Well Attorney General Call, thanks
for your time today.
Thanks for having me.
So, I think let's start with kind of
the precursor to this race is
your decision to stay in this race.
There was a lot of speculation you
might run for Governor.
How do you feel about your decision
stay in the race for Attorney
General now?
I feel great about my decision.
It's something I thought about
seriously, but there
are a few factors that wait on my
mind. One is I'm really committed
to having an impact through the work
that I do, and of course a governor
can have a ton of impact, but we're
also having a huge impact through
the work we do at Wisconsin DOJ,
and I don't think that the work I've
been doing is done yet.
Family considerations played a role
as well, but ultimately I'm
excited about seeking an additional
term and about the work we could do
in an additional time.
So this is unique in that it is a
rematch of the last election.
We don't see that too often.
How do you think that will influence
things?
One of the things that's interesting
about a rematch is you can look back
at what the candidate said in the
prior race and see how those things
held up. And I think that that's
really instructive here.
In the last campaign, it was shortly
after Roe v.
Wade had been overturned.
I had filed a lawsuit seeking to
block enforcement of a law that
dates back to the mid-1800s.
Eric Toney, my opponent, had
attacked me for that case.
He called it a partisan stunt.
He said it should
be dismissed.
And so we now can look and
see how our claims held up.
And what we know now is that the
Supreme Court sided with the
argument we made in that case, and
ultimately we won that case and
access to abortion is safe and legal
in Wisconsin.
So will voters separate the
attorney general's race, do you
think, from the rest of the ballot?
Because we've seen historically
there's usually a few fewer voters
for the AG race than for governor.
And you've trailed right along.
We have to go back to 2006, the last
time there were AG and governor
from separate parties.
So how does that all work together?
You know, the results tend to be
fairly close, but in Wisconsin we
have a lot of close elections, and
so sometimes those small differences
can make a big difference in the
outcome.
But I'm running based on my record
and my time as AG, and the
focus can be different.
My top priority as Attorney General
has been public safety, and we've
made significant progress on really
important public safety issues.
One of them is fighting the opioid
epidemic. My administration has
helped to secure over 800 million
dollars.
From companies that we've alleged
contributed the opioid epidemic and
from others.
Many of those dollars will be going
to communities across the state,
some already have, and we are
seeing a real impact.
Opioid overdose deaths in Wisconsin
from 23 to 24
dropped by over 40%.
That's a more than 600 person
difference.
We need to keep making progress, our
work isn't done, but I wanna build
on the progress we're making.
Kind of along those lines,
how do you view the overall election
atmosphere, both in Wisconsin and
obviously the national atmosphere,
which plays out in voters' minds?
Well, certainly in an AG's race,
public safety is always important.
But there are also other issues, I
think, that are top of mind for
people like affordability.
There's a major concern that a lot
of folks have about being able to
pay the bills.
And one reason the AG's is important
is we address issues
that relate to that.
So one thing I think is critical is
we have an AG who's not afraid to
stand up to corporate special
interests and when companies break
our antitrust laws, to seek to
hold them accountable. And we've
done that. We stood up to
Ticketmaster. We worked to hold
pharmaceutical companies, drug
companies accountable for their role
in allegedly conspiring to inflate
prices.
And we work to hold John Deere
accountable and to help ensure
that farmers are able to repair
their own farm equipment or take
them to take that equipment to
independent repair shops.
One of the other high-profile things
your office has done is filed
lawsuits against the Trump
administration along with other
attorneys general from around the
country.
Can you give me maybe your short
list of some of the most important
cases that maybe the public isn't
aware of the significance of some
those?
Well, I think you can look at them
by category.
So a lot of these cases involve the
Trump administration either putting
illegal conditions on or cutting
or freezing funding that would
otherwise be coming to Wisconsin.
There's a huge amount of money that
has been impacted by this.
And it's vital programs, things like
funding for education or for mental
health programs in our schools,
funding for disaster relief and
mitigation, funding for the
AmeriCorps program, which the Trump
Administration tried to cut,
transportation funding and public
health funding.
We have consistently fought back and
we have won case after case
and what that has meant is that
those funds either are not illegally
conditioned or they're not frozen
or ultimately cut and
instead they can come to our
communities and support critical
programs in Wisconsin.
I know we've spoken, there are some
of those cases where only if you're
a plaintiff do you actually get the
benefit, and in some cases some of
the other states have gotten the
benefits just because you've won
overall.
What would have the impact have been
if Eric Toney had been the attorney
general and had discretion on
whether to file these cases?
Well, of the 60-plus cases that
we've been involved in, I don't
think any single Republican AG
has joined us in challenging the
Trump administration in any of those
cases. And I'm not aware of a single
case where Eric Toney has said he
would have challenged the Trump
Administration.
What that would mean in some cases
is Wisconsin wouldn't get
the relief that happens in court
because in a number of these cases,
it's only the states that have
brought the challenge that get the
belief. And so it could be that we
no longer have protection for
critical programs.
If an AG is not part of one of those
challenges.
Do you think the public understands
the stakes there?
I think the stakes are huge, and so
I think the more we talk about it,
the better. One thing that is
unfortunate, I think, in the Trump
administration is we often
see the president's actions get
lots of coverage, that's
understandable.
But what I think there's been less
coverage of is the fact that in case
after case, actions have been
blocked and he's been stopped from
moving forward, in part because of
these suits that we're talking
about.
So I want to talk a little bit about
election integrity and the role of
the Department of Justice in
Wisconsin, not only at the statewide
level, but in dealing with
attempts from the
federal government to try and claim
voter data.
So what is the role of your office
in making sure elections are secure?
Our role is simple.
It's to protect the will of the
voters and uphold the Constitution
and the law. And we have done that
in a variety of ways during my time
in office. In 2020,
Donald Trump and his allies tried to
overturn the results of our
election. We defended the results
and we won in every single one of
those cases.
Right now, the president, through an
executive order, is attempting to
change the way that mail-in voting
works. He's trying to assert federal
control over voting.
We are part of the challenge against
that, and that case is.
Still making its way through the
court system.
And the federal government is trying
to get private, confidential
information about voters in
Wisconsin. It's just one of the many
ways they're trying to gain
confidential data.
And we have fought back against
them. We have won, as have
every other state that has
challenged what they're doing because
they are violating the law.
We are right on the law, and so
we're going to stand up for the rule
of law.
In some of those circumstances,
there could have been outside
plaintiffs to take the place if
there had been a Republican AG who
declined to join the case, but
what's the difference between having
the Wisconsin Department of Justice
part of this case or filing the
challenge versus an outside group?
Well, in some states, the states
have actually, I believe, provided
their voter data to the Trump
administration. What that means is
that people's private information
is being turned over to the federal
government.
That puts it more at risk of
disclosure.
It also opens up the possibility
that some third party that the
federal government allows to access
that data potentially could.
We all remember Doge was at
the federal and going through lots
of records last year.
So this is about protecting the
best interests of the people of our
state. What I think is fundamental
and a big difference between a
Democratic AG in this office and a
Republican AG is are
we going to stand up for the rights
of the people of our state?
Are we standing up for interests of
the state?
Or are we just going to cave to the
Trump administration on issue after
issue?
The fact of the matter is Eric Toney
would not stand up to the
administration the way I have.
It wouldn't even be close.
And it's critical to protect our
state's interests, the interests of
our communities and ultimately the
interest of Wisconsinites, that we
have somebody there.
Who's going to stand up for the
Constitution and the law and not
roll over for Donald Trump.
Flash forward to 2028,
another close presidential election
in theory in Wisconsin.
If those results are challenged
either due to election conspiracies
or legitimate questions, what's
the difference between you in office
versus your opponent in office at
that time?
It certainly depends on the
circumstances, but we're going to
uphold the law.
What a big difference I think you
can see between what Eric Toney has
done over the years and what I've
done is I have consistently stood
up for the law and the Constitution
and defended the results.
He has supported efforts to
fan the flames of these attacks in
our elections. So he supported
Michael Gabelman's investigation
into the 2020 election, which went
so poorly that Robin Voss, who
launched it, ultimately called
Michael Gabalman an embarrassment to
state of Wisconsin.
I'm not aware of Eric Toney to this
day having disavowed that
investigation.
He called for members of our
election commission to be removed
from office, which also I
think is another effort to sort
of pander to the
extremists on this issue.
I have been clear that our elections
are safe and secure.
As I said, we defended the results
in 2020, and I was clear in 2024
that we would defend the results no
matter who won.
Now, it turned out Donald Trump won
that election, and there was no
challenge in Wisconsin to the
results. Because the fact of the
matter is, people know that our
elections are free and fair and
that the results reflect the will of
the voters.
What do you make of the fact that
Republicans are out there, including
Eric Tony, telling people to vote by
absentee at the same time supporting
federal measures that would
drastically restrict or calling
absentees voters potentially
fraudulent?
Yeah, well, the reality is that the
systems of voting that we have in
place work really well.
Our system is safe and secure.
It is important for people to know
that one of the unfortunate effects
of the Trump administration has just
been an undermining of how
the U.S.
Postal Service has been working, how
effectively it's been working.
And so mail does seem to be slower
now than it used to be, so it's
important if people do vote by mail
that they get those ballots in
early. But it's fundamentally
important for for people that know
that our system is safe, secure,
free and fair.
For a lot of people that don't
follow your office very closely.
One of the ways that they hear about
the Department of Justice and the AG
every four years is crime lab
statistics.
Obviously, that's one of the major
things you campaigned on when you
first got elected.
It was one of issues in the last
election. Your opponent's talking
about the crime lab in unfilled
positions and slow turnaround.
So defend your record in where the
crime is.
Yeah, well first I think it's
important to separate two things
out. One is, one of the issues I
talked about back in 2018 was
untested sexual assault kits,
and we worked to get legislation
passed, which ultimately passed
through the Republican-led
legislature, that's going to help
ensure that Wisconsin never has
another backlog of untested sexual
assault kids.
Now in terms of the labs themselves
on a day-to-day basis, one of the
things I've been clear about is
where we need resources from the
state legislature. And in the last
state budget...
My office requested 19 additional
positions for the labs.
Eric Toney's allies in the state
legislature provided zero positions.
And look, that's not an accident.
This is politics being played here.
But the overall picture, I think, is
important not to lose sight of.
Wisconsin, last year in 2025,
had the lowest number of violent
crimes that we have had any year
since 2011.
Fond du Lac County, where Eric Tone
is DA last year, had the second
highest number of violence crimes
that the county has had in decades.
And sell.
If you compare our track records
overall, there's a clear difference.
We need to keep doing what we're
doing to keep our communities safe.
How do you think the DOJ gets
credit for lower crime statistics
statewide?
Well, there are lots of folks who
play a role in what we do statewide,
and the Department of Justice is
involved in investigating crimes
of statewide importance.
We oversee the crime labs.
We work on every felony
criminal appeal in the state.
We also work in partnerships with
lots of other law enforcement
agencies.
What I think is important is that we
recognize that lots of folk
contribute to overall safety in
the State, and that certainly
includes local law enforcement and
others.
What's notable, I think, though, is
Fond du Lac County.
Has gone the opposite direction from
the rest of the state under the
leadership of Eric Toney,
that I think is not the kind of
failure I want to see taken
statewide.
The DOJ oversees issues
related to officer-involved
shootings. There was one in Madison
that gained a pretty high profile
recently.
And your opponent was taking
selfies, walking down through the
protest zone, claiming that it was
your job to come in and bust up
the protest. How do you react to
him trying to bring you into the
middle of that?
Yeah, investigating officer-involved
shootings is one of the solemn
responsibilities that often falls
on our Division of Criminal
Investigation at the Department of
Investigation.
Under state law, when there's an
officer- involved death, there needs
to be an outside agency that leads
that investigation, and that's often
DCI.
I think it is of fundamental
importance that the public knows
that DCI is taking that
responsibility seriously, isn't
playing politics with that
responsibility, and is conducting
the investigation in a manner that
is objective.
And fair. That's how you ensure that
there is public confidence in the
outcome of the investigation
and ultimately the prosecution
decision.
So I think having an AG who
is weighing in on lots of political
issues that stem from that kind
of incident is reckless because
it would potentially undermine
public confidence in the objectivity
of what's being done.
So I thinks it's critical that our
AG stays focused on the solemn
responsibility at hand and doesn't
try to play politics with side
issues that arise from that.
Did you have any conversations, you
or your staff, with local officials
about when or how to
clear out the protesters?
I can't speak to what staff
conversations had.
Our focus is on conducting the
officer-involved investigation.
We are always available to local law
enforcement and agencies around the
state know that if there is a role
for DOJ or a Division of Criminal
Investigation to play, agencies
throughout Wisconsin know that they
can reach out and if there is
assistance that can be provided that
we're there to help.
One of the topics that's starting to
dominate the gubernatorial election
is over data centers.
Is that slipping into your race at
all? Does the Department of Justice
have any impact over the data center
debate?
It's possible that we could if there
were to be an environmental
violation, for example,
but where I really think DOJ is
going to be important is if
there's legislation that's passed.
I know that in the last legislative
session Senator Jody
Haddish-Sinikin had proposed some
legislation regarding data centers.
The Republican majority ultimately
didn't pass that legislation, but
I think there's a real possibility
in a new legislative session you
could see guardrails put in place.
And I would like to see.
Further protections for the
environment, protections for rate
payers, and I guarantee that there
is going to be public information
provided, as well as making sure
that we've got strong labor
conditions in place.
Then you could potentially have DOJ
involved in a more direct
enforcement role, and I think it's
critical that we got somebody like
me with a track record of standing
up to special interests and not
somebody who we can't count on to
stand up to special interests.
Eric Toney took $10,000
this year in campaign contributions
from the Coke Packs.
We need somebody who we can rely on
to stand up for us
You brought up abortion earlier, but
I want to bring that back as a
topic.
How relevant is that still to
voters? It's not a constitutional
right in either the nation or
in Wisconsin, despite lawsuits that
have attempted to make it so.
So how important is it who the next
attorney general is?
It remains to be seen.
One thing we saw I think over the
last four years is it certainly can
have an impact because my
administration was fighting to
protect access to safe and legal
abortion and Eric Toney called
the case that we brought a farce
among other things.
Now fortunately we've got a ruling
in place that currently protects
access to safe and legal abortion
in Wisconsin but as
you said there's no state
constitutional protection in place
right now. There's no federal
constitutional protection
specifically for abortion
access, and what that means is
that... If there were a Tom Tiffany
in the Republican legislature, you
could have further restrictions put
in place and you could see an
attorney general, Eric Toney if he
were in office, aggressively working
with them to restrict access
to abortion.
The other thing that's going on
right now is the federal government
is potentially going to restrict the
access. The new attorney general
had a meeting with an
anti-abortion group where he
signaled that he wanted to restrict
to access and I think making sure
that the states are prepared to
fight back where there's a legal
basis for doing so.
Is going to be important to
protecting people's rights going
forward.
And finally, I want to talk about
the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
There's now a 5-2 liberal majority,
quite a shift from when you first
came into office.
Does that change how you bring a
case? I mean, are you thinking of
individual justices, or do you
persuade them, and do you prepare
for oral arguments?
It can, and the reason I say that is
part of what you factor into the
decision about how to use your
resources is what the likely outcome
is going to be.
And as the philosophy of the
justices changes, that might impact
what a likely outcome may be in
a case.
That being said, the vast majority
of what we're doing at DOJ is
defending actions taken by
state actors or defending state law.
So in most cases, it
doesn't have much of an impact.
But it could on on cases where
you know it might be that
conservative justices are likely to
rule differently from how more
progressive justices might rule.
Josh Gold, thanks for your time.
Thanks for having me.
All right, that was great, thank
you. Thank you.
Thanks for.