero: She's for they/them. I'm for you. It was clear fear mongering of a community 1.5 million people who are really under assault. You have over 500 state laws that have been targeted on the trans community. It's really an onslaught the likes of which we haven't seen in generations. Part of our case, we have both this case and we have the one on the transgender affirming healthcare, is to make equal protection arguments.

David Remnick: Where are you on gender affirming care for trans youth?

Anthony Romero: That was a case we had first in the Supreme Court. We argued the Skrmetti case, which is-

David Remnick: Explain that.

Anthony Romero: -challenging a Tennessee statute that was banning gender affirming health care for minors. We were in court arguing that that violated the equal protection of Tennessee citizens, including parents who are our clients in this case. Parents who decide that this is in the best interest of the case.

David Remnick: Is the ACLU for gender affirming care for minors without permission of parents?

Anthony Romero: No. It's always with parents in the loop. Minors don't have the same protections under the law that adults do. That's part of what we're doing in the passport case. If we go back to the passport case, it's both equal protection because people are subjected to harassment and violence if they're misidentified with the wrong gender on their passports. It's open hunting season for them but there's also a free speech right here, David.

It's just like, "How can the government tell me that I cannot?" I can change my name, I can legally change my name. I can change it to Antonia tomorrow. They can't stop me from doing that. There are good First Amendment arguments also on the passports case as well.

David Remnick: The ACLU has fought for the free speech of leftist students on campus as well as somebody like Ann Coulter. Your traditional defense of the First Amendment is bipartisan, but when a gazillionaire like Elon Musk buys a social media platform and brings Nazis back to it, how does the ACLU absorb that?

Anthony Romero: I think the same principles apply. It's just that we have to make sure that the government stays out of the business of regulating people's private speech. That is probably my biggest concern right now. That hasn't yet materialized or matured, but it may.

David Remnick: Were you comfortable with the way Facebook and Twitter barred certain people from--

Anthony Romero: No.

David Remnick: You were not comfortable.

Anthony Romero: No. We criticized Facebook and Twitter when they deplatformed Donald Trump. They kept people like Bolsonaro and Orban on, but they deplatformed Trump. We felt that they were not calling balls and strikes as they saw them, and we applauded them when they re platformed them.

David Remnick: Are you pleased that, say, Mark Zuckerberg has changed his policy on Facebook?

Anthony Romero: No. I think Facebook is afforded a lot of latitude because it's a private entity. The right to set its terms of service.

David Remnick: I think there are some people that would argue that within the ACLU, there was a sense of argument and conflict over essential matters having to do with free speech, platforming, not platforming. Would the ACLU today defend the right of American Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois?

Anthony Romero: You bet. We just took the NRA case a year ago. The NRA came to us saying, "You're the best litigation organization on free speech." This was a case of Governor Cuomo and the administration trying to shut down the NRA because they didn't agree with its pro-gun policies. We saw it as a free speech issue and we brought that case and won 9-0 in the supreme court.

David Remnick: How does the ACLU feel about cases at, say, universities where protesters shut down a speaker?

Anthony Romero: The heckler's veto is a problem. You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to shut down information, debate, discussions. There are limits.

David Remnick: Let's go back to the first Trump administration. Of the hundreds of legal battles you oversaw in that first term-

Anthony Romero: 434.

David Remnick: -what do you think of as your biggest legal victory and what was your biggest legal defeat?

Anthony Romero: I think the biggest victories had to do with family separation, when we were able to stop them in their tracks on separating families as a deterrent to people coming to this country. It was a massive moment where people from across the political spectrum came together. Laura Bush was tweeting on this, and it was a moment when we were able to use both the courts and public opinion to kind of put pressure on the Trump administration, ultimately rescinding their own policy guidance. Their zero tolerance guidance on this one.

I think the other ones had to do with the US Census when they tried to purge the count of undocumented immigrants in the US census. We litigated that twice to the Supreme Court in front of the Roberts Supreme Court and won. I think there were--

David Remnick: Those are victories. What about defeats?

Anthony Romero: The building of the wall. That was litigation we brought to try to stop the misappropriation of funds from one agency to build the wall in the South. That just petered out.

David Remnick: Was that a weaker case?

Anthony Romero: It was a hard case. It was a hard case because you're dealing with the ability for the government to enforce its borders, which is really recognized by the courts and the general public.

David Remnick: Do you sense in the political and public world, any politicians who are forcefully, clearly and effectively speaking up for what you're talking about?

Anthony Romero: I'm looking. I think there are--

David Remnick: Looking-

Anthony Romero: I'm looking, I'm listening.

David Remnick: -and not finding them.

Anthony Romero: There's a lot of mumbling. There's a lot of-- You see the articles about how some Democrats are trying to find their feet from under them.

David Remnick: What's the problem?

Anthony Romero: I don't have to run for office, I don't have to be popular. When I file my transgender rights lawsuit, I don't need 51% of the American people to agree with me. I know what's right. The equal protection arguments are what's right. I think Democrats have a harder job because they're trying to figure out how when he's picked a fight with them on the culture wars.

David Remnick: Let me ask you a question. If they're not going to stand up now, when will they stand up and for what?

Anthony Romero: It's a great question.

David Remnick: Are you despairing of it?

Anthony Romero: No, I think it comes around. I compare this moment, David, to the 9/11 moment. That's when I started my job. The week before 9/11. You remember, the Patriot Act was enacted with everyone's assent in Congress except for one, Russ Feingold. I tell my folks back at the ACLU, this is a time we have to ride this moment, just like we did after 9/11, where we have to build public momentum. The war on terror was very popular. The deportations that John Ashcroft did, the creation of Gitmo as a place to hold people and detain them. The whole question around--

David Remnick: Gitmo is about to get a new lease on life, potentially.

Anthony Romero: They're going to try. We're litigating that one, too.

David Remnick: One of the characteristics of the moment we're living in and the weeks that we're living in is the absolute speed and volume of what's coming out of the White House. What Steve Bannon called flood the zone with shit. That's the strategy and it's being enacted with real efficiency and real skill as compared to the first.

Anthony Romero: The zone is responding. Look, there are more than 50 or so executive orders that have come down. There are more than 40 lawsuits that have been filed in response. It's really quite a different moment. People realize that the zone is being flooded, and it requires us to coordinate with each other in a way I haven't seen before.

David Remnick: You sound pretty confident.

Anthony Romero: I'm not sure I'm confident in the ultimate outcome. I'm confident in the response that we're engaged with. We have filed over 10 lawsuits already in 3 weeks. Those are real lawsuits. Those are real with plaintiffs and filings and real theories.

David Remnick: One of the seminal texts that's been published in the last past decade, certainly warning about authoritarianism, is Timothy Snyder's On Tyranny. He warns against knuckling under in advance and warning against exhaustion. Do you see that or do you see the opposite?

Anthony Romero: Knuckling under in advance, you see that in other places. That's what a lot of these tech leaders, that beautiful parade of billionaires who were so preening for the camera behind the president as he took the oath of office. Now, I know some of them personally, and I know that some of them were there because they felt they had to to defend their corporate interests, their shareholder interests.

David Remnick: Who do you know and who you're talking about.

Anthony Romero: That's better not to kiss and tell on radio, but I think there, the knuckling under, you definitely see it in the private sector. I think the fatigue factor is a matter of pacing ourselves. This is one of the things I tell my folks. I said, "We filed 10 suits already. We have another three or four in the hopper for the next week or so."

David Remnick: Is it possible to pace yourself considering the ferocity and speed at which things are happening?

Anthony Romero: You've got to retain bandwidth. If we run the gauntlet and we file all the cases that we need to right now and then don't have the ability to file them in years two, three, and four, we'll do the country no good. We have to play this game smartly. We are picking and choosing our battles. There are some of them we say, let another group run.

David Remnick: Who are your allies?

Anthony Romero: Democracy Forward, the American Federation for Government Employees, FGE, the AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood. There's a list of us. There's about 50 or 60 of us who talk multiple times a day. We say, "Okay, you got that case, we got this case."

David Remnick: How do those conversations begin? With a long moan? [laughs]

Anthony Romero: No. Everyone's very pragmatic, very focused on what the moment requires of us. It might take us 5 years or 10 years, but we will get there. I think if we say on it like water on stone, and I run an organization--

David Remnick: Do we have 5 years or 10 years? When you're talking about the health or even the existence of the Constitution and rule of law, do we have time like that?

Anthony Romero: There will be flashpoints, the defiance of a final judicial order.

David Remnick: There will be flashpoints and there will be blood.

Anthony Romero: There will be blood, and there will be a need for groups to then pick up the pieces from where we are then. I think organizations like mine that have been around 105 years have to think about the staying power. What we do today is critical. What we do in 10 years, in 15 and 20 years, is going to be equally critical. That's why we just have to stay on it.

David Remnick: Anthony Romero, thank you very much.

Anthony Romero: My pleasure, David. Thank you.

[music]

David Remnick: Anthony Romero has been the executive director of the ACLU since 2001.

[music]

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.