In a House Oversight committee hearing earlier this month, Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) criminally referred four mayors whose cities have sanctuary policies to the Department of Justice. Luna joined "Forbes Newsroom" to discuss the next steps, plus talk about proxy voting and top national security leaders accidentally adding a journalist to a group chat discussing plans of the U.S. airstrike on Houthis in Yemen.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Hi, everybody. I'm Brittany Lewis, a breaking news reporter here at Forbes. Joining me now
00:07is Congresswoman Ana Paulina Luna. Congresswoman, thanks so much for coming back on.
00:11Thanks for having me back on.
00:13Earlier this month, you participated in the House Oversight Committee's hearing with sanctuary
00:17city mayors. You listened to their testimony, you asked them questions, and at the end of
00:22your questioning, you told them that you were referring them, you're criminally referring
00:26them to the Department of Justice. So that's a big step. Can you talk to us about your
00:30decision?
00:31Absolutely. I think I share the same frustrations that the American people do in that, A, first
00:36of all, Congress has the ability to do criminal referrals, but also now that we have the Department
00:39of Justice, it's time that the Department of Justice actually looks into bringing charges
00:44against people that are knowingly breaking federal law. So the reason why I went down
00:48the line of questioning that I did, and I would encourage everyone watching this clip
00:52to look at that line of questioning, if you guys can also maybe consider adding it into
00:56this interview. I wanted to see what their responses were for their own policies reflecting
01:01in their city versus what federal law says. And as you saw, based on their responses,
01:06I wasn't initially going to refer them if they said that they had made changes that
01:10are in line with federal law and that they were no longer breaking the law. As you saw
01:14though, with their responses, they all admitted to breaking the law. And so in my opinion,
01:19A, they're long-term causing us to spend more money having to deal with the issue of illegal
01:25immigration, but also they're putting Americans at risk for personal safety. And so what I
01:30did was I made the referral. I actually just today followed up with the Department of Justice.
01:34They acknowledged receipt of our inquiry, checking on the status of their investigations
01:38into these mayors. And frankly, I look forward to the Department of Justice holding them
01:42accountable because look, if you did it, if I did it, we'd be in jail. But just because
01:46they're in blue cities doesn't mean that they're protected.
01:49I want to talk about New York City Mayor Eric Adams particularly because he seemingly has
01:55taken a tougher stance on immigration. I want to read part of his testimony. He said
01:58this quote, to be clear, a sanctuary city classification does not mean our city will
02:04ever be a safe haven for violent criminals. It also does not give New York City the authority
02:08to violate federal immigration laws. To the contrary, New York City will always comply
02:12with city, state, and federal laws as it does now. Eric Adams has said before, hey, I'm
02:17cooperating with ICE. Hey, I'm a cooperative with Borders Are Tom Homan. In fact, he said
02:22at that Fox & Friends interview saying how they're working together. What do you think
02:27of him? Do you think he's in a different category here? What more do you want to see from New
02:30York City's mayor?
02:31Well, look, as I stated earlier, I gave the mayors and I read their opening statements.
02:36And again, the ones that were in question with me, I asked them point blank on whether
02:40or not they're still violating federal law in my line of questioning. And as you saw
02:44with those referrals, if they were in line with federal law, I did not refer them to
02:48the DOJ. So I think obviously New York City has been plagued. Look, we know that New York
02:52City is a very blue area and we know that its own representatives for the most part
02:56are doing everything they can to undermine what this administration and what Congress
03:00has mandated that they do in regards to stopping illegal immigration and enabling some of these
03:06people that are coming here and doing very bad things. Look, I would like to see though
03:10all of these cities adopt a no illegal immigration policy. As we're seeing, Mayor Adams has actually
03:16gone back on his previous stances and is now doing the right thing. And so I hope that
03:21he continues to do that. But, you know, I find it very interesting that as soon as he
03:24came out against the Biden policies on illegal immigration, that then there was a case opened
03:29up against him in regards to corruption charges. So, look, obviously we don't want people doing
03:34illegal stuff, but I find the timing very, very coincidental.
03:39Your news made headlines that you were criminally referring these mayors to the DOJ. Did you
03:45tip your Republican colleagues off? Did you let them know? Did you tip off the Democrats?
03:49Was everyone shocked? I mean, what are those conversations with your colleagues looking
03:52like?
03:53Well, look, again, as I stated earlier, I wanted to see what the mayor's responses were
03:57first before I made the referral. So I came with the referrals ready, but it didn't necessarily
04:02mean that I was going to end up referring them. Again, I went through that line of questioning,
04:06got them on record with their own policies versus that of federal law. And so I hope
04:11that the DOJ considers all of that with evidence when they take up the case. If they do, we're
04:14waiting on a response from them currently.
04:17I want to read something from the American Immigration Council. They said that under
04:21the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government, quote, may neither
04:25issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems nor command the state's
04:30officers or those of their political subdivisions to administer or enforce a federal regulatory
04:36program. So essentially, do you think that the investigation can go anywhere because
04:40of the 10th Amendment? What do you make of that?
04:43Well, certainly I think that they're perverting the 10th Amendment in that response. You know,
04:46I would ask them, do they have the same perspective on child pedophiles?
04:49Well, I mean, that just stopped me in my tracks. So what do you think their response would
04:57be to that?
04:58I think that they're going to try to hand this up in court. And I think that they're
05:00going to try to say that the federal government is overreaching in an effort to protect the
05:05American people. But these are also the same cities, mind you, that are asking for federal
05:08dollars to deal with the problems that they themselves have caused. So they want federal
05:12money. You need to comply. If you don't want federal money, fine, but figure out a way
05:15to pay for it. And then also, too, I think cities' policies stop when American citizens
05:20start having their own constitutional freedoms violated, when you are no longer able to access
05:24life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because you have someone extorting you, someone
05:28robbing you, someone basically enabling a criminal activity, as we saw with the gangs
05:32in Colorado. I mean, that's obviously a violation of any American-born citizen. And I would
05:38argue that that entire argument in itself that they're bringing forward is pretty hypocritical.
05:43What do you want to come out of this investigation? I mean, at the end of the day, it seems like
05:48this DOJ, this AG, is different than the Biden administration's. They're releasing, it seems
05:53like you're happy with this, the JFK files. They released some records related to Jeffrey
05:58Epstein. What would you want to see from AG Pambondi regarding your criminal referral?
06:04Well, look, to be clear, it was President Trump that released the JFK files, MLK files,
06:09and the RFK files. We have the documents that are currently being uploaded at NARA, the
06:13National Archives, for JFK, but we're still waiting on MLK and RFK, which we will also
06:17obtain. But look, we've been asking publicly for Pambondi, the AG, to release the Epstein
06:22files. She needs to do that. That was a mandate that the American people have asked for. If
06:26you look at any commentary online, the American people are still wanting to know what the
06:30status is. We obviously understand protecting victim privacy. However, why is it that there
06:34have been no charges brought against those that conspired with Jeffrey Epstein to traffic
06:38people? I mean, that's pretty egregious. Whether you have money, power, fame, whatever it is,
06:43they should not be above the law. And so I would urge the Attorney General to consider
06:46doing that. Also, Congress is still waiting on those files. And so, as you know, I don't
06:50hold declassification authority. But moving forward, I think that the American people
06:54want there to be justice served, and that means having a very aggressive Attorney General.
06:58I applaud her efforts and what she's doing with Tesla. Obviously, it's not right that
07:02American citizens are having their property destroyed or that there's literally acts of
07:05domestic terrorism because of what Elon Musk is doing with Doge. But I would also say that
07:11Jeffrey Epstein, pretty bad guy, and there's people walking free. I would say that these
07:15mayors having to be criminally referred to the Department of Justice so that they can
07:18open up a case against them. Look at the impacts that they have had, not just on American citizens
07:22across the country, but on their own citizens in their cities. And so I would say as aggressive
07:27as possible. We have only a short window until the midterms. We're hoping to keep the house.
07:31But again, my job is not to rely on what may come of things. It's to be active and active
07:38now. And so I continue to encourage as aggressive as possible behavior out of the DOJ.
07:43I would, if I could, want to get some of your takes on news of the day. First, proxy voting
07:49for new parents. You and I talked about this in January of 2024. You've been a long proponent
07:53of proxy voting for new parents. There's a bipartisan push here to allow this, including
07:58with your Democratic colleague, Congresswoman Brittany Patterson. Speaker Mike Johnson's
08:03day called proxy voting unconstitutional. He asked where the limiting principle was
08:07essentially saying this could lead to a slippery slope. And he said that it violates centuries
08:12of tradition. What do you think of his response?
08:15Speaker Mike Johnson voted by proxy multiple times in the 117th Congress. He then brought
08:20forward a case to the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court would not hear. Basically,
08:24to my knowledge, inquiring on whether or not if people voted by proxy that their votes
08:29and or the legislation passed by proxy would have been considered not law as it in his
08:34terms would not have been constitutional. And that was turned down by the Supreme Court.
08:37So look, I understand his concerns if it was written in the previous form. However, we've
08:43made the changes to ensure that is in line with the constitution by removing the quorum
08:48clause. It can be done. It will be done. And as you are seeing right here, these are
08:54all the times he voted by proxy. So I guess the question is now what we are going to be
08:59bringing up the vote to the floor. There is massive bipartisan support, not just not just
09:04with the Democrats, but Republicans. We actually were collecting more signatures and they actually
09:08had to cut off the petition at 218 because that's the the max number that's allowed for
09:12the petition. So we're hoping that, again, they don't work against the entire conference.
09:17But remember, it's going to pass whether it's now or next Congress. The fact is that
09:22Democrats had vote by proxy without guard guardrails. We have guardrails in place specifically
09:26for new members. And then I would also argue that that argument in itself is pretty ridiculous,
09:33given that, again, he voted by proxy. Yeah, you did post those on on X and something.
09:40I mean, that can be said about this even back in January of twenty twenty four. People that
09:45are supporting this are people are politicians from all different sides of the political
09:50spectrum here. So I'm curious, you're saying that this is going to the floor. This is going
09:55to pass when you posted those. Did you get any response from him? No, not directly. But
10:00again, you know, I am well and more than inclined to talk with members on the floor. And so
10:06I would encourage people, you know, I've been making my case publicly because they're the
10:10ones that are going to the press and they're the one telling reporters things instead of
10:14coming to me directly. So I'm responding publicly. But again, I've never swayed in
10:19this position. I went through the legality factors of this. I checked it. It's in line
10:23with the Constitution. The real question is, why would they not want members specifically
10:28have given birth to vote? And really what's interesting is when I initially presented
10:33this, it was just for female members, just for new moms in Congress. And remember, we're
10:38talking about 0.00012% or 0.0012%. I was number 12. Brittany Pedersen is number 13.
10:47What's interesting is we're not the slimmest majority in US history. And we have now two
10:51members of Congress that are men whose wives are due to give birth. If not, they already
10:55have a good birth. So effectively, you're then telling them that they can't spend time
10:59with a newborn or be there. What happens if there's a medical emergency as in the case
11:02with with Wesley Hunt, who had his son in the NICU. So look, Wesley Hunt's a big supporter
11:08of this. There's other members who I'm not going to name because we're starting to see
11:11the pressure campaign come forward from the conference. But I'm not going to engage in
11:16this ridiculous debate that it's not constitutional when we've made it clearly in line with the
11:21Constitution. When you have over 50% of the Republican conference who's voted by proxy
11:26is in favor of it specifically for this case to say that it would open up the floodgates
11:30for other cases. I would argue, what legislation has the Congress done currently in the Republican
11:36side to actually codify what President Trump is doing? We are certainly able to pass bills
11:42that really are just messaging bills, but we're not actually codifying President Trump's
11:46plan and agenda. This might actually enable that to happen. We'll see.
11:51His point about the slippery slope argument when you and I talked last year, it was, I
11:55believe, six weeks you were allowing new moms of Congress. Now, I think it's 12 weeks. Correct
12:00me if I'm wrong. But there's no there's no slippery slope. Right. Considering it's just
12:05for new moms and dads who's well, Johnson, Johnson didn't want to support it with just
12:11new moms just for female members. And so I came up with a negotiation with the Democrats
12:17and we were able to get them to sign on to support it. So to be clear, Johnson did not
12:22allow for it to be just new moms and going back and forth in negotiations with them.
12:27You know, they try to say that doing discharge petition, which is a parliamentary measure
12:30to actually physically collect signatures on the floor. It's an old school way of doing
12:34it, that it's a tool of the minority. And I laughed because I've read the rulebook twice
12:37and probably one of the few members that has done that to say to members of Congress that
12:42this is a tool of the minority and shouldn't be used. Well, they said the same thing about
12:45inherent contempt with Merrick Garland. And it was Republican members that protected Merrick
12:49Garland. So I would say that that whole idea negotiation is really a tactic that's used
12:55for when they want people to just come up here and vote in line with the party.
12:58But that's not what I'm here to do. I'm here to vote, bring forward legislation and actually
13:02do my job. And that means, guess what, using discharge petitions. It means collecting signatures.
13:07It means doing inherent contempt. It means if people violate our constitutional and check
13:11and balance as an equal branch of government, that we follow up on that to include whether
13:15it's asking the DOJ for their response on Jeffrey Epstein or asking the DOJ for their
13:19response on what's happening with the sanctuary city mayor. That's my job. And so I'm doing
13:23my job. I'm not going to back off from this.
13:26And I just want your comment, if you could, on one final story. News broke yesterday that
13:31the Atlantic's editor in chief was inadvertently involved or added to a group chat with top
13:36U.S. national security leaders about the U.S. airstrikes in Yemen against the Houthis. What's
13:44your reaction to that really explosive story?
13:46Well, look, I find it interesting that this is from the same journalist that pushed a
13:50lot of fabricated stories about this administration. Also, too, interesting that they never point
13:55out that there is never any classified information shared on that single chat platform. And so
14:01I find this spin on this very interesting. But look, the Atlantic and how they've really
14:06represented themselves with this administration has not been 100 percent honest. Also, too,
14:11you know, if you're really thinking about it from a national security perspective and
14:14they were so concerned about it, why are they posting now group chats on the Internet? All
14:18of that should be called the question. But look, there is nothing classified sharing
14:21those conversations. Obviously, we saw very candid responses from the vice president and
14:26people involved. And frankly, I think the American people appreciated their honesty
14:30and feel the same way for many of their positions. So I back the president in this. I back what
14:35his decision is with now security adviser Waltz, who I know personally and has done
14:40great things as a veteran for this country. And we'll continue calling out the hypocrisy
14:44where we see it.
14:45And they said that the the airstrikes were successful, but Goldberg did write this. What
14:50I will say in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this signal conversation is
14:55that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strifes on Yemen, including
14:59information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying and attack sequencing.
15:04If the White House, if you're saying, hey, this stuff wasn't classified, is that pushing
15:08him? Do you think he should then post the entire conversation? Do you think that would
15:12compromise national security at all?
15:14Well, I find it interesting, right, that they're arguing that this stuff shouldn't be posted
15:18in a signal chat. And then the Atlantic takes that and actually puts a huge story on it,
15:22which means they and themselves were skewing the information from the get go. But yeah,
15:25the White House said that it was not classified information. I would argue that if you ask
15:32Pete Hegseth this information in person, he might tell you exactly what he thinks on these
15:36topics. And so I again, look, I look at things from a lens of did it hurt the American people?
15:41Was the strike successful? Was it classified information? But then also to what's the spin
15:45on this? And again, you can see this from the from the get go. Instead of leaving that
15:50group chat, this individual decided to stay in the group chat. They then collected information.
15:55They then decided to write a story on it, trying to imply there's classified information
15:59where there wasn't and then said that it was so bad that there was a group chat. But then
16:02they took this and presented it to the world stage. So I just think the whole thing is
16:06hypocritical.
16:07And my final question, do you think signal should be used at all then for any type of
16:12national security conversations?
16:13Well, I think that there definitely needs to be encrypted messaging platforms. I would
16:18argue that we should probably work on designing one that's hardened, at least for members
16:23in Congress and then also the White House specifically, because we tend to be targets.
16:27As you know, in Eric Swalwell's case, he slept with a Chinese spy, but he didn't know, I
16:32guess, apparently at the time that she was a spy. And so, you know, we're constantly
16:35being monitored and surveillance. And there are people that will try to collect data from
16:39members of Congress. So, yeah, we need something. I actually will tell you that I don't have
16:44any issues with signal personally. So it's definitely a topic of discussion right now
16:48for sure.
16:49Well, Congresswoman Prejewel, I always appreciate our conversations. I always appreciate your
16:54candor. Thank you so, so much for joining me. You're welcome back anytime.
16:57Perfect.