Earl & Kate Deep Dive

Earl & Kate Deep Dive is your go-to podcast for sharp, no-nonsense takes on the latest in news, U.S. politics, and government affairs. Hosted by the ever-opinionated Earl Cotten and the quick-witted Katherine Mayfield, this dynamic duo dives headfirst into the headlines, dissecting the stories shaping our world today. Whether it’s U.S. political drama, Democracy or Breaking news, Earl and Katherine bring their unique perspectives, plenty of banter, and a little humor to keep things lively. If you want to cut through the noise and get a fresh take on the issues that matter, tune in to Earl & Kate Deep Dive. earlcotten.substack.com

  1. 19/08/2025

    The Flores Agreement Battle: Protecting Immigrant Children in U.S. Custody

    Key Takeaways * A federal judge recently rejected the Trump administration's second attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement, maintaining crucial protections for immigrant children . * The 1997 Flores Agreement establishes minimum standards for treatment of immigrant children in custody, including limits on detention duration and requirements for adequate conditions . * Government officials argue the agreement "incentivizes unlawful border crossings" by families with children, while advocates maintain it's essential for preventing indefinite detention in unsafe conditions . * Despite court mandates, documentation reveals ongoing violations including prolonged detention in inadequate facilities with insufficient food, medical care, and sanitation . * The ruling preserves judicial oversight mechanisms that allow independent monitors to access detention facilities and report on conditions . The Flores Agreement: Historical Context and Core Protections The Flores Settlement Agreement traces its origins back to 1985 litigation concerning the treatment of a 15-year-old Salvadoran girl named Jenny Flores who was detained by immigration authorities. She was held in a hotel surrounded by chain-link fencing and subjected to strip searches alongside other children in custody . This case exposed systemic issues in how the federal government handled immigrant children, culminating in the 1997 agreement that established nationwide standards for their treatment. The agreement wasn't created out of abstract policy debates but emerged from documented patterns of mistreatment that affected real children caught in the immigration system. At its core, the Flores Agreement mandates that immigrant children must be held in the "least restrictive setting" appropriate for their age and needs . This legal framework requires the government to prioritize releasing children to family members or guardians whenever possible instead of keeping them in detention facilities. For those children who must remain in custody, the agreement establishes minimum standards for their care, including adequate food and drinking water, medical assistance, sanitation facilities, and supervision by trained staff . Perhaps most significantly, it limits how long children can be held in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities to no more than 72 hours before transfer to more appropriate settings . The agreement also provides for ongoing judicial oversight through court-appointed monitors and lawyers who have access to detention facilities to verify compliance . This oversight mechanism has proven crucial multiple times when the government failed to meet its obligations. The Flores Agreement applies to all immigrant children in federal custody, whether they arrived alone or with family members . This comprehensive approach recognizes that all children deserve protection regardless of their immigration status or circumstances of arrival. These protections emerged from recognizing that detention, even for relatively short periods, can cause lasting developmental harm to children, with child psychologists warning that even two weeks in detention can have severe consequences that last a lifetime . Recent Legal Challenges and Judicial Responses The Trump administration initiated its most recent attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in May 2025, filing a formal motion arguing that the agreement had become "overly rigid and outdated" . Government attorneys contended that Congress had enacted legislation and federal agencies had developed standards that rendered the court supervision unnecessary . This argument represented a strategic approach to removing judicial oversight that had repeatedly identified violations and compelled improvements in detention conditions. The administration further claimed that the agreement actually incentivized unlawful immigration by encouraging families to bring children on dangerous journeys with the expectation of being released quickly into the United States . In response to this motion, Flores counsel, a coalition of advocacy organizations including the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, National Center for Youth Law, and Children's Rights, filed a forceful opposition in June 2025 . They presented stark evidence that terminating the agreement would remove crucial safeguards for children's health and safety, potentially opening the door to indefinite detention in prison-like facilities. The counsel submitted recent declarations from detained children and parents describing brutal conditions, including overcrowding, unsanitary environments, and inadequate medical care . These firsthand accounts provided concrete examples of why continued judicial oversight remained necessary despite government claims of improved standards. On August 15, 2025, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee issued a definitive ruling rejecting the administration's request to terminate the agreement . In her 20-page order, Judge Gee noted that the government had failed to identify "any meaningful change either in factual conditions or in law since their last motion to terminate" . This reference to the administration's unsuccessful 2019 attempt to end Flores protections highlighted the repetitive nature of the legal challenge. Judge Gee specifically found that neither the Department of Homeland Security nor the Department of Health and Human Services had demonstrated "sufficiently substantial compliance" with the agreement's requirements to justify terminating court oversight . The ruling maintains the status quo of judicial supervision that has been in place since 1997, ensuring that independent monitors continue to have access to detention facilities where immigrant children are held . This decision represents a significant setback for the administration's immigration agenda, which has sought to expand detention capacity and increase deterrence through stricter enforcement. Legal experts anticipate that the Trump administration will appeal the decision, potentially setting the stage for the case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court . This ongoing legal battle reflects fundamental disagreements about how the United States should treat immigrant children and whether the executive branch can be trusted to monitor itself without independent oversight. Documented Conditions in Detention Facilities Recent documentation from various detention facilities reveals significant gaps between mandated standards and actual conditions experienced by immigrant children. Despite the Flores Agreement's requirements, reports consistently show problems with prolonged detention, inadequate accommodations, and insufficient access to basic necessities. In May 2025 alone, Customs and Border Protection held 46 children for over a week in violation of the 72-hour limit, including six children detained for more than two weeks and four children held for 19 days . During March and April of the same year, CBP reported 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours, including 14 toddlers and young children held for over 20 days in April . Children and parents have provided heartbreaking firsthand accounts of conditions in detention facilities through declarations submitted to courts. A 13-year-old child detained in an ICE Family Detention Center described emotional deterioration: "I'm not really hungry that much any more. I eat less than before. I feel really sad and angry all the time. I don't want to die here. And I don't want to live here either" . Mothers reported being afraid to speak openly about conditions, with one noting: "Before coming into this interview, the Karnes staff who brought me told me not to say anything and to only answer basic things. They do not want people to know how they are treating us. I'm afraid for when the lawyers leave, because the staff will go back to treating us poorly again" . Table: Documented Conditions in Immigration Detention Facilities The physical and psychological toll on detained children appears substantial according to these reports. Lawyers visiting a family detention facility in Dilley, Texas described children experiencing nightmares, loss of appetite, and worsening health conditions . Toys were reportedly in short supply, with children described as "hungry, sleep-deprived, bored, and hopeless" . Mothers had to beg for diapers and watch their children lose weight and deteriorate from stress. These observations align with psychological research indicating that even brief detention can cause lasting developmental harm to children . The documented conditions stand in stark contrast to the Flores requirements for safe and sanitary facilities that meet children's basic needs. Perspectives in the Flores Agreement Debate The government's position on the Flores Agreement centers around claims that the settlement has created "perverse incentives" for family migration and undermines enforcement efforts. Justice Department attorney Tiberius Davis argued in court proceedings that the agreement "undermines deterrence" of illegal immigration by limiting how long children can be detained with their families . Administration officials point to legislation passed under Trump that provided billions of dollars for new immigration facilities, arguing that these modern facilities would provide appropriate conditions even for extended detention periods . They contend that Flores restrictions prevent them from fully utilizing this expanded detention capacity to implement their enforcement priorities. Human rights advocates and legal representatives for immigrant children maintain a very different perspective. They argue that the Flores Agreement remains essential precisely because the government has demonstrated repeated failures to meet basic standards of care without judicial oversight . Sergio Perez, Executive Director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, characterizes the administration's efforts as "another l

    42 min
  2. 19/08/2025

    Mail Voting Paradox: GOP's Millions supporting Mail Ballots While Trump Attacks Them

    Key Takeaways * 😕 The Republican National Committee spent millions on "Bank Your Vote" programs while Trump called mail voting "corrupt". * 🗳️ At least 34 countries use mail voting, contradicting Trump's claim that America is "the only country" using it. * 📊 In 2024, Republicans increased their mail voting share in Pennsylvania from 24% to 33%, helping them win key races. * ⚖️ The Constitution gives states power over elections, not the president, making Trump's executive order threat largely symbolic. * 🌊 Democratic voters continue to use mail voting more consistently, creating a partisan gap that hurts Republicans in low-turnout elections. * 📈 Despite Trump's claims, election experts agree mail voting is secure with multiple verification steps in place. * 🏛️ Several Republican-controlled states have actually expanded mail voting access while their party leaders attack it. * 🔮 The GOP's contradictory position may hurt their long-term election prospects as their voters become confused about proper voting methods. The GOP's Massive Investment In Mail Voting Infrastructure I've been following Republican election strategies for years, and their approach to mail voting really confuses me sometimes. Like, they've actually spent millions trying to get their voters to use mail ballots while Trump keeps calling the whole thing corrupt. The RNC's "Bank Your Vote" program wasn't just some small initiative, it was a major nationwide effort with fancy websites and everything telling Republicans they "should feel comfortable" voting by mail . They even got Trump to record a message supporting it at one point, though that didn't last too long honestly. What's interesting is that Republican operatives actually saw mail voting as a huge opportunity before Trump started his attacks. They'd mastered large-scale mail voter drives and recognized that mail voting could help them reach low-propensity voters, especially in rural areas where polling places might be far apart . The data shows that before 2020, mail voting didn't really have a partisan lean, it was just another voting method that both parties used about equally. The numbers from 2024 show their investment kinda worked in some places. In Pennsylvania, Republicans managed to increase their share of the mail vote from 24% in 2020 to 33% in 2024 through what the New York Times called a "multifaceted campaign of messaging, fund-raising and field operations" . In deep-red states like Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa, Republicans actually made up the majority of mail voters after Democrats had dominated in 2020. And in Arizona, a swing state where most people vote by mail, Republicans had an eight-point advantage over Democrats in mail voting . Table: Republican Mail Voting Improvements in 2024 But here's the thing, while the party was spending all this money on mail voting, Trump was out there telling everyone it was corrupt. This created what one analyst called "a trap of their own making" . They've got this institutional knowledge that mail voting helps them win, but they also have a leader who constantly undermines the very system they're investing in. Trump's Consistent Pattern of Attacking Mail Voting So Trump's thing with mail voting, he's been against it for years now, right? Like even before the 2020 election he was saying it was corrupt, and he's kept at it even after winning in 2024. I remember watching one rally where he told people in Michigan "Mail-in voting is totally corrupt. Get that through your head" and then at a Fox News town hall he said "If you have mail-in voting, you automatically have fraud" . It's like he's got this set talking points he just keeps repeating regardless of what his own party is doing. What's really confusing is that Trump himself has voted by mail in the past. Like multiple times. And in 2024, he actually kinda softened his stance a bit under pressure from party leaders and told his supporters to vote early . But that didn't last long, now he's back to full-throttle attacks, promising executive orders and everything to try to eliminate mail voting entirely . The most recent thing was when he met with Putin and then came out saying Putin agreed with him that the 2020 election was rigged because of mail voting. He told Hannity: "Vladimir Putin said something, one of the most interesting things. He said, 'Your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting.' He said, 'Mail-in voting, every election.' He said, 'No country has mail-in voting. It's impossible to have mail-in voting and have honest elections'" . Which is complete nonsense if you actually check the facts, but we'll get to that later. Trump's also been making this weird constitutional argument that states are "merely an 'agent' for the Federal Government" in counting votes and must do what the president tells them . But every constitutional scholar I've read says that's just completely wrong. The Constitution gives states the power to run elections, not the president. Even Republican senators like Mitch McConnell have pushed back on this idea . Why Trump Can't Actually Ban Mail Voting Himself So here's the thing a lot of people don't get about elections in America, the president doesn't actually run them. Like at all. The Constitution is pretty clear about this in Article I, Section 4, it's the states that have the authority to regulate elections, not the federal government . This means when Trump threatens to sign an executive order banning mail voting, he's basically making an empty threat that wouldn't survive in court. We know this because he already tried something similar back in March. He signed this executive order that would have created a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to register to vote and require that all mail ballots arrive by Election Day . But guess what happened? It got challenged in court immediately, and by July a federal judge had blocked most of it. Even prominent Republicans like Mitch McConnell spoke out against it, writing in a Wall Street Journal piece that "Elections may have national consequences but the power to conduct them rests in state capitols" . The whole idea that states are "merely an agent" of the federal government when it comes to elections is just legally wrong. UCLA election law professor Rick Hasen wrote on his blog that Trump's statement is "wrong and dangerous" . David Becker, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation & Research, put it even more bluntly: "The President plays literally no role in elections, and that's by design of the founders" . What Trump could do is keep pushing Republican-led states to restrict mail voting, and that's actually happening already. States like Kansas, North Dakota, and Utah passed legislation this year that eliminated grace periods for receiving mailed ballots, requiring them to arrive by Election Day now . But even in Republican states, there's often recognition that mail voting serves important purposes, especially for military voters overseas and older voters who might have trouble getting to polling places. How States Are Actually Changing Mail Voting Laws So despite all of Trump's rhetoric, states are making their own decisions about mail voting, and it's not just Republican states restricting it. Like in California, which is solidly Democratic, they're actually considering changes to speed up their counting process . A Democratic assemblyman named Marc Berman introduced legislation that would require county election officials to finish counting most ballots within 13 days after the election instead of the current 30 days they technically have. What's interesting is Berman's reasoning, he said "I don't think that we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend like these conspiracies aren't out there and that this lack of confidence doesn't exist, in particular among Republican voters in California" . So even in blue states, the constant attacks on mail voting are having an effect on how elections are run. But Republican states are definitely moving faster on restrictions. According to the Voting Rights Lab, Republicans in five states have passed legislation since the 2020 election moving the mail ballot deadline to Election Day . In Kansas, they ended the practice of accepting mail ballots up to three days after Election Day, even though problems with mail delivery had prompted them to add that grace period in the first place back in 2017. Table: States That recently Changed Mail Voting Laws The whole debate about when ballots should arrive is kinda missing the point though. As Minnesota's chief election official Steve Simon said: "There is nothing unreliable or insecure about a ballot that comes back after Election Day" . Ballots received after Election Day have to be postmarked by Election Day, so they're still valid votes that were cast on time, they just took longer to get there because of mail delivery delays. The Practical Impact On Republican Voters So all this conflicting messaging is actually having a real impact on how Republican voters behave. Like there was this poll that found only 28% of Republicans support no-excuse mail-in voting, making it literally the least popular election policy among Republicans, even less popular than automatic voter registration or letting felons vote after serving their sentences . That's pretty remarkable when you think about it. The age gap is especially noticeable. In the 2022 midterms, only 38% of voters over 65 used mail voting even though the system was "largely designed to cater to their needs" according to one analysis . This is the group that traditionally used mail voting the most before Trump started attacking it, and now they're avoiding it because of partisan messaging. We saw what happens in special elections too. In one Pennsylvania state House special election, the Democratic candidate won the mail-in vote 86% to 14% . And in that New York special ele

    38 min

About

Earl & Kate Deep Dive is your go-to podcast for sharp, no-nonsense takes on the latest in news, U.S. politics, and government affairs. Hosted by the ever-opinionated Earl Cotten and the quick-witted Katherine Mayfield, this dynamic duo dives headfirst into the headlines, dissecting the stories shaping our world today. Whether it’s U.S. political drama, Democracy or Breaking news, Earl and Katherine bring their unique perspectives, plenty of banter, and a little humor to keep things lively. If you want to cut through the noise and get a fresh take on the issues that matter, tune in to Earl & Kate Deep Dive. earlcotten.substack.com

More From The Earl Angle