
Trump's Running Tab in the Abrego Garcia Case
The Trump administration's long, belabored campaign to prove that Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a gang leader, a terrorist, and an all-around bad guy—not a wrongfully deported Maryland man—has produced some extraordinary legal maneuvers. The administration fought Abrego Garcia's return from El Salvador all the way to the Supreme Court, lost, and eventually brought him back to the United States to slap him with criminal charges it had started investigating after it had already sent him to a foreign prison.
But with that criminal case off to a shaky start, the administration is threatening to deport Abrego Garcia again—this time to a country other than his native El Salvador—because the judge has ordered his release while the trial is pending. Having spent months trying to gather evidence against Abrego Garcia, the administration is suggesting it may walk away from it all by sending him to Mexico, Guatemala, or another nation willing to take him.
The threat of Abrego Garcia's imminent re-deportation prompted his attorneys to take the extraordinary step today of asking a district court to delay their client's release and keep him locked up for several more weeks to protect him from ICE. 'The irony of this request is not lost on anyone,' his attorneys told the court. 'In a just world, he would not seek to prolong his detention further.' The lawyers accused the government of pretending to want Abrego Garcia to face 'American justice,' while really only wanting to 'convict him in the court of public opinion.'
The head-spinning developments of the past several days add to the administration's running tab in a case that has challenged its determination to admit no wrongdoing. The case has produced nearly 57,000 pages of documents; ended the Department of Justice careers of one, perhaps two prosecutors; and prompted the Trump administration to cut deals with convicted felons that protect them from deportation in exchange for testimony.
Some of the most remarkable accommodations appear in the transcript of a June 13 pretrial hearing for Abrego Garcia in Tennessee, where the government is trying to convict him of human smuggling. Under cross-examination by defense attorneys, the government's lead investigator, the Department of Homeland Security agent Peter Joseph, told the court that his primary cooperating witness—the source of the most damning testimony—is a twice-convicted felon who had been previously deported five times.
Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes, who was presiding over the hearing, did a double take. 'Sorry. Deported how many times?' she asked.
Joseph, who confirmed the total, said the cooperator has been moved out of prison to a halfway house and is now awaiting a U.S. work permit. He told the court that a second cooperating witness is seeking similar inducements from the government.
Trump and his top officials have said for months that their mass-deportation campaign would prioritize the swift removal of criminals from the United States. But in its effort to punish Abrego Garcia—who does not have a criminal record—the administration is protecting convicted felons from deportation.
Other costs include ending the 15-year career of a Department of Justice attorney, Erez Reuveni, who filed a whistleblower claim with Congress this week alleging that he was fired for refusing to go along with unsubstantiated claims, pushed by the White House, that Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang leader and a terrorist.
When Reuveni's superiors told him to sign a legal brief making those claims, he refused, saying he 'didn't sign up to lie' when he became a federal prosecutor. He was suspended seven hours later and fired on April 11.
Reuveni's career may not be the only DOJ casualty. Another federal prosecutor, Ben Schrader, the head of the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office in Nashville, submitted his resignation last month when the government brought Abrego Garcia there to face charges. Schrader, who declined to comment and has not discussed his departure publicly, wrote in a LinkedIn post that 'the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons.'
As Reuveni and others have pointed out, ICE officials initially recognized that Abrego Garcia had been deported on March 15 due to an ' administrative error.' His removal from the country was in violation of a 2019 order protecting him from being sent to El Salvador, which he fled at age 16, after a U.S. immigration judge found that he was likely to be attacked by gangs. At that point, the Trump administration could have brought Abrego Garcia back and deported him to another country, or reopened his case to try to strip him of his protected status. But Trump, Vice President J. D. Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, the White House aide Stephen Miller, and other administration officials dug in and insisted there was no error. They declared that Abrego Garcia would never come back and never go free in the United States. They launched an all-of-government campaign to make the case about his character, not his due-process rights.
How the Trump administration flipped on Kilmar Abrego Garcia
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, told me in a statement that Abrego Garcia 'is a terrorist illegal alien gang member.' Those who defend him 'should take a good look in the mirror and ask themselves if they really want to side with this heinous illegal criminal,' she said, 'simply because they dislike President Trump.'
'If the answer is yes, they need to seek help,' Jackson added. 'The American people elected President Trump to hold criminals like Abrego Garcia accountable.'
But as attorneys for the Justice Department put it in a court filing Wednesday: 'This is no typical case.'
Not one, but two, overlapping cases will determine Abrego Garcia's fate. The first is the civil lawsuit that Abrego Garcia's wife, a U.S. citizen, filed in district court in Maryland in March, which seeks his release.
The Trump administration opened a second case when it brought Abrego Garcia back from El Salvador earlier this month to face criminal charges in Tennessee. The charges stem from a 2022 highway stop in which Abrego Garcia was pulled over in a Chevrolet Suburban by officers who said he'd been driving 70 miles per hour in a 65-miles-per-hour zone. Police said there were nine passengers in the vehicle and no luggage, raising suspicions of smuggling. Abrego Garcia told officers he was driving construction workers from St. Louis to Maryland on behalf of his boss.
The highway-patrol officers reported the incident to federal authorities, but Abrego Garcia was not charged and allowed to continue the journey. Police-bodycam footage of the stop was obtained and released by the Trump administration as it called him a 'human trafficker' and later alleged, citing unnamed cooperating witnesses, that Abrego Garcia transported thousands of migrants during smuggling trips across the United States as part of a conspiracy dating back to 2016 that earned him roughly $100,000 a year.
Joseph, the Homeland Security investigator, said cooperating witnesses told him more: that Abrego Garcia transported guns and narcotics, that he sexually abused younger female passengers in his care, and that he routinely endangered underage minors, including his own children, whom he left sitting without seat belts on the floor of the vehicle during lengthy trips from Texas to Maryland. The government made its claims to convince Judge Holmes that Abrego Garcia should remain in federal custody while awaiting his criminal trial.
Holmes was not swayed. The defense attorneys representing Abrego Garcia pointed out that the government was relying on stories transmitted through multiple levels of hearsay—claims made outside court, not under oath—by cooperating witnesses seeking some benefit from the government.
'You've got agents going to jails and prisons around the United States right now trying to talk to people who you think might know something about Mr. Abrego?' the federal public defender Dumaka Shabazz asked Joseph, the investigator.
'They have done it through the course of the investigation, yes, sir,' Joseph answered.
Shabazz told the court that the first cooperator, 'despite all of his deportations, his criminal history, being the criminal mastermind behind a transport business,' was 'chilling at the halfway house.'
'He's not in jail. He's not getting deported. He's living his life right here in the United States of America. But he sounds like the exact type of person that this government should be wanting to deport.'
Holmes largely agreed, issuing a decision Sunday denying the government's attempt to keep Abrego Garica locked up. Her decision did not seem to bode well for the evidence and testimony the government is preparing against Abrego Garcia.
Holmes said she gave 'little weight to this hearsay testimony' of the top cooperating witness, whom she called 'a two-time, previously-deported felon, and acknowledged ringleader of a human smuggling operation.' Holmes wrote that she considered the hearsay statements of the second cooperator no more reliable.
Furthermore, she said the testimony and statements 'defy common sense,' because she did not believe the claims that Abrego Garcia drove thousands of miles every week with his children—two of whom have autism—sitting on the floor.
Another federal judge in Tennessee decided on Wednesday that Abrego Garcia should not remain in criminal custody. District Court Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, who is overseeing the criminal case, said the government had largely failed to prove he was a flight risk or a threat to the community.
The Trump administration made clear that as soon as Abrego Garcia was released, ICE could immediately take him back into custody. Then it played a new card, warning that ICE could try to deport Abrego Garcia before the criminal case goes to trial. By threatening to deport Abrego Garcia again, the government was pressuring his legal team and the judge to agree to his continued detention.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was never coming back. Then he did.
Crenshaw tried to shift responsibility from his courtroom back to the administration, saying the Justice Department needed to convey its deportation concerns to DHS, which oversees ICE, not him. 'If the Government finds this case to be as high priority as it argues here, it is incumbent upon it to ensure that Abrego is held accountable for the charges in the Indictment,' Crenshaw wrote. 'If the Department of Justice and DHS cannot do so, that speaks for itself.'
egotiations over where Abrego Garcia should go next ping-ponged through the courts yesterday, as his lawyers reacted to the administration saying one thing in court and other things publicly.
At first, Abrego Garcia's attorneys in Maryland asked the district court to have him transferred there while he awaits the Tennessee criminal trial. 'Absent order from this Court, the Government will likely shuttle Abrego Garcia elsewhere,' they wrote.
The attorneys said the government's public statements 'leave little doubt about its plan: remove Abrego Garcia to El Salvador once more.' The last time the government detained Abrego Garcia for deportation, they noted, it sent him to detention facilities in Louisiana and Texas, a move they said was part of a 'pattern' in which the administration sends detainees to those states in anticipation that the more conservative federal courts in that circuit are likelier to side with the government.
The administration's position became even more muddled after a Justice Department attorney told the court in Maryland that the administration was indeed planning to deport Abrego Garcia if he's released from custody but would send him to a country other than El Salvador. Abrego Garcia's 2019 protections—the ones the Trump administration violated—prevent his deportation only to El Salvador. The Trump administration has secured agreements with Guatemala, Honduras, and other countries around the region to take back deportees from other nations.
The rushed, blundering effort to send deportees to third countries
Jackson, the White House spokesperson, said on social media last night that the Department of Justice threat to deport Abrego Garcia was 'fake news' and that the criminal case in Tennessee would go forward. 'He will face the full force of the American justice system - including serving time in American prison for the crimes he's committed,' Jackson wrote.
In response to the mixed messages and distrust of the government's intentions, Abrego Garcia's lawyers wrote today that they would rather keep him in jail than trust the administration not to deport him. 'When Mr. Abrego revealed the weaknesses in that case—securing the pretrial release to which he is entitled—the government threatened to remove him to a third country,' they wrote.
Government attorneys said they intend to 'see this case to resolution,' a message echoed by White House officials.
But if Abrego Garcia were poised to walk out of detention and reunite with his family as news cameras rolled, those involved know the administration could be tempted to do something drastic, even if it meant ditching their own case.
'Anything is possible,' an attorney who is tracking the case but did not want to be named told me. 'It seems clear they are committed to not allowing him to be at liberty during the case.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Miami Herald
20 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
County leaders mostly silent after arrest of woman objecting to ICE deal in Miami-Dade
A day after a 36-year-old real estate agent was dragged out of the Miami-Dade County Commission chambers by plain-clothed officers during a public meeting, the elected officials who watched it happen are mostly keeping mum on what they saw. The Miami Herald requested statements from the county's 13 commissioners and Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, who until January oversaw a county police force that's now under the control of an elected sheriff. No commissioner offices provided statements. Levine Cava did, but the message did not directly address the police response that landed Camila Ramos in jail overnight on felony charges after a brief and tense exchange with the sheriff's deputies that serve as plain-clothed sergeants-at-arms during commission meetings. VIDEO: Officers drag woman out of Miami-Dade meeting during ICE discussion Ramos had intended to speak on a modified agreement between the county's jails system and Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the allotted public comment portion of the meeting but was removed while attempting to ask a question about the rules after an officer had warned her not to speak. 'It was unfortunate that yesterday's meeting escalated the way it did when people were there simply to make their voices heard,' Levine Cava said. 'Public input is an essential part of an accessible, accountable local government and as elected officials we should encourage all residents to exercise their right to participate.' The Herald also requested a statement from Sheriff Rosie Cordero-Stutz, the veteran county police administrator who in November won the county's first sheriff election since the 1950s under a change mandated by Florida's Constitution. The Sheriff's Office has not released a statement but did provide arrest reports alleging a deputy saw Ramos punch an officer while being dragged to the chamber doors. Ramos was heard denying to an officer that she had punched her — or that if she had, it was inadvertent. Video of the ejection showed officers with hands on both of Ramos' arms and, at one point, also on her hair and foot. Less than two minutes passed between when a sergeant-at-arms first took hold of Ramos' arm near the microphone that members of the public use to address commissioners to when she was dragged out of the chamber doors by officers, her hand briefly grasping the arm of her husband, who was there to speak as well. 'I'm trying to understand the process,' Ramos said as the two sergeants took hold of her arms and started pulling her toward the exits. 'You're ejecting me?' Video shows Ramos dragging her feet and then falling to the ground while the sergeants still held her arms. They then began dragging her while her body remained in contact with the floor. 'I deserve to know the process,' she said. 'Let me go of me.' While commissioners have kept quiet on the incident, some politicians are sharing their views. Ken Russell, a former Miami commissioner running for city mayor, said on social media: 'Being silent is a message in itself…ANY elected [official] can speak up to allow someone to be heard or to stop an ejection.' Surfside Mayor Charles Burkett sent an email Friday morning to town administrators urging them to make sure Surfside could avoid that kind of incident. 'This is really bad. I can't think of any good reason why a situation like this ought to evolve with a woman on the floor with two very strong police around her,' Burkett wrote. 'We must never allow something like this to happen under our watch.' Ramos was released from the Turner Guilford Knight jail on Friday after posting bond for two felony charges, including battery against an officer. The arrest report shows uniformed deputies who helped take her out of the chambers were wearing body cameras, but that footage hasn't yet been released. It could prove crucial in her criminal case because a uniformed deputy wrote in the report that he witnessed Ramos strike a sergeant-at-arms in the face. While Ramos hasn't spoken publicly, supporters on Friday held a press conference outside of County Hall to denounce what happened to her. 'Her flailing may have mistakenly grazed an officer,' Juan Cuba, director of Sheriff Accountability Action, an advocacy group. 'I don't see in any video evidence it was battery.' He urged the county's elected officials to denounce what happened in the chambers Thursday. Cuba, a longtime Miami activist, is married to one of Levine Cava's top aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Rachel Johnson. Video of the meeting showed the confrontation began during a confusing moment in the session. While commissioners were scheduled to vote on a modification of the county's existing ICE agreement, there was a last-minute move to delay that vote indefinitely. As Chair Anthony Rodriguez explained the plan to the audience, he also outlined speaking rules that seemed to contradict guidelines from the county's top lawyer. Rodriguez told the audience they had a right to speak on the ICE item. At that point, Ramos was standing in an area near the lecterns where members of the public typically wait their turn for their allotted time at the microphones. While the audience members could still speak on the item about to be deferred, Rodriguez said, doing so would mean the public wouldn't have the chance to address commissioners if the item ever came up for an actual vote at a future meeting. 'Even if just one person speaks,' he said, 'then public hearing has been had on this item. And if it resurfaces, there will be no opportunity to speak on this item again.' Those instructions appeared more restrictive than guidance provided by County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan a couple of minutes earlier. Asked by Rodriguez how to handle the list of people signed up to speak about the ICE item at Thursday's meeting, the top lawyer outlined a procedure where people wanting to speak Thursday could line up for the microphones and those who chose to stay seated could address commissioners if the item came up at a future meeting. 'I would just start calling the names,' Bonzon-Keenan said. 'And those that wish to speak can stand up. And those that don't stand up, they can come back and speak at the appropriate time when the matter is under consideration.' Those conflicting rules were what faced Ramos as she waited for her allotted 60 seconds before commissioners, with a paper of prepared remarks in her hand. Video showed she was approached by sergeant-at-arms and a disagreement followed, with Ramos pointed toward the dais. Soon, two sergeants had her by the arms and pulled her away as the audience chanted 'Let her go!' and 'Let her speak!'


USA Today
32 minutes ago
- USA Today
Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.
Experts long argued that airstrikes alone would not be capable of permanently ending Iran's nuclear program absent negotiations. WASHINGTON — A highly politicized debate is unfolding over the impact of June 21 U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, raising questions over the attack's goal and projected impact. President Donald Trump quickly claimed total victory in the strikes' wake, claiming that Iran's 'key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' Subsequent scrutiny of that claim amid early assessments from intelligence agencies has led Trump and his allies to double down on and even expand on his declarations of success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed to CNN that the strikes 'obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' Iran itself has acknowledged the impact of the U.S. and Israeli attacks. But in the years since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, experts and analysts have emphasized that airstrikes alone would merely delay Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than permanently derail them. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, reiterated that long-held understanding in a June 26 interview. 'The targets are hard targets, deep targets, mobile targets. So it was never meant to eliminate the program,' Quigley told USA TODAY. 'It was never meant to do anything but slow the program.' The congressman, who is on the House's intelligence committee and has regularly received briefings on Iran, added, 'We've always been told . . . the only way to end this (nuclear) program is with a lot of troops on the ground for a long time. A war.' The former head of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nonproliferation programs, Corey Hinderstein, struck a similar tone. 'The conventional wisdom that you can't destroy the Iranian (nuclear) program through air attack alone has actually held,' said Hinderstein, now a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'While some are saying that the airstrikes were tactically and strategically successful, I think that the jury is still out on that, and we don't actually have the information that we need to believe that this program is gone.' Third nuclear site, hidden centrifuges, missing uranium Iran may have another nuclear site that, if equipped with enrichment centrifuges and conversion equipment, could continue the process of preparing uranium for use in a nuclear bomb, if the regime wishes to pursue one. Shortly before Israel began its air campaign against Iran, the regime told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had a third nuclear enrichment site but did not reveal details. Analysts believe an undisclosed underground facility at Pickaxe Mountain near the Natanz nuclear plant may be even deeper under the surface than the Fordow enrichment plant that was severely damaged in the U.S. strikes. The Pickaxe Mountain facility was first publicly revealed in 2023 by experts who spoke with the Associated Press. And it's unclear how much of Tehran's approximately 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or buried during the strikes — satellite images show cargo trucks parked outside the Fordow enrichment plant in the days before the U.S. attack. U.S. lawmakers briefed June 26 and June 27 on intelligence assessments of the strikes acknowledged the missing uranium and called for a full accounting of the material, according to CNN. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the news agency that the question of the uranium's whereabouts underscores the importance of Iran negotiating 'directly with us, so the (IAEA) can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there.' More: Where is Iran's enriched uranium? Questions loom after Trump claims victory. But whether Iran wants to negotiate is another question. Despite the country's obligations as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran's Guardian Council approved a law June 25 halting the country's cooperation with the IAEA and its inspections of Tehran's nuclear sites 'until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed,' the country's foreign minister said on social media. Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.


USA Today
32 minutes ago
- USA Today
Michelle Obama won't run for office, but her podcast may guide Democrats
As Democrats search to counter Trump it may not be Barack Obama, the party's most popular figure, that they should turn to, but Michelle. Michelle Obama is back – just not on the political stage. At a time when the Democratic faithful are hungry for dynamic leadership, the former first lady is getting cozy and personal in a podcast called "IMO," a breezy hour-long celebrity chat co-hosted by her brother, basketball executive Craig Robinson. "I feel like at 60, this is the first time where all my decisions are for me," Obama said on her June 19 episode with radio show host Angie Martinez. With her daughters Sasha and Malia launched in their own young adult lives, "this is a period of freedom." Each week, Obama and Robinson are joined by celebrities like comedians Damon and Marlon Wayans, producer Issa Rae or actress Keke Palmer – with just a glint of politics. It's her space to talk with friends. References to her husband, former President Barack Obama, or the eight years they spent raising young children in the White House are matters of fact, but the political wildfire of the second Trump administration is barely noted, except as a launching point to talk about how people are impacted by Trump's new policies. As recently as last July, an Ipsos poll revealed that only Michelle Obama stood a chance of besting Donald Trump in the presidential election. Even before leaving the White House in early 2017, a corner of the Democratic Party clamored for her to run. She has repeatedly slammed the door on that. But as Democrats search for a liberal counter to the right-wing media ecosystem that helped Trump win back the White House by reaching millions who don't pay attention to mainstream media, the online show of a relatable and popular Democrat could be what they are looking for. Regardless of what Democrats want her podcast to be, Michelle Obama has demonstrated she'll do her show her way. For now, she's using a platform that reflects the former first lady's larger, and perhaps more effective, cultural strategy that mirrors how Black women voters - part of the party's loyalist base - are coping after former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss in the 2024 election, said Democratic strategist Nina Smith. "So this is the best way that she can create space and show the multi-dimensional nature of Black women: our thinking; how we engage friends; how we engage with people across racial lines; how we engage with our siblings; and the fullness of us, while also allowing her to speak to the issues of the moment," Smith said. IMO (short for "in my opinion"), is largely devoid of juicy gossip, let alone talk about any current or former White House occupants. The Father's Day episode, which featured Bruce Springsteen and watched by roughly 216,000 viewers on YouTube, came just days after Trump berated the rock music icon for calling the administration "corrupt, incompetent and treasonous." While Trump's name never came up, they both chuckled when Michelle Obama made a joke about some people being president who need therapy. Instead, they talked about going to therapy, building relationships with absentee parents and being present for their children during formative years "I realized that parenting is pennies in the bank," Springsteen said. "It's that time when you were working and you didn't want to stop, but you did. That made a huge difference to me. I always felt that if I had failed with my kids I would have failed tremendously at life." More: Pop stars, massive crowds and history: How the Obama and Harris campaigns compare Michelle Obama responded with a story from her childhood about what it meant when her father, who worked long hours as a city worker in Chicago, turned his full attention to her and her brother. "When he was present he was present in very small but meaningful ways," she said. 'She hates politics' Michelle Obama, a corporate lawyer specializing in marketing and intellectual property law, was carried into the national spotlight when a skinny senator with a Muslim middle name beat the old guards in both parties with a message of a new America founded upon hope. For most of that time she had to be more mindful of her husband's agenda and image. Since Trump took office, she's been openly critical of him, but on her terms, such as at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in her hometown of Chicago, rather than on her podcast. Speaking up and what she considers the right moment will likely continue, said Democratic strategist Lynda Tran. "I would not be surprised to see her using her voice to rally Democrats in the future assuming the appropriate venues and strategic value. And I would expect an overwhelmingly positive response from Democrats when she does," Tran, who worked in the Obama administration, told USA TODAY. But her participation in politics might be through raising money and giving speeches, rather than a central role in the party's future. Her focus in the last few years has been on outside projects, her family and now the new podcast she co-hosts with her brother. Demands to do more from either Barack or Michelle Obama are often met with scoffs by longtime supporters, such as Natalie Graves, a clinical social worker who was at Chicago's Grant Park when the couple took the victory stage in November 2008. More: Obama warns Trump administration has 'weak commitment' to democracy in Connecticut speech "My first response is an eye roll," Graves, a 55-year-old registered Democrat, said of ongoing efforts to recruit the former first lady to run for president. "If a person says that they don't want to run, what are we talking about? They're ignoring the fact that she has made it very clear that she hates politics." 'Served their time' The former first lady firmly shut the door on running for president in March, saying her daughters, who are both in their 20s, had "served their time" in the limelight and should get to be private young adults. "I wanted them to have the freedom of not having the eyes of the world on them. So when people ask me would I ever run, the answer is no," Obama said on Kyle Kelcie's 'Not Gonna Lie' podcast. "If you ask me that, then you have absolutely no idea the sacrifice your kids make when your parents are in that role." Democrats are casting about for trusted voices to better connect with different voters and help create a left-wing media ecosystem to match that of the right. Some liberal strategists are asking donors to contribute to finding voices and influencers on the left to counter people like Steve Bannon and Joe Rogan who helped propel Trump to office, the New York Times reported last month. Democrats statistically have more trust in mainstream media than Republicans, said Texas Christian University political science professor Adam Schiffer. The Democratic brain trust is asking 'who is the Democratic Joe Rogan?' he said, but 'it's not necessarily clear that there could be one because Democrats don't necessarily find that gratifying and entertaining.' More: Town halls, f-bombs and Elon Musk: How Democrats are waging a new messaging war Younger people have a radically different media consumption than their parents, Schiffer said, and it "could become a critical problem for Democrats" if they don't figure out how to get in front of them. No matter how popular, a former first lady in her sixties might not be the best emissary to young people, he said. Influencers played a large role in Harris' abridged presidential campaign last summer and fall, but they couldn't compete with a Republican online juggernaut that has been building for over a decade. And not everyone is an "IMO" fan. Some are calling out the former first lady's complaints about living in the White House. For example, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly mocked the podcast in a June 26 video posted to X, later saying Michelle Obama was "trashing her children and husband again." When Michelle Obama does talk about politics in her podcast, it mostly orbits around the future for Americans in her daughters' generation and how political decisions impact ordinary people. She's often echoing the kind of kitchen table politicking that only voters in swing states get to hear about every four years from presidential candidates. "I'm talking to so many young people who are deathly afraid of their futures in this climate," she said in the May 21 episode. "They're not just worried about jobs, they're worried about being able to become the next entrepreneur, they're wondering whether, you know, they'll have healthcare and housing [and] whether they'll be able to pay off their student loans." In that episode, Obama and her brother spoke with Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky about the future of businesses under the Trump' administration's new tariffs. They talked about how the taxes on goods brought into the country are being passed on to consumers and hindering the ability of younger Americans trying to make it to reach their goals in the current economy. More: Will TikTok be banned? Donald Trump says he has a 'warm spot' for app as it faces January deadline "I mean, some people can hold on, but other people are not only losing their businesses, but they're losing their homes in the process," she said. "It's kind of scary." Michelle Obama did use the podcast to defend her decision not to attend Trump's January inauguration, which sparked rounds of criticism and speculation about her marriage. She insisted she was simply "making the choice that was right" for her. "Whatever the backlash was, I had to sit in it and own it. But I didn't regret it, you know? It's my life now, and I can say that, now," the mom of two said on a June 26 NPR podcast. Dems in a ditch Michelle Obama's show also arrives at a time when the Democratic brand remains in the ditch with progressive voters. About one-third of Democrats said they are optimistic about their party's future, a May poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found. Though several Democrats are starting to make moves toward 2028, liberals have struggled with the lack of a main character to match Trump's political moxie the way then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in his first term. Lately, Democratic officeholders have clashed with federal agents at press conferences, immigration hearings and ICE facilities, creating viral moments that have been cheered by mainstream and more left-leaning progressives. More: Vance defends using military to quell protests, refers to Sen. Alex Padilla as 'José' Such actions have never been in either of the Obamas' style, and some Black political activists and artists have been emphasizing the need for "self-care" over political action in the aftermath of the 2024 election. "It's important for her to stay within the public space, so it's good that she wants to be active. She endorses candidates and stuff of that nature. I have no problem with that," said Steven Uzoukwu, a 33, a cybersecurity analyst from Baltimore, Maryland. "I just think we shouldn't rely on the Obamas to save America."