Fact check: Https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/the-aclu-vs-trump-20

1. Summary of the results

The ACLU's legal opposition to the Trump administration was extensive and well-documented, with 434 legal challenges filed during Trump's first term ^[1]. The organization's 400th legal action was specifically a class-action lawsuit focused on protecting asylum-seeking children at the border ^[2]. This legal activism has continued into 2025, with the ACLU joining other organizations in challenging executive orders targeting transgender youth healthcare ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial contextual elements are worth noting:

• The ACLU's legal strategy began very early in Trump's presidency, with over 10 lawsuits filed in just the first three weeks of the administration ^[4].
• The organization's challenges covered a wide range of issues, including:
• Census citizenship questions
• Child separation policies ^[5]
• Birthright citizenship
• Immigration enforcement ^[4]
• Gender-affirming care ^[3]
• The ACLU had contingency plans beyond legal action, including potential mass protests and corporate engagement if judicial orders were ignored ^[4].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

While the numerical claims about legal actions are accurate, it's important to understand the broader context:

• The ACLU's Executive Director, Anthony Romero, framed these actions as a response to what he viewed as a potential "constitutional crisis" ^[4].
• The organization's strategy wasn't limited to legal challenges - they were prepared for broader civil action if necessary ^[4].
• Different stakeholders benefit from different narratives:
• The ACLU benefits from highlighting the volume of legal challenges to demonstrate their active opposition
• The Trump administration might characterize these actions as obstruction of legitimate executive authority
• Progressive organizations and civil rights groups benefit from portraying these actions as necessary defensive measures
• Conservative groups might frame this as judicial activism

The situation reflects a broader tension between executive authority and civil rights advocacy, with both sides claiming to act in the public interest.