Okay.
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 to stay in the race for Attorney General now?
I have to agree about my decision.
It's something I thought about seriously, but, you know, there are a few factors that
weighed 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 that we do at Wisconsin DOJ, and I don't think that the work that I've been
doing is done yet.
You know, family considerations played a role as well, but ultimately, I'm really excited
about seeking an additional term and about the work we could do in an additional term.
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
candidates 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 Tony, 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 belong.
We get to go back to 2006 the last time they were AG and governor from separate parties.
So how does that all work together?
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 to 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% difference.
We need to keep making progress, our work isn't done, but I want to 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 race 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 take it master.
We worked to hold pharmaceutical companies, drug companies accountable for their role
in allegedly conspiring to inflate prices.
And we worked to hold John Deere accountable and to help ensure that farmers are able
to repair their own farm equipment or 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 a short list of some of the most important cases that maybe the
public isn't aware of the significance of some of 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 one 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.
Now, I know we've spoken.
There are some of those cases where if 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 the impact have been if Eric Tony had been the Attorney General
and had discretion on whether to file these cases?
Yeah.
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 Tony 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 relief.
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 for 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 here?
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.
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 get confidential data.
And we have fought back against them.
We have won as has every other state that has challenged what they're doing because they
are violating the law.
We are right in 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 different student 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 government 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 the interests of the people 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 Tony would not stand up to the Trump 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 interests 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 Tony 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 on our elections.
So he supported Michael Gableman's investigation into the 2020 election, which went so poorly
that Robin Voss who launched it ultimately called Michael Gableman an embarrassment to
the state of Wisconsin.
I'm not aware of Eric Tony 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 absentee 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 US 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 people to 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 in the A.G. 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 the issues in the last election.
Your opponent's talking about the crime lab and unfilled positions and slow turned around.
So defend your record and where the crime lab 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 kits.
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 Tony'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.
Fondelac County, where Eric Tony is DA last year, had the second highest number of violent
crimes that the county has had in decades.
And so 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 folks contribute to overall safety
in the state.
And that certainly includes local law enforcement and others.
What's notable, I think, though, is Fondelac County has gone the opposite direction from
the rest of the state under the leadership of Eric Tony.
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 zone.
How do you react to him trying to bring you into the middle of that?
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 think 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 a citizen that can be provided
that we're there to help.
What are the topics that start to dominate the gubernatorial election 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 Hatterson 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.
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.
I think it's critical that we've 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.
Secretary Toni took $10,000 this year in campaign contributions from the Koch PAC.
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?
Because 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 Toni called the case that we brought up 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 a Republican legislature, you could have
further restrictions put in place, and you could see an attorney general, Eric Toni,
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 access.
The new attorney general had a meeting with an anti-abortion group where he signaled that
he wanted to restrict 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 five to 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 as 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 cases where it might
be that conservative justices are likely to rule differently from how more progressive
justices might rule.
All right.
Josh, call.
Thanks for your time.
Thanks for having me.
All right.
That was great.
Thank you.
Thank you.