Aliya Rahman is a very private person. She doesn’t even post on social media. But now there are many videos of her online, from Jan. 13 of this year, when Operation Metro Surge was going strong in Minneapolis.

Rahman was headed to a doctor’s appointment that morning—treatment for a brain injury she had gotten a couple of years back. On the way to the appointment, she got caught up in an immigration raid. Agents surrounded her car and gave her contradictory instructions. Eventually, they smashed out her passenger-side window, cut her seat belt, and dragged her into the street. She tried to tell the agents she was disabled, but it didn’t matter. They took her to the Whipple building, which had become the center for immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis.

In the months since this incident, Rahman has testified in front of Congress, attended the State of the Union, and become a symbol of sorts. A few weeks ago, she filed a federal tort claim against the Department of Homeland Security. She’s asking for money to replace the window agents smashed and to pay for her ongoing medical care. But she’s also asking other victims of immigration violence to follow her lead. It’s part of a bigger plan.

“Every case that’s filed against them is an opportunity to learn how they actually function,” says Rahman.

On a recent episode of What Next, host Mary Harris spoke to Rahman about how her life has changed since her detention, and how she’s trying to turn her viral moment into a movement. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Mary Harris: Part of your story is that since this initial detention, you have kept speaking out. You testified in front of Congress. You showed up at the State of the Union, where you were a guest of Rep. Ilhan Omar. And actually, while you were at the State of the Union, you were detained again. Donald Trump had just called for restoring funding for DHS, right, when you stood?

Aliya Rahman: Yeah, he was talking about DHS, saying a lot of racist stuff.

I was not protesting. If I had wanted to disrupt, I would have done something like make a sound or hold a sign. I wasn’t doing any of that. But as I was standing up, I heard a man say, “You can’t stand up.” And I pointed out that we’d all been standing up and sitting down all night. And he told me I couldn’t be the only one standing up. And right then, a bunch of Republicans stood up. But he just got really angry.

I had three people grab my arms and start pulling. I was just trying to de-escalate, and I’m like, “Chill—I’m not harming anybody, and I have two torn shoulders.” And they kept trying to take away my cane. You are not allowed phones in there, so there are no phone videos, but there are photographs, and you can see the moment they’re removing me.

They tried to charge me. Initially, the police wanted to say that it was “unlawful conduct,” carrying a sentence that’s higher than what anyone has ever been proposed to be charged with, and the court was like: What are you guys doing? No.

You seem comfortable using your body. You’re not doing anything physical—I don’t want to misrepresent what you’re doing. But you seem comfortable putting your physical self in these situations that are dangerous.

I don’t even think of them that way at all. I was just going to the doctor. To me, that’s not putting your body in a dangerous situation. It’s actually the opposite. I’m trying to get help because my body needs help, right? And at the State of the Union, again, this was not a deliberate decision to stand out.

I was hearing horrible things. At that moment, I just stood longer because I was experiencing this event in a way that didn’t have anything to do with anyone else. I’m autistic, and a lot of what’s happening when we are moving is not actually about wanting to take up more space. It’s actually regulating our nervous system. Sitting still can be really, really hard. I’m just regulating my body and letting it do what it needs to do, but it’s not really about danger or somebody else. It’s just existing.

In April, you filed this claim against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, via the Federal Tort Claims Act. This is a mechanism for eventually potentially suing the government for damages caused by a federal employee. What is the process like? It seems complicated. You file some paperwork, then you wait for a while, then potentially you file a lawsuit. Am I getting that right?

This is what we have instead of the normal process by which you would, for example, sue a local police officer. The way that I describe this is that you are using state law on a federal entity. The hammer is the state law, and the nail is the agency.

What are you asking for with your claims? Is it mostly monetary damages?

That’s the only option you have, to ask for that. They can say that they want to settle, and then you can maybe ask for some other things. The only thing you’re able to write down is monetary. But for me, it’s a way to get them in the room and answer for what they’re doing.

In these six months, they can respond and say, “Sure, we’ll do what you say.” They can respond and say no, or they can just not respond, which apparently is very common. And then, after those six months, you can file a lawsuit. That’s when things happen, like people actually having to answer questions. I would like to be compensated for all of these expenses, but more than anything, I want myself and other disabled people and Black and brown people to be able to go to the doctor and to go about our lives without being harassed and injured in permanent ways that completely affect the rest of our lives.

I constantly think about the people who were in detention with me. I constantly think about the ICE officers. That’s kind of how PTSD shows up for me. There are always these other people on the edge of my consciousness.

If the government came to you and said, “We’ll pay whatever you want,” would that satisfy your demands?

Would that satisfy me? Absolutely not. Would that be the thing that’s on the piece of paper that they’re supposed to respond with? Yeah. But I don’t want this to happen to our people anymore. If they ever got to a point where they just agreed we should compensate people, that would have to mean that someone up the chain was like, This was wrong. We have to change our practices. We don’t want to keep paying out a whole bunch of money to all of these people. But that would require a complete ideological change in their bosses’ minds.

The way these people are behaving, sometimes you cannot appeal to folks who don’t see you as human. Instead, you have to push them into a corner and make it very inconvenient for them to brutalize you.