Adam Goodman: Deportation throughout U.S. history has been central to creating ideas, in some cases, stereotypes, about who belongs and who doesn’t, about who’s an American and who’s not. One of the big changes in immigration enforcement in recent years is that who the government is apprehending and deporting is more diverse than ever before.

Alex Lovit: President Trump has pledged to conduct the largest deportation program in U.S. history. Today, we find out, is he likely to succeed, and what effect will the attempt have on our democracy? You’re listening to The Context. It’s a show from the Charles F. Kettering Foundation about how to get democracy to work for everyone and why that’s so hard to do. I’m your host, Alex Lovit.

Today, I’m speaking with Adam Goodman. He teaches history and Latin American and Latino studies at the University of Illinois Chicago, and he’s the author of the award-winning book, “The Deportation Machine: America’s Long History of Expelling Immigrants.” Adam says that if we look back at how we’ve treated immigrants historically, we’ll see just how far we’re falling short of our national ideals. And he shares recommendations for what everyday people can do to support and preserve the diversity that makes our nation great.

Adam Goodman, welcome to The Context.

Adam Goodman: Hi, Alex. Thanks for having me.

Alex Lovit: When we’re talking about undocumented immigrants, we’re talking about people, obviously, human beings, some of whom have asylum claims, most of whom have been living in America for years and have friendship and family ties with American citizens. But by definition, undocumented are not U.S. citizens. How do you think Americans should think about undocumented people?

Adam Goodman: I think, first and foremost, it’s people who live in our neighborhoods, who attend the schools [of] their children, who work in the same organizations and companies that they do. They might be sitting next to you on the subway or on the bus, helping you at a store. That’s a very different starting point. As opposed to seeing immigrants as a threat or as an other or as a them, we should really see the ways in which our lives are really intertwined.

Alex Lovit: In terms of the political system, do you have thoughts on how the legal system should treat undocumented immigrants?

Adam Goodman: I think citizens and the legal system should recognize the very fact that undocumented people live in the United States or continue to live in the United States. Immigrants have come to the country historically for many reasons, some to improve their economic lot, many to reunite with family members, and some who have fled natural disasters or political violence and civil unrest. Unless there’s some kind of regularization program or opportunity for people to legalize their status, we’ll have some portion of the population in this country who continues to live without authorization.

And that’s a problem and something that historian Mae Ngai has referred to as kind of an impossible subject where they’re both a legal impossibility but a social reality. And I think that any kind of immigration policy or reform in the future needs to recognize that fact and address that. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, signed by President Ronald Reagan, legalized up to three million people roughly, many of them Mexicans, many of them farmworkers.

But at the same time, it came up short in the fact that it didn’t recognize the reality that people will continue to come to the country without authorization, and we’ll find ourselves in the same place that we are today if any kind of reform package doesn’t account for those who come now and in the future.

Alex Lovit: So I’m looking at some public opinion polling by Gallup. And in general, there’s been a pretty significant shift in public opinion polling just in the last four or five years. In 2020, 70 percent of Americans, or a healthy majority, said they either wanted immigration to stay at the same level or be increased—70 percent. Last year, that number was only 41 percent. How do you understand what’s going on there?

Adam Goodman: Well, I think what we’ve seen in the last few years at least is that the democrats have largely left immigration alone and, in fact, strategically not wanted to touch it in response to what their public opinion polling was saying, and this wasn’t going to be a popular issue. As a result, the Trump campaign and [then] the administration kind of filled that vacuum and have really scapegoated them or demonized them as the source of all the nation’s problems, whether it’s the economy and jobs, or housing, inflation, or crime. I think we can really see a throughline here in terms of the strategies that politicians have used and the ways in which they have opportunistically used immigrants for their own [clinical] ends.

Alex Lovit: The Republican platform in 2024 included a promise to, quote, “carry out the largest deportation operation in American history.” It’s fairly rare for a political platform to reference American history that directly. So what is the largest mass deportation event that Trump would need to beat to be the largest?

Adam Goodman: Yeah, this is an interesting question. I mean, in part, it depends on how you define deportation, which [certainly] I explore in my book. Trump would often refer to a campaign of mass expulsion of the 1950s in which Mexican laborers were targeted. But also, some permanent residents and citizens got caught up in this campaign in which hundreds of thousands of people are deported from across the country, largely in the Southwest and on the West Coast—California, Texas, but also in places like Chicago and the interior of the country very far from the border.

This is oftentimes what Trump uses as a comparison, saying, “I’m going to outdo President Eisenhower,” who was the President at the time of this operation. So far, in the early days of the Trump administration, they’re nowhere near on track to actually exceed the numbers we’ve seen in the past. Even under democratic administrations, including Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, likely will all carry out more expulsions than Trump, but we don’t know what’s going to happen in the years ahead.

What we do know thus far is that they’re trying in every way possible and using creative means to carry out unilateral expulsions from the United States to avoid the legal challenges and roadblocks that prevent administrations from deporting people. We saw recent reports coming out about deportees all over the world being held in a hotel in Panama, for example. They got the Panamanian government to accept them, whereas they couldn’t necessarily get the Chinese government and the Venezuelans government, et cetera, to accept those individuals.

So there are historical precedents to what we’re seeing today, including the motives that—actually the nitty gritty strategies and methods the Trump administration is relying on.

Alex Lovit: So that’s a policy change, and one that is within the executive branch, within the President’s control. Do you expect to see more policy changes during the Trump administration, and do you expect to see actual legislative changes about immigration policy?

Adam Goodman: That’s a great question. I think for sure we’ll see more policy changes. It’s kind of a try-anything-and-everything approach, see what works and see what allows us to expand our control and power over immigration. And executive authority already, before this administration, really had a lot of control over this particular issue, among others. It seems like they’ve only gained more control and probably will only continue to gain more moving forward.

So I definitely think we’ll continue to see that, and there’s actually an incredible resource, if people are interested—but a law professor, Lucas Guttentag at Stanford and Yale, and his students have worked on it. It tracks every single executive policy change or administrative change that the Trump administration made, both during the first administration and now during the current administration, that I encourage people to check out.

In terms of the legislative changes, I don’t know. We could see an immigration reform bill passed. I don’t think, especially in the next two years as republicans control both houses and the executive branch in addition to the courts, I don’t think it would be in the mold of a comprehensive immigration reform that’s been discussed and debated in the past where there’s some kind of legalization measures or liberalization measures in exchange for harsher enforcement. I think it would more be much of the latter and none of the former.

Alex Lovit: So what do the logistics of deporting large numbers of people look like?

Adam Goodman: This is complicated, especially when you’re talking about the numbers throughout U.S. history. The United States government has expelled more than 60 million people now during the last 140-plus years. And the Trump administration aspires to expel millions more. I think they’ve already learned that it was [unintelligible] perhaps the limiting factor. And one of the things that certainly needs to be taken into account is just the sheer cost. The cost involved in apprehending, detaining, holding hearings, et cetera, and then actually transporting people out of the country is astronomical.

And as a result, they’ve relied on alternative means of deportation—one, the euphemistically termed voluntary departures. Let me be clear, there’s nothing voluntary about them. They happen after someone has been apprehended by an immigration official and given different options, and this is the best of all the bad options facing them. And basically, what it is is that people agree to leave the country, to oftentimes pay their way, and to do so as quickly as possible.

So it minimizes all the costs involved and, therefore, allows the federal bureaucracy to kind of continue apprehending and deporting more and more people. Historically, this is how more than 85 percent of deportations throughout U.S. history have taken place, which isn’t something that people realize. I think most people, when they hear about deportation, they imagine that there’s an immigrant who has his or her day in court with an immigration judge on the merits of the case. It’s determined whether or not they can stay, and they’re threatened with long if not interminable detention stays or harsh consequences on returning to the country after being removed.

These happen with little to no due process, and there’s something inherently, I think, antidemocratic about that. People don’t have their day in court, and that’s something most people don’t know.

Alex Lovit: Getting back to the logistics and the kind of transportation necessary, something you’ve written about in your book is the idea that all that is not being done by the federal government. Often, private companies are involved. Can you talk a little bit about how private companies can be involved in deportation and how they profit off of it?

Adam Goodman: Yeah, there’s always been a couple of different motives or driving factors behind deportation. On the one hand, punishment has been really strategically utilized by the government, and the forms of transportation used have been punitive by nature in hopes of encouraging people not to return to the country. Another is profits. There’s been a profit motive involved. And there’s always been these public-private partnerships, really since the beginning of the deportation machine.

So you have private companies who are kind of bidding on contracts, whether it’s steamship companies in the early 20th century, railroad companies and plane companies in the middle of the 20th century and since, more bidding on contracts to try to provide the lowest cost possible and, in turn, inherently the worst conditions that go along with that, to expel large numbers of individuals.

So I think that we really see the combination of those two motives, punishment and profits, being something that’s had a toxic effect and an incredibly punitive effect on the wellbeing of people who find themselves caught up in the deportation machine.

Alex Lovit: So you mentioned there that conditions have often been poor for folks being deported. Can you talk a little bit more about that? Like what has that looked like historically?

Adam Goodman: So in the middle of the 1950s, the U.S. government contracted private and Mexican companies, two different companies, to deport up to 50,000 Mexican laborers across the Gulf of Mexico. And how [that opportunity] worked essentially was that U.S. officials would apprehend people and transport them, sometimes on planes, sometimes on trains, sometimes by bus, to South Texas to Port Isabel, where they’d be held in makeshift detention centers.

From that point, a Mexican vessel, a privately owned Mexican shipping company that had taken bananas from the state of Tabasco to places in the U.S. South like Alabama, would then on the return trip pick up deportees and transport them across the Gulf of Mexico to Veracruz, the idea being that farther away from the border was better; it would minimize the chance that they’d return to the country. And these trips, as I mentioned, were meant to be punitive.

Explicitly, the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization stated that they had touched upon the most salutary strategy yet, and they basically said that the Mexicans hate the boatlift like the devil hates holy water. It was meant to be punitive. It was also meant to create profits for the Mexican companies. U.S. companies in some cases would get in on the action as well. But this was a transnational operation in which businesspeople and politicians from both nations, the United States and Mexico, really saw the humans involved as cargo and as an opportunity to make a buck.

And oftentimes the last thing the officials are considering is the wellbeing of the human beings most affected.

Alex Lovit: Yeah, one of the things that I found striking in your book is that, at one point, one of these companies installed air conditioning on the boats, not to support the crowded human beings but for the bananas. It was helpful to preserve the bananas.

Adam Goodman: That’s exactly right.

Alex Lovit: Let’s talk a little bit about the period right after that, the 1960s. There were some pretty significant changes to the U.S. immigration policy in that era.

Adam Goodman: In the middle of the 1960s, two things happened: The Procera Program, the temporary guest worker program that had brought hundreds of thousands of Mexicans to the United States on short-term contracts, expired. That program existed from 1942 to 1964. And over the course of those decades, people—both the migrants themselves but also the employers, who in many cases sent recruiters into Mexico to recruit labor to come to the country and fulfill that labor need. They came to depend on one another.

So even after the program ended, people continued to migrate to the United States, but now without authorization. That coincided with the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act. The 1965 Immigration Act historically is known for ending the National Origins Quota system, which was a discriminatory system in which these quotas were put on people from especially southern eastern Europe but also kind of a blanket quota on much of Asia.

So this was celebrated when it was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, and within the context of the Civil Rights Era, as an act that was undoing an historical wrong and one in that everyone would be treated fairly. What people haven’t realized or haven’t paid as much attention to is the fact that it also put the first ever cap on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, including Mexico.

Around 11 years later, there was a country cap of 20,000 people put on every country in the world, regardless if you’re Mexico, Luxemburg, Andora, Australia, et cetera. So at the end of the Procera program and the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act meant that it was now harder than ever for Mexicans to enter the country through legal channels. And yet the country depended on these migrants, and they themselves had lives that had become binational.

That’s something that I think provides us with lessons today as well in that if you don’t provide people with legal avenues to enter the country, they will find other ways in. Migration is the constant. We know that. History shows that people have migrated. They migrate today. They will continue to migrate in the future. We know that. The questions are, under what conditions, and what policies are in place that shape those migration experiences, and ultimately at what human costs?

Alex Lovit: So we’ve—in this country, in the United States, we’ve just elected, as we just discussed, a man who has promised mass deportations. He’s now in office. He’s now trying to go through with this promise. What do you wish Americans understood about mass deportations?

Adam Goodman: Mass deportation affects noncitizens, citizens, permanent residents alike. This is something oftentimes that people support in the abstract. So those polling numbers that changed so dramatically in the last few years in regard to support for immigration, I think that only really holds up in the abstract. But if people understand that the person apprehended and deported is the guy who runs the café down the street, or my child’s friend along with their parents, then their opinions would change dramatically.

The human costs and the stakes involved for all of us, for all people regardless of legal status in the country should be, first and foremost, what people think of. At the same time, there’s a bit of [being] switch happenings, where mass deportations are being carried out, according to the Trump administration, to help U.S. citizens economically and perhaps change the demographics of the country. But that’s not going to play out as they promised.

And I think there’s a question of how people will react when they realize that perhaps they’ve carried out many deportations, and there’s going to be a real human cost to that, but my economic circumstances haven’t changed, or the nation remains diverse. And I think that there’s a real question hanging out there about whether people will continue to support such a policy when they have the realization that what was promised has [now] actually come to pass.

One other thing that’s not often talked about, but I think actually the better historical parallel in comparison isn’t to the 1950s. It’s really to the 1970s and into the ‘80s. And the mid- to late 1970s is what I refer to as the dawn of the age of mass expulsion. It’s really then and since then that we’ve seen the dynamic that exists to this day emerge and develop, and it’s one in which hundreds of thousands of people are deported each and every year, and it’s one in which the threat of deportation becomes an everyday reality for immigrants across the country.

And it’s one in which fear plays an important role in shaping their lives, and it’s one in which their ability to remain in the country has become incredibly precarious. There’re moments in which I was speaking with people who were apprehended or deported, or people who lived in the country in the 1970s without legal status. And if I strip the dates away from those interviews or from the newspaper articles that reported on that, I think that people wouldn’t be—they’d be surprised to learn they’re from decades ago and not from today because they’re so strikingly similar in what they described.

One particular man I spoke with who worked in the central coast of California at a vineyard described to me how every day he’d get ready for work, and he’d get dressed—he’d put on his pants, he’d put on his shirt, he’s putting on his socks. And each and every day he’d hide 20 dollars on his person somewhere because he knew that he might be apprehended and deported to Tijuana that day. And if that happened, he wanted to have a little bit of money to contact family, to survive for a short time and potentially to return to the United States.

That visceral fear is one that dates back decades. And since the 1970s—the mid- into late 1970s to the present, around an average of 900,000 people a year have been expelled from the United States. So this idea of mass deportation being new, I think, doesn’t stand up to historical scrutiny, although at the same time I want to emphasize that there have been a lot of policy changes in the intervening decades that make the consequence of being deported today more punitive than they ever have been.

It’s harder to return to the United States today than it was in the past. It’s more costly, potentially more deadly, in fact. So it’s not as if everything’s the same. It’s not a one-to-one comparison. But there’s a throughline here that I think most people don’t recognize and that history teaches us what the human costs are to a system in which people live precariously with the threat of removal.

Alex Lovit: So obviously, deportation can be a humanitarian tragedy for undocumented people. But you’ve mentioned a couple of times also that U.S. citizens are negatively affected. Can you spell that out a little bit? How are U.S. citizens negatively affected by deportations of the past?

Adam Goodman: In some cases, U.S. citizens and permanent residents, people in the country with legal status have been apprehended and deported. We saw that in the 1920s and ‘30s during the great repatriation campaigns and deportation campaigns during the Great Depression. We also saw that in the 1950s and in the decades since, in which there’s basically broad-based racial profiling. Anyone who appears to be undocumented—in other words, historically at least in the last years and decades, Latino or Mexican, Central American, has been suspect.

So in some cases, it’s the direct impact that it has on individuals. But oftentimes, it also is on all the people that are connected to them. If someone is susceptible or subject to deportation, and every person connected to them, partners, spouses, children, coworkers, neighbors, everyone is affected by that. And I think oftentimes, people don’t realize that they’re interacting every day with people who are in the country without documents or out of status.

Alex Lovit: So now we have deportations affected how we constitute, how we think about American identity.

Adam Goodman: Deportation throughout U.S. history has been essential to creating ideas, in some cases stereotypes, about who belongs and who doesn’t, about who’s an American and who’s not. To give one concrete example, Mexicans have represented around 90 percent of all deportees throughout U.S. history and the disproportionate targeting of Mexicans, in addition to the disproportionate location of border patrol officers on the U.S.-Mexico border. Eighteen thousand of the 20,000 border patrol officers in the United States are placed on the U.S.-Mexico border.

And the disproportionate targeting has led to the idea that Mexicans are the prototypical, quote-unquote, illegal aliens, not necessarily members of our nation or contributing members of society but, in fact, the them, the other that the Trump administration would like us to think about. And what that in turn does is lays the groundwork for punitive policies that target people, that limit their inclusion in the country, and potentially lead to their apprehension, detention, and deportation.

Who’s been targeted over time has changed. We saw that with the Chinese in the late 19th century, for example, and into the early 20th century. Southern and eastern Europeans were, in fact, the target of many exclusion efforts in the 19-teens, 1920s. And more recently, Central Americans, people from the Middle East, South Asia have been targets as well. And I think one of the big changes—and we don’t know how this is going to play out—one of the big changes in immigration enforcement in recent years is that who the government is apprehending and deporting is more diverse than ever before, arguably.

So we don’t know how it’d going to play out. But the fact that Venezuelans, the fact that Haitians have had their temporary protections removed and are now subject to deportation could have long-term effects similar to the ones we’ve seen with Mexicans over the course of the 20th century.

Alex Lovit: Well, let’s talk a little bit about what people can do to oppose this trend of deportation. Let’s start with just basic legal rights. What are the legal protections that immigrants have to delay or prevent deportation?

Adam Goodman: I mean, knowing your rights is incredibly important. I think we’ve seen a resurgence in campaigns and education efforts and know-your-rights workshops that have been taking place across the country, and people who, regardless of their legal status, are encouraged to really better understand. That’s kind of first and foremost what I think people are trying to do, but also being organized and being aware and being community, knowing which organizations in your local area serve the immigrant community, which lawyers might be able to provide assistance.

But I think that those are all really essential first steps to presenting as strong a defense as possible for people who might find themselves caught up in the deportation machine and to know that actually you do have some rights, and you do have some power. And that’s something that many people don’t realize. There’s such widespread fear right now, and I think that’s visceral. And I see it a lot in the city of Chicago in people that I know.

And at the same time, there’s a way in which taking action and educating oneself and knowing that there’s something you can do if you are apprehended, if you are questioned. That in itself, that very fact is empowering and potentially could be the difference between someone being deported and fighting for their right to say in the country.

Alex Lovit: So for folks that are looking for more information about their rights, as you’re saying—that’s a pretty important first step—what would be your recommendation for where to look?

Adam Goodman: I think first and foremost, it’s important for people to look locally. There might be organizations [entrenched]. There probably are organizations that have already been engaged with this work for quite some time that could offer important resources and support. So for example, in Illinois, there’s ICIRR, which is the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which has been very active. In Los Angeles, there’s the National Day Labor Organizing Network, which is doing really important work.

Chances are that also, wherever you the listeners are, there are different organizations as well that are either on the ground doing the work or that you can get connected to.

Alex Lovit: So if I’m an American who values the country’s history as a nation of immigrants and I want to help shape a more inclusive and welcoming future, what types of policies would put us on that path?

Adam Goodman: I think that, historically, there are problems or ways in which it’s not useful to think of the United States as a nation of immigrants. It excludes, for example, people who didn’t come by choice to this country—African Americans, whose ancestors were brought forcibly through the transatlantic slave trade; indigenous people who were here in these lands prior to the arrival of immigrants. With that as a caveat, I do think that there are important ways in which people can hopefully, in my view, push democrats back in the other direction, because I think we’re seeing a dramatic shift in the democratic party in the last four years.

If you look at Joe Biden’s campaign’s message on immigration and stance on immigration in 2020 compared to the Biden and then Harris campaign message on immigration in 2024, it moved much further to the restrictionist side. And I actually think what the Trump victory in 2024 taught us in some way is that people are willing to vote for you, even if they don’t agree with you on every issue.

And so the lesson for the democrats, in my opinion, shouldn’t be that they should move to the restrictionist side on immigration, which they’ve already done in supporting some pieces of legislation that Trump signed into law—the Laken Riley Act, for example, that the George W. Bush administration probably never would have supported 20 years ago. That’s how far things have moved.

And so I think that actually staking out some ground here and differentiating themselves from the republicans on immigration could pay dividends long term if we’re thinking about kind of just their own political interests. But the history I trace in the book is bipartisan. It’s both republican and democratic administrations supporting and enforcing policies that have had extraordinary physical, psychological, and material costs for migrants and for people in the country without authorization and also, in some cases, people in the country with legal status.

And so if there was ever a time or an opportunity for the democrats to stake out some new ground—in 2020 they had a chance; 2024, they didn’t even make an effort to do so. But I think moving forward, opportunity is there to really stake out some new ground, although historically, we’ve seen that’s never been the case. And so I’m not optimistic that’ll happen, but I think it makes a lot of sense from both a human, moral, ethical perspective, as well as a self-interested political perspective and for the democratic party itself.

Alex Lovit: So you’re talking about political parties as major players, and that can perhaps be moved to push for more welcoming policies. How do you see the role of the media here? What role does the media play in informing Americans’ understanding of immigration?

Adam Goodman: If you just pay attention to what’s happening under the current administration through the eyes of the media, I think many people believe that Trump is carrying out record numbers of deportations, that mass deportation’s happening all over the country because there’s been such extensive coverage and also sensationalized kind of footage from ride-alongs with ICE officials to just repeated messages about the mass deportations that are taking place and what’s happening.

On the one hand, that picks up on something really important and crucial, and that’s that the policies and the efforts in the administration are having an effect. People are afraid. People are fearful and scared. People are being apprehended and deported. That is all true. But they’re not carrying out record numbers of deportations.

And if you actually look at the statistics that the government could provide—in some cases, it’s very hard to get your hands on those, in part because I don’t think they can figure out how to justify their success in record deportations when, in fact, they’re not happening—you realize that, in fact, they’re not doing what they promised to do. And that’s in part why you’re seeing some people like the Acting Director of ICE, who’s been fired essentially because they haven’t arrested as many people as the administration hoped.

So the administration is trying to figure things out in real time, and I don’t think the media coverage has reflected that in some cases in ways that’ll be useful for people to understand.

Alex Lovit: So Adam, I’m going to presume here that you believe in democracy. How do you maintain your faith in democracy when you see many Americans supporting a President who is acting in antidemocratic ways?

Adam Goodman: I think that people are out there organizing, fighting, and trying to defend the basic democratic values that are so essential to the United States and also to improve on the United States history of being a democracy and one that has been flawed or limited in some ways. And perhaps this is one of those moments where we’re seeing a restriction in the rights of certain individuals who make up an essential part of our nation but, at the same time, people who are pushing to expand those rights and to ensure that people who form essential parts of our communities across the country are represented.

So I think that, as much as the attention has been on all the punitive actions and the mass deportations that have been happening, the flipside of that story is that there are individuals, communities, organizations that are actively pushing back and presenting a very different, I think more inclusive representative vision of the democracy that we’d like to have in the country. And that’s one that won’t be necessarily guaranteed, but it’s one you have to fight for. It’s one you have to win. And I think that’s an important part of the story that we should be paying more attention to.

Alex Lovit: Well, anytime we can end on a hopeful note, I always love to do that. Adam Goodman, thank you for joining me on The Context.

Adam Goodman: Thanks, Alex.

Alex Lovit: The Context is a production of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation. Our producers are George Drake, Jr., and Emily Vaughn. Melinda Gilmore is our Director of Communications. The rest of our team includes Jamaal Bell, Tayo Clyburn, Jasmine Olaore, Darla Minnich, Maxine Thomas, and Bettina Wright. We’ll be back in two weeks with another conversation about democracy.

In the meantime, visit our website, Kettering.org, to learn more about the Foundation or to sign up for our newsletter. If you have comments for the show, you can reach us at TheContext@Kettering.org. If you like the show, leave us a rating or a review wherever you get your podcasts, or just tell a friend about us. I’m Alex Lovit. I’m a Senior Program Officer and historian here at Kettering. Thanks for listening.

The views expressed during this program are critical to us having a productive dialogue, but they do not reflect the views or opinions of the Kettering Foundation. The Foundation’s broadcast and related promotional activity should not be construed as an endorsement of its content. The Foundation hereby disclaims liability to any party for direct, indirect, implied, punitive, special, incidental, or other consequential damages that may arise in connection with this broadcast, which is provided as is and without warranties.

Transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a Kettering Foundation contractor and may contain small errors. The authoritative record is the audio recording.