Well.

Attorney General Matt Platkin has joined another lawsuit against the Trump administration, this time challenging the firings of federal probationary workers, calling it an illegal mass layoff.

In a separate lawsuit this week, Platkin joined a coalition of 20 states fighting the president's attempt to cut $600 million in federal grants that help prepare new teachers for the classroom.

Democratic attorneys general across the country have had initial success in their legal suits against this administration, winning temporary relief on issues ranging from ending birthright citizenship to freezes on public funding.

But Platkin resistance efforts haven't gained him many friends in New Jersey's Republican Party, who last week introduced articles of impeachment against him, arguing he's more focused on generating headlines than protecting the residents of New Jersey.

Attorney General Matt Platkin joins me now.

Attorney general, good to talk to you.

Geez, where to begin?

Honestly.

Let's talk about this lawsuit challenging the administration over the firing of the probationary workers.

You say that the president overstepped his authority here.

How so?

I mean, doesn't his office have the autonomy to shrink the size of the federal workforce?

Look at anybody who's trying to root out waste.

Fraud and abuse is certainly going to have no argument for me, except when the president is trying to do wholesale sale.

Reductions in force, as he's trying to do is through Elon Musk, who is the world's richest man, an unelected billionaire, who is just running roughshod over critical government services.

They need to follow the laws that are put in place for large scale reductions in force so that we don't make mistakes, like inadvertently firing people who regulate our nuclear arsenal, or people who ensure that planes can land on time, or people who provide health care or protect our public health or veterans, which he's fired thousands of them, people who served this country and who have been fired indiscriminately, who are performing really critical roles.

So those laws are in place for a reason, and the president needs to follow them, just as every other president who has tried to do large scale reductions in force have done.

Does your office does the state have a count on how many new Jersey based federal workers have been impacted?

Yeah, we put in the complaint.

It's been hundreds of workers in our state and thousands across the country.

And again, this is about making sure that the law is followed and that critical services that the government provides, that nobody disputes.

I think everybody believes that planes should land safely.

And we've seen issues under this administration on that front.

I think people believe that veterans should be treated fairly.

And yet they've basically ignored the law and hurt people across the board in ways that make our residents less safe.

What are you doing or seeking?

Ultimately here, though, is to get these workers back in their jobs to prevent other firings from happening in the future.

Both or both?

Again, not saying the administration has no ability to reduce its size.

It certainly does.

And frankly, we're living here in an administration as Governor Murphy has mentioned, that is, has fewer public employees today than when he took office.

So there's no argument on the general effort to ensure that we're spending taxpayer dollars.

Well, it's just that laws need to be followed so that we don't make mistakes again, like we have a nuclear arsenal that suddenly has all of the people who are in charge of making sure it's safe, fired overnight.

The law needs to be followed.

And for the people that were terminated unlawfully, they are entitled to reinstatement.

Let me ask you about this other lawsuit.

The grant money that provides teacher training specifically for new teachers, to get them into the classrooms.

Is it your understanding that these folks who are currently enrolled in programs funded by that money are being pulled out or having their programs cut short?

They won't be able to teach, say, in the fall.

Yeah.

Well, we've seen programs at Montclair State and DCA potentially have to be cut short that are providing critical teacher training programs at a time.

Then we have a national and a state shortage of teachers in the pipeline, in no small part because of the attacks on our public educators that we've seen in new Jersey and across the country.

And let's be clear about what we're dealing with.

This is the most fundamental assault on public education.

And families like mine who who participate in the public education system and who rely on it, that we've ever seen in this country.

There's threatening teachers that go to work in rural schools and urban schools.

They're threatening to end the pipeline for teachers that are trained in math and science.

And we're talking about winning the economic fight for the next century.

Well, those are pretty important skills.

And most crucially, probably they've threatened funding for kids with special needs.

So families who wake up every day and I've spoken to some of them just hoping to get their kids to care that they're entitled to when they drop their kids off at school.

They've threatened every single one of those families, and that is both unlawful.

But it's also incredibly callous and cruel.

So I have to ask you then, given this work that you've been doing to push back, then you get a group of Republican state lawmakers who file these impeachment articles saying, you know, you're too focused on President Trump.

You should be focused on the people, the residents here in new Jersey who you serve.

How do you respond to that?

Well, I don't spend a whole lot of time paying attention to Partizan political attacks, and certainly we haven't taken our eye off the ball here in new Jersey.

We just announced one of the largest busts of an opioid manufacturing ring in state history, 500,000 doses of heroin and opioids taken off the street.

Gun violence at historic lows.

We've driven auto theft down to, significantly lower levels.

We are focused on keeping our residents safe, and that is what I do every single day.

And that's where my attention is paid.

Is it a coincidence in your mind, or, connected to the fact that that those articles of impeachment were introduced a day after a judge dismissed the federal racketeering charges that you filed against George Norcross?

Of course, a lot to be made there.

Oh, again, I don't spend time, trying to figure out motivations of people who, frankly, don't seem to care that are, schools are threatening to be defunded, that law enforcement funding has been frozen, that Medicaid was frozen, that our university system and people who are undergoing clinical trials and cancer and Alzheimer's research, we're told that they're no longer going to be able to benefit from those treatments because of, frankly, political attacks on our state and on every state in this country.

And so, whatever their motivation is, and by the way, that case is on appeal.

I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about it.

I wake up every morning and go to bed every night focused on how do I keep the residents of this state safe, whether that be against drug and gun trafficking or social media companies that are hurting our residents?

Are especially our youngest residents, or protecting our residents from harms that are flowing from unlawful actions taken by this federal administration.

And by the way, we're undefeated in court so far in the first six weeks of this administration.

So I think we've got a pretty strong record.

The governor yesterday signed the ballot redesign bill.

You had weighed in on this, about whether or not the county line should be abolished.

I mean, your job is to be independent of the governor, but you two, we're at differences there about the county line.

What do you make of the fact that this will be rolled out in time for the June primary?

Well, look, legislature and the governor of Acted, which is their right.

I don't I don't, weigh in and, make statements outside of the context of litigation.

And of course, our, bias is to defend statutes, which is what we do regularly.

In that case, last year, there was, as we laid out in the letter, a set of circumstances that did not allow us to defend the statute at issue.

But of course, you know, we look at every case and we've got a pretty strong record of, of defending statutes and protecting the state's interests.

Attorney general, good to talk to you.

Thanks again for coming on the show.

Thanks for having me.