Has Anyone Seen the Democrats?
en
January 28, 2025
TLDR: Trump's immigration policies near trade war with Colombia; internal battles with his own federation over loyalty tests, diversity programs dismissal, and cancer research halt. Discussion on next DNC chair pick. Expert conversation about deportations and immigration policy issues.

Episode Highlights and Key Takeaways
In this latest episode of Pod Save America, hosts Jon, Lovett, and Tommy delve into the current state of the Democratic Party, the implications of Trump’s recent actions, and a conversation with immigration expert Dara Lind on pressing immigration issues. This post summarizes key points discussed in the episode and provides insights for readers engaged in the evolving political landscape.
The Democrats: A Party in Hiding?
The Party’s Silence
The episode begins with a discussion about the Democratic Party’s relatively quiet response to the onslaught of controversial actions by the Trump administration. The hosts emphasize a growing sentiment of uncertainty about the party’s direction:
- Lack of Clear Messaging: Democrats seem to struggle with coherence and boldness in articulating their positions against Trump’s moves.
- Political Performance: There's a comparison of Trump’s agenda to the Democrats’ reluctance to take decisive actions, highlighting an apparent void in the party's assertiveness.
Trump’s Immigration Crackdown
The Stakes at Home and Abroad
The discussion turns to Trump's recent immigration policies which nearly sparked a trade war with Colombia and saw confrontations between the federal government and its foreign allies. Key takeaways include:
- Escalation of Deportations: The hosts note how the Trump administration intensifies deportation efforts, leveraging military resources for migrant transfers.
- Conflict with Colombia: An attempt to use military planes for deportation led to threats of tariffs, showcasing how immigration policies can have broad international consequences.
Dangerous Moves by the Trump Administration
The episode highlights various strategies deployed by Trump that pose risks:
- Dismantling Diversity Programs: Trump ended various diversity and inclusion initiatives, which many see as an attempt to consolidate power in a meritocratic framework.
- Freezing Medical Research: The administration's pause on cancer research funding raises concerns about public health priorities amidst political chaos.
- Firing Government Inspectors: The firing of key personnel aimed at checking government abuses points to a broader agenda of undermining accountability.
Expert Insights with Dara Lind
The State of Immigration Policy
In an enlightening segment, Tommy interviews immigration expert Dara Lind, who outlines the current landscape of immigration following Trump’s policies:
- Interior Enforcement Ramp-Up: Lind explains how the administration is enforcing aggressive deportation policies that threaten individuals who have been living in the U.S. for years.
- Logistical Challenges: The costs and complexities of mass deportation logistics are explored, emphasizing resource constraints that could affect the sustainability of Trump’s immigration strategy.
Birthright Citizenship Under Threat
Lind also discusses the implications of Trump’s attempts to end birthright citizenship:
- Unconstitutionality Concerns: She notes that legal challenges are likely, as the potential for court cases hinges on established precedents.
- Public Sentiment: The ongoing public debate about immigration and citizenship rights continues to evolve, with ramifications for millions of families tied to the potential changes.
Conclusion: Where Do We Go From Here?
Shifting Political Dynamics
The hosts conclude by encouraging readers to critically engage with the unfolding political events:
- Democrats Need to Find Their Voice: The party must move beyond reflective strategies and engage more actively in defining their narrative in response to Republican challenges.
- Importance of Collective Action: Both domestic and foreign policy responses indicate that staying informed and active in political processes is crucial for shaping outcomes that align with democratic values.
This episode serves as a critical reminder of the ever-changing political landscape and the necessity for cohesive party action amidst the looming shadow of Trump-era policies. Tune into this episode to understand how immigration issues are affecting both domestic policy and international relations, and reflect on the broader implications for the Democratic Party as they navigate their next steps.
Was this summary helpful?
Today's presenting sponsor is Simply Safe Home Security. As the balance of power transfers, an overwhelming uncertainty of what's to come sets in, you may be feeling a little bit helpless. It's important to remember the power you do have to protect what's closest to you, your home and your loved ones. Not abortion rights, not society. Simply Safe's cutting-edge security can help you give peace of mind by protecting those who matter most. No matter what's happening outside your door, I set up a Simply Safe, incredibly easy to do, worked right out of the box. You can customize it for your home and the app is
simple and easy to use and reliable and so is the customer service traditional security systems only take action after someone is already broken in that's too late simply saves active guard outdoor protection can help prevent break ins before they happen if someone is acting suspiciously those agents can see and talk to them in real time activate spotlights and even contact the police all before they have a chance to get inside your home.
No long-term contracts or cancellation fees. Monitoring plans start at around $1 per day, 60-day satisfaction guarantee, or your money back, SimpliSafe is named best home security systems by US News and World Report five years in a row. Start the year with greater peace of mind. Visit SimpliSafe.com slash crooked to claim 50% off a new system with a professional monitoring plan in your first month free. That's SimpliSafe.com slash crooked. There's no safe like SimpliSafe.
How many days left? So many. 14, but 1399, something like that. We're in the 13s, for sure. How many days? Are you asking the new China AI or the? No, duration day 2029. Seems like that should have just been something Google gave me the answer to.
Google's broken. The Google ad. 14. Oh, I use chat GPT for everything. Yeah. All right. You're right. I'm being stupid. There won't be an inauguration day in 2020. Gee, 1454, 154 days. I thought we were at 14.06.
when we talked about this. That's until election day. Oh, that's what I was. That's until election day, 14. Yeah, 24 till inauguration day. Nothing much happens between the election and the inauguration as we've found. This is good content. We should use it for the show. All right. I think we're rolling.
Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm John Favera. I'm John Lovett. I'm Tyler Dator. On today's show, Trump is making good on his promise to go to war with the federal government from loyalty screenings to dismantling diversity programs to pausing cancer research. We'll talk about which moves are more performative and which you should actually worry about. Democrats are finally beginning to talk and argue more openly about how to respond to all this craziness. We'll go through what we think is productive, what's a waste of time, and how the race for DNC chair
plays into all of it. Some news on that front. Stay tuned. Then, Dara Lind, longtime immigration journalist and now a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council stops by to talk to Tommy about what's really happening with deportations and immigration policy and why it matters.
But first, let's talk about the brief skirmish our president got us into with the Colombian government on Sunday, one of our biggest allies in South America. Basically, Trump tried to send a few military planes carrying deported migrants to Colombia. Colombia's leftist president, Gustavo Petro, said not so fast. His country would stop accepting these flights until the US could guarantee a process where the migrants were treated with dignity.
Apparently, this was all in response to Trump's use of military aircraft for these transfers. Columbia has allowed hundreds of flights carrying deported migrants on civilian aircraft under the Biden administration.
Trump was not too happy about this. So he announced that the US would be retaliating with a 25% tariff on all goods coming into the US from Columbia, which would rise to 50% in one week. Just a reminder, we buy a lot of coffee, a flowers, oil from Columbia. So that would likely mean higher prices on those things. Petro then threatened retaliatory tariffs of 25% on US goods imported to Columbia in a very long post where he also referred to Trump as a white slaver.
Said that he'd rather die than give in and confess that although he finds the US a bit boring. He does like Walt Whitman, Paul Simon, and Noam Chomsky. It's a good list. Yeah, and then on Sunday evening he did give in. White House press secretary Caroline Levitt put out a statement saying Columbia had completely backed down that the tariffs would be held quote in reserve and added quote, today's events make clear to the world that America is respected again. Love it or love it. And included it.
No, no, no, no. Get on the show. Get her on. Included a warning to all other countries not to make the same mistake. I think the Colombians did say we did get some promises for better conditions for the migrants coming back. They got nothing. They got nothing. What'd you guys make of this as a governing strategy, a foreign policy strategy, and a political strategy?
I mean, it's like classic Trump, right? He's the arsonist and the firefighter. You know, it's like, Patro's an interesting guy. He was a, he joined a Marxist, uh, guerrilla group as a teenager and then transitioned into politics. So he's not someone who's scared to fight. We all did crazy things as kids, you know? Yeah. Yeah. No, we were wild, wild group this table with the mathletes. Couple left wing gorillas right here.
Some of my mentions I sometimes have. I do think Petro screwed up here. He gave Trump a win. He overreacted. I think he claims that there was a video. You don't think he should have named Chomsky? Well, there was a deportation flight to Brazil that went viral on social media where people were handcuffed. And then there was the news that the US is going to use military aircraft to fly these deportation flights.
And I think a couple of Latin America experts I talked to think that Petra decided he could pick a fight here and it would help him politically. And then when people in Colombia realized that this might mean economic damage from tariffs or no visas for them to travel to the US, they decided that was way worse and he backtracked very, very quickly.
But I do think broadly from Trump, we're going to see a lot of this, picking fights with Democrats or leftists on immigration, bullying small countries to get little wins, and then acting like that wasn't a strategy available to every US president ever, just to be a dick to Columbia. But ultimately, I think it's counterproductive, and it raises questions about the US as a long-term ally. The Chinese are already trying to capitalize on it, so it's just stupid. Nerd shit from Tommy.
Oh, they're going to capitalize it. This was Trump at his bet. No. Like when I saw it unfolding, when I saw the folding, what my honest first thought was, it was like, this couldn't have been scripted better for Trump if Trump hadn't paid this guy in Trump coins. I thought that too. The White House, they must have been like, are you fucking kidding me? This is awesome. Because trade wars.
Tariffs, a lot of what Trump is promising, it's much easier to promise as a candidate because in reality, there are terrible, terrible trade-offs. And by the way, there are also terrible trade-offs in having a capricious American president like upending our reputation as a stable and safe.
Allied like there is incredible value for Americans day-to-day and having a president that is seen as a reliable partner because yes It may mean there are times we have to compromise and give with your partners, but you're a trading partner They can count on you're a country. They can count on But he doesn't give a shit about any of that so he gets this incredible easy win right like obviously like you know I saw people on social media be like and you know our copy is gonna be more expensive but like
This is bullying. You can bully a small country because they need us more than we need them. He knew that from the jump. This guy caves. It's just another great news cycle for Donald Trump. I did see some people on social media, various social media platforms, like cheering on the Colombian president and quoting from his statement and being like,
Oh, he's, he's, he's, you know, throwing down with Trump and look at this. I'm here for this. This is great. And it's like, guys, let's not, this is not the way to, this is not the way to respond to this. I do want to talk about it in the context of like Trump using tariffs as a threat to get what he wants from other countries, which
You know this situation made me realize oh, this is why he loves tariffs so much because he's yeah, it's leverage and he thinks he's gonna This is how he's gonna get his foreign policy objectives achieved according to Trump advisors who spoke to the Wall Street Journal Trump is quote very serious about hitting Mexico and Canada with 25% tariffs this Saturday February 1st even before any negotiations just wants to hit him with the tariffs and
just to prove that he's not bluffing, apparently. The journal also reports that Mexico and Canada, quote, are quietly expressing confusion and bewilderment because they aren't even sure what Trump wants. What do you think's going on there? Have you ever seen the movie Marathon Man? No.
In movie marathon man and evil Nazi dentist, kidnaps Dustin Hoffman to demand answers. And the movie is chilling and terrifying because Dustin Hoffman actually genuinely does not have the answers. He thinks he's part of this plot, but he's not. And that's what I thought about. That's what happened to Canada. That's currently what's happening to Canada. Oh no, Justin Trudeau. Yeah. Dustin Hoffman could be Trudeau in a movie.
Uh, you see it? Yeah, a little shorter. Throw your hair out, get some lifts. I think it's going to look like Castro. Yeah, you know, Castro. The journal story mentions also that Canada has already pledged to spend nearly a billion dollars to harden its southern border with us, which is one of Trump's big demands. And then Claudia Shainbaum, the new president of Mexico, has cracked down a migration through Mexico to our southern border and down a bunch of high-profile drug seizures. So Trump is getting what he wants from both of these presidents already. And I guess, and he's just going to tear off them as a negotiating position.
I guess my reactions to this were, one, we probably shouldn't underestimate that there's a bunch of people in the White House that are bullies and assholes and want a wheeled power for the sake of just showing that they can, and that could be what's happening here. How else would you explain?
you know, not telling someone what you want from them before you punish a sovereign country. I also think it sounds like Trump is going to try to renegotiate the USMCA agreement, which was what they called the renegotiated NAFTA. Yeah, which is just renegotiated by a horrible president who let that get renegotiated Donald Trump's Trump.
And I think they're mad about it because they feel like, I don't think Jared Kushner got that much out of that deal. And then finally, it's probably not a coincidence that we're talking about Trump messing with leftist and liberal governments in Columbia, Mexico, in Canada. In Canada, in particular, Trump is trying to soften up the liberal party as much as he can because they have an election.
My like serious reaction to all this is like, yeah, it's probably be good if the Canadians knew what we wanted. It would also be good if America knew what we wanted as well, because the question I have around what Trump has promised to do, we'll talk about it later, like there's a lot of places where Trump has hit the ground and just sort of like putting in place big policy changes. But actually hasn't really done that on tariffs. He's promising an announcement on tariffs as soon as February 1, and he's threatening big tariffs on China, on Mexico.
uh... on on canada on russia sanctions on russia too and then you you dig into it and it's like well you know you want to support american car manufacturing one problem with that is a lot of parts that are that that are involved in manufacturing cars in america come from canada and come from mexico how will that impact our ability to make cars and states are very real implications in the details really matter and we don't have
any of them. And so the broader question is, is he going to, whatever he announces on February 1st, if he announces anything at all, is it a big show with targeted tariffs, more like what we saw in the first term, or is he serious? And I just think we don't know. My reaction is I wonder what's going to happen when someone calls his bluff. It's like, all right, let's do it. You're like, tariff us, and then we're going to do retaliatory tariffs. And Trump's bet is the political pain that he will face here
from all of us having to pay higher prices because that's who pay for a trade war us will be not as great as the political pain faced by the other leaders at home for the higher prices and the economic damage that they'll have to deal with from the trade war and that maybe the political pain here that he'll face will be short-lived because eventually those other countries will give in because they will they're probably smaller countries or at least have a smaller economy because most
Countries in the world do right or the people just wanted to see him fight they don't necessarily care about the impact it's also given to what right like this is just like Tariff taking off whatever weird thing he asked for right like who knows what he's gonna ask for but I think he just it's just to show it's a show of strength but I do think like
I think at some point when you start pushing all of these allies and countries around, you start beating the shit out of them on tariffs, you're going to push them into the arms of China, into the arms of other countries. At some point, losing a bunch of allies is going to come back to bite you in the ass. It is the type of thing for Trump that maybe not short-term, short-term, married everyone be like, oh, this is funny. He won a new cycle against Columbia. At some point, you're going to need those allies.
You're beating up Columbia. You're going to try to annex Panama. You're going to try to steal Greenland. I mean, people are going to notice this stuff. They don't love it. You know, I was going to notice that the Chinese. And then I just long term, my question through all of this is how bad do the impacts of what Trump is doing on America have to be to overcome the advantages he has in how news is distributed and received, right? And how much his team will be on his side to argue that either things aren't happening or they're not his fault or whatever it may be.
I mean, that's going to be limited by people paying higher prices, right? If like, if suddenly they, this gets out of control with one of these countries and people start paying a lot more for whatever good is affected by the tariff, then that's going to, then, you know, it doesn't really, it matters less what the, what the media environment is. Right. And, you know, as we just find out over the last four years.
And beyond tariffs, everyone's like, how's this going to help the price of X? They're killing tens of millions of chickens now. There's a genuine bird flu crisis unfolding that is going to affect prices. And Donald Trump is president. He owns these things.
Yeah, well, we also pulled out of the World Health Organization and can't even work with the World Health Organization anymore. So one of the things that we're not going to get anymore is alerts from around the world about the developing avian flu pandemic in other countries. That's good news. Where are the epicenter? Yeah, well, as it mutates, that's what you get. You get memos from other countries and you get alerts and we're not going to get those anymore.
Positive America is brought to you by Mint Mobile. 2025 is here and Mint Mobile has a resolution for you. Skip the gym, skip the fad diets, skip the BS, resolutions you'll forget about by next month. Instead, make a resolution to save some serious cash by making the switch to Mint Mobile. And right now, you can get half off their three-month unlimited plan. Kirk and Stafford need a ditch-year-old wireless plan and switch to Mint Mobile. Here's what she had to say. I'm saving $40 a month. I love, love, love this service and recommend it to everyone I know.
There you go. It's time to leave your overpriced wireless plans, jaw-dropping monthly bills, unexpected overages, and all of their other BS behind in 2024. Mint Mobile is dropping huge savings for the new year by offering any three-month plan for only $15 a month, even their unlimited plan.
All plans come with high-speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. You can even bring your current phone and your number. Ditch overpriced wireless plans with Mint Mobile. It's so easy. Sign up online and get three months of premium wireless service for $15 a month.
Switch to Mint Mobile and new customers can get a half off an unlimited plan until February 2nd. To get your new wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month and get the plan shipped to your door for free, go to mintmobile.com slash crooked. That's mintmobile.com slash crooked. $45 upfront payment required equivalent to $15 per month. New customers on first three month plan only. Speed slower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees and restrictions apply. See Mint Mobile for details.
Trump's also fighting a war at home, mostly against the government he now leads. He capped off his first weekend office by meeting with hurricane survivors in North Carolina and inspecting the fire damage in California, a trip where he floated eliminating FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. On Saturday, he held a thank you rally in Las Vegas, where he congratulated himself and the MAGA faithful on everything they were accomplishing together, including notably this. I signed an order that will end all of the lawless diversity, equity, and inclusion nonsense.
all across the government and the private sector. We abolished 60 years of prejudice and hatred with the signing of one order, all approved by the United States Supreme Court. We're allowed to do it because we are now in a merit-based world. We're a merit-based country.
Just feels so merit-based. I feel it every day. I just see the press releases come out of this White House and I think best of the fucking best. You know? At the keyboards. All those billionaires sitting behind them, all merit-based. So that seems to be a reference to both the Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action in 2023 in college admissions.
And Trump's promise to eradicate diversity equity inclusion programs, also known as DEI, wherever they exist, but especially in the federal government. On Monday, Trump signed more of these anti-DEI executive orders, this time targeted at the military, which is now led by Defense Secretary Pete Hegsef.
who's squeaked by in a Senate vote where JD Vance had to break the tie on Friday night. Those EOS included one that looks like it will ban transgender Americans from serving in the military based on military readiness. This is according to the New York Post. Dan and I went through some of the executive orders from the first week on Friday's show, but there's some other moves we should mention.
On Friday night, Trump also fired more than a dozen inspectors general. Those are independent watchdogs whose job it is to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in government agencies. He has frozen most foreign aid, even aid in the process of being handed out with the notable exception of military aid to Israel and Egypt. He also said of Gaza that we should, quote, clean out the whole thing and have Gazans move to Egypt and Jordan. Trump also put a pause on all travel communication and meetings at the National Institutes of Health
including grant review panels that green light funding for critical research into cancer and deadly diseases. Though apparently the acting NIH director sent an email today and a memo trying to clear things up said that clinical trials are still ongoing and that the restrictions don't apply to clinical trial participants or purchasing supplies for ongoing research.
But there's some confusion among researchers over what that means. So there's a lot of just mayhem going on at the NIH. Was this incompetence? Were they trying to put a pause on this? No one knows. But I guess it was a really rough week for NIH researchers who were doing everything from
You know, looking into cancer research and all kinds of other diseases and they had to sort of pause everything during this chaos. And the CDC, as I just mentioned, has also been ordered to stop working with the World Health Organization, which we pulled out of thanks to Donald Trump. Trump also fired or reassigned hundreds of government officials and is making others take MAGA loyalty tests in order to keep their jobs, a bunch of people who did not pass the loyalty test, all of the people involved in investigating him for both January 6th and the classified documents case.
I think in the department of justice, they were all fired just today on Monday. You think it would be that hard to just make it through one episode of Gutfeld? It's at the test. Your eyes is pried open like clockwork. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Tommy passed the loyalty test by by through Jesse Waters interview. With that bone structure? He's a hex up guy, this guy. Get on that team. You can sneak Tommy in. Where to begin? What's most alarming to you guys of all that?
Oh, we're ranking, we're choosing our favorites. It's just something that stuck out of you. When you read it all, something was like, ugh. So when you look at the, there's a great episode of strict screening about some of these orders that you should listen to, but what jumped out at me and what they...
talked about as well, is they're calling it DI. It's obviously going much further than that. People have talked about that. It's going deep into just the rules that have been been in place since Lyndon Johnson to protect basic civil rights. It's going after civil rights rules. There's an EO that was about federal contracting and making sure there's no discrimination in federal contracting that was signed by Lyndon Johnson that was part of the Equal Opportunity Employment Act.
But what really jumped out is the ways in which it is empowering government agencies and, by the way, private citizens to go after private companies that may have DEI policies. Because if you're going to become a federal contractor, you have to assent to certain statements in these EOs that could make you liable, and it's going to make a lot of these companies afraid
that their diversity policies run afoul of this they're a government contractor a private citizen can claim this is an abuse of the federal contracting system which they're legally allowed to do and it's another example of trying to kind of in the it's it's a part of an ideological trend right it goes has to do with the same as like the the don't say gay bill in florida which is you empower private citizens to be a watchdog and you basically
uh, uh, uh, try to intimidate private individuals, private companies, uh, for fear of being sued and dragged into courts, the bounty law, uh, in Texas. There's just other examples of this and they're implementing that now in these federal contracting rules. I think why the Supreme Court affirmative action ruling comes into play here too, is that some of these companies that are now sort of rolling back
DEI programs are and have been concerned for a little while since the Supreme Court decision, which was about universities and colleges and admissions process, that maybe their policies run afoul of the Supreme Court decision, and now Trump doing this only strengthens that.
Did you see the Trump team set up like an email account where you can snitch on whatever entities, companies, whatever. In fact, you're encouraged to. They're still promoting DEI, but now it's getting mass spammed with just nonsense and bullshit. Porn. Love it. Yeah, that's great. It's more of that. DEI-A-Truth at OPM. A is accessibility as well, so it's DEI. Be a real shame. It's disabled workers, catches fucking strays. Jesus. It's also, it's like you have to
They are now a lot of people on the right include a lot of people in the Trump administration. You know, they've started to like, it's a slippery slope on how they're defining DEI now. Now it's like, oh, that the head of the Coast Guard is a woman. She's just focused on the DEI. Get her out of there. Well, they hated that. They hated that California lesbian fire chief until she started making fun of Mayor Bass. And then they were like, we're back in. That's what I'm talking about. The lesbian fire chief said something we agree with. So everybody chill out. Yeah.
The US military, though, is a good example of an organization that needs an effective DEI program. Because if you look at across the US military, the proportion of black service members, it's well over-represents the total US population. But they are wildly underrepresented at the general officer level, especially at the three-star, four-star level. It's extremely white and extremely male at the very top.
And that's because of overt racism in some cases or just structural problems or cultural challenges in other cases and should be fixed and could be fixed. But like Tom Cotton is mad that an army unit had to read a Robin D'Angelo book one time and they are just like throwing out the entire program. And the result is we're not allowed to teach people about the Tuskegee Airmen anymore for like 24 hours. It's just a stupid overreach.
Yeah. Well, maybe no more Robin D'Angelo books is probably just like, this is what this is, but this is throw them at the enemy. It is clear that in workplaces, in government, that people of color and women are just have not been represented because of historic racism and structural inequality, right, that we have faced for decades and decades.
And then I think what happened is a lot of these DEI programs not only sort of focused on making sure that there were diverse workforces and that we're focusing on diversity in hiring and pay and promotion, but also these like unconscious bias training programs, which I think is what rubbed quite a few people the wrong way who aren't just mega.
For sure. It's just the proportion of time spent on those programs in the US military compared to everything else they're doing is zero. And this is just a wild overreach. No, and that's like Chris Rufo and all those assholes. They decided to highlight all that stuff. And so they made people think the DEI is that and not just trying to have equitable workforces, which we've wanted to have for a long, long time and have it. You see this, right?
They ban DI, then all of a sudden the Tuskegee Airmen are out of some training. We should explain that a little bit, because you just kind of mentioned it quickly, but the Tuskegee Airmen, because of the let's eliminate all DEI, there was a directive sent out that people in the military could no longer even learn about the Tuskegee Airmen or other groups of underrepresented people who have done
you know, heroic things in the military. War two heroes. War two heroes, right? Uh, there's also the women air force service pilots or the wasps. Um, and that, that video was gone for all that. He was gone for a while too. And then after like 24 hours, everyone was like, Oh, I guess, I guess that's okay to teach. I guess we could bring that back.
First of all, when I saw wasps, they've been teaching about wasps. I thought those weren't minorities. I thought this is America. You can't teach about Tommy. Finally, Tommy said hard. Tommy's taken out of the training video, but talking about catching stress. But over and over again, these executive orders are political documents. They are not written to govern. So they put out this
overreaching rule, and nobody really knows exactly how to implement it. They're afraid of getting on the wrong side and getting drawn into Trump's evil eye. You see this rule about nobody at the NIH being allowed to communicate. Like, does that mean we can't pay our bills? Does that mean we have to stop research? Like, no, no, no, no, no. And it's all kind of, now, is it intended to make people feel intimidated and unsure? Is it just incompetence? It doesn't really matter. It shows a lack of care. It's effectiveness.
was in the but importantly i think the effect is yes that it's going to make people feel like here here's the the long-term process it may be invisible to most americans in the short-term but long-term this is going to buy this in the ass because who's going to work in government now who can work in the federal government and not like
women are going to feel like they that they're not included uh... people call are going to feel like they're not included you know black people latino people like that this is going to go but also like there are people at every level of federal government who are being fired right now who are experts in their field but because they're not maga loyalists they can't work in the federal government who's going to want to work at the national institute of health like a lot of these people and go get private sector jobs pay them a lot of money like who's going to work it's we're going to haul out the federal government now which a lot of
You know, I realize a lot of voters think, eh, federal government, what does that do for me? It's big, it's big and bloated and wasteful and blah, blah, blah. These are people who are like funding, these are people who are doing like important research, medical research. These are people at the lawyers at the Department of Justice. There was some, there was a program where people out of law school were getting like really good law school students and their third year at law school got all these, they had got grants and they were had jobs in the Department of Justice and they just froze all of those jobs and like all those people are out of work now.
I saw a doctor talking about this on social media and I found it really heartbreaking, which he said, you know, if you have a member of your family who has a very serious illness that they may not survive and you're at the doctor's office and you're saying you have to try something, you have to try something, isn't there anything you can do? And there's like the anything you can do, the last-ish thing you can try are the kinds of research that happened at the National Institute of Health.
And Trump doesn't care about that. These people don't care about that. They should want to destroy these institutions. Even the trans ban, I remember when the first trans ban for military service went out. And at the time, it just talks about how much things have changed. Everyone was outraged, in part because it was done so haphazardly. It was just issued. It wasn't clear how it was going to be implemented. It wasn't sure what it would mean for current service members. You look at this document that they've put out.
And it's still not clear what they're talking about, right? Because they say, oh, the military will no longer, for readiness, you can't have people who are in transition. And oh, by the way, you can't use the pronouns of your choice. But what about service members who transition long ago and have been serving their country with distinction this entire time?
Is it because they were using the wrong pronouns? What if they use the pronouns that you demand for them? Are they allowed to stay? How does this get implemented? They don't care. They don't care what this does because they don't care about service. They don't care about these basic values. And so they throw these soldiers to the wolves because they're ideologically inconvenient.
Yeah, it's just broad. They're just sweeping everything off the table. They're freezing all foreign aid except for things that directly support Israel's security. Well, that means that the Times had a piece over the weekend about how the State Department office that funds the cleanup of unexploded bombs all over the world now has to cease operations.
So what happens usually when you have a cluster munition and 10% of it doesn't go off. It's called a dud. They just sit around and you'll find some little kids and they pick them up and they fucking play with them because they look interesting and they blow off their arm. And that's who's going to get hurt by these programs. And it's like, why did we need to pause on the cleanup of unexploded ordinance? Like there's no, there's no ideological viewpoint on that. It's crazy. How about everything we're funding overseas for like helping with disease and HIV and all this? Like, oh, yeah. The PEPFAR.
Yeah, frozen. Just frozen. One of the most successful Republican initiatives ever. Who knows? It's early, and maybe this all gets started back up in the pause ends in a couple of weeks. But what was this for? We're just going to hurt a bunch of people in the meantime? No, it was, I forget what it was. Some US senator found out that some tiny fraction of money, six grand out of tens of billions of dollars, was used for abortion services. And I think that led them to just unravel the entire program.
It's crazy. Apparently, they just put all the top officials at USAID on leave, just got rid of all of them, like career people, not even political appointees. Jim Risch of Idaho figured out that something like $4,100 had been spent by the government in Mozambique on abortions. That money was already funded, but they've put the entire PEPFAR program in jeopardy.
Yeah, so we're going to pick out the worst, but it's pretty much all of them. It's pretty, it's pretty bad. It's pretty bad, the war on the government. And I, it's, it's so frustrating and infuriating because I do think this is a hard one to break through to most people, right? Like, you know, in the, what's going to be most effective to talk about politically pile, right? Like his war on the federal government, I don't think is going to be high up there, but it is extremely damaging. And again, next time there's a pandemic, what's going to happen? What's going to happen?
Yeah, or or some other crisis or some other disaster where we need the federal government to protect Americans
Pod to America is brought to you by uplift desk. Physiotherapy, chiropractors, massage therapy, they're all places you turn when you need them, but going to these appointments every few months may not give you the ultimate results you're looking for when it comes to your well-being. It takes daily, even hourly opportunities to move your body to make the biggest difference while uplift desk can help you prioritize movement throughout your work day. Uplift desk is at the forefront of ergonomic solutions, promoting better posture and health through adjustable standing desk designed to help you live a healthier lifestyle. Plus, they have all kinds of accessories to keep you moving throughout the day, even if you work only a few hours at your desk.
I love a standing desk. I love the uplift standing desk. As I'm recording this in the studio, I'm hunched over and it's terrible. All of us are sitting terribly all the time. Our posture is all fucked up. You should have a standing desk. A desk should fit the user, which is why uplift desks have a lot of customization options so you can build your perfect workspace with more than 200,000 configurations. Uplift desk allows you to tailor your workspace to perfectly suit your style and needs, empowering you to create an environment that inspires productivity and creativity. Their desk configurator
Let's you build out a complete workstation with storage seating and wire management. Make this year yours by going to uplift desk dot com slash cricket and use our code cricket to get four free accessories, free, same day shipping, free returns and an industry leading 15 year warranty that covers your entire desk and an extra discount off your entire order. That's U P L I F T D E S K dot com slash cricket and use code cricket for a special offer. And it's only available at our link start 2025. Right. Stan move thrive with uplift desk.
Apparently there is another political party in this country. They're known as the Democrats. Yeah, Democrats. That's right. I've never heard it said. We haven't read it. We haven't heard much from them lately. Politico had a good piece about how much more low-key the resistance to Trump is this time around. It noted that almost none of the top early contenders for the 2028 Democratic nomination had put out statements about the January 6th pardons or Elon Musk's
Salute, whatever it was. Lots of quotes in the story, mostly from anonymous strategists. Great. About how Democrats are, quote, rudderless and over learning their lessons. In general, there is still a lot of backward looking recriminations about what we did wrong in last year's election as evidenced by this viral clip of Stephen A. Smith on Bill Maher the other night. Let's listen. Here's the deal. The man was impeached twice. He was convicted on 34 felony counts.
And the American people still said, he's closer to normal than what we said. Exactly. That's what they're saying. He's closer to normal. Why? Because something that pertains, when you talk about the transgender community, for example, and you're talking about the issues that pertain to less than 1% of the population, the Democratic Party came, of course, as if that was a priority, more so than the other issues.
And so he comes in the office, now you're talking about childbirth, citizenship, and what have you. He knows that's not going to pass the mustard, but he knows that he made that promise. So when he shows up week one on Capitol Hill, he says, this is what we're going to do through an executive order, even though it's going to be
shot down through the courts and what have you. He's saying, I kept my promise. A lot of other things that he's going to point to that he's going to try to do. I kept my promise. Then you turn around and you look at the left and you say, what promises did you keep? Now, you might know the answer to that. I'm certainly not questioning your knowledge about that at all. What I'm saying is, what resonated with the voter.
What voter out there can look at the Democratic Party at this moment in time and say, there's a voice for us, somebody that speaks for us, that goes up on Capitol Hill and fights the fights that we want them fighting on our behalf. They didn't do that. And that's why they're behind the home. And that man is back in the White House. And they want to sit up there and talk. You look at the networks right now. They're talking about it. Look at it. This is the latest. Look at him. Here he goes again. Well, you know what here he goes again means?
He's doing what he said he was going to do. He promised you he was going to do these things, and he walked into office week one, and that's exactly what he's doing. And he said, y'all do something about it. And when you try to do something about it, he's going to say, look at them now. Now they're concerned about these issues. Were they talking about that during the campaign? Hell no. That's really it.
So what'd you guys think of Stephen A's argument there? I get why this went viral. I get that it resonates on an emotional level for some people because we're all mad at Democrats because we got our asses kicked and we're mad about the election. We're mad about Joe Biden, but he's just so wrong on so many different levels. I mean, Republicans, Democrats didn't make the whole election about trans rights. Republicans ran tens of millions of dollars of attack ads on TV attacking Kamala Harris on this issue. That's why it was salient. And then Stephen A's- Well, because of what she said.
in 2019, not in 2024. And then Stephen A's definition of Trump keeping his promise is putting forward an executive order on birthright citizenship that he knows will get struck down in court. That is not how Joe Biden was judged. Like when Biden put forward a student loan forgiveness plan and it got struck down by a Republican Supreme Court, everyone got mad at Joe Biden and said he was feckless. Like I'm not here to make excuses for Democrats or Biden or Harris or say the campaign was good, but it's like, it's a 50-50 electorate.
There was an anti-incubmit wave. Trump is not delivering for the American people in some profound way right now. It's just all vibes. And I get the vibes and the anger driving them. But he points to Rokana. He's like, you might know all the details of the things Joe Biden promised and did deliver on. I didn't bother to Google them. And it's just like, come on, man. Yeah.
It's so frustrating, right? Because you see that clip and you're like, well, let's break it down, right? Let's explain all the ways that this is wrong, right? All the ways in which actually Joe Biden delivered on a lot of his promises and Donald Trump is going to and has all Donald Trump failed in his first term on virtually every promise that he made other than cutting taxes for the richest people that Joe Biden had more deportations while he was president than Donald Trump had while he was president, right? There's a lot of ways to break it down. What was interesting to me about the clip is like,
You see like a kind of conventional wisdom, kind of taking hold in real time, and you see like this kind of, like Bill Maher says exactly, and the whole audience applauds.
I've tried to think like if Kamala Harris had won, like what is the list of big executive orders she could have signed in the first day that would have had like rapturous applause was like, she's fucking doing it. She's delivering on what she said she's going to do. It's happening. It's happening. And like that's not to say that like that part of that is just the failures of incumbency, right? Like. Well, I was going to say it would feel different because she will have taken office not after four years of the other party. You just unravel what the other guy just did. That's what all these eos are.
And there was a little bit of that when Biden won, right? And then remember the first week. I got back in Paris. And boy, did that make a difference? But the reason I bring that up is only to say, yes, it is different when you're trying to run to replace someone in your own party versus replace someone in the opposite party. But I think back to 2006, and I remember all the Democrats campaigning for the House, and they had their checklist of the things that they were going to do if they won, and the things that were going to stop it, the anti-corruption measures, raising the minimum wage. There's a whole list.
of simple to understand policies. And like, forget, yes, we asked, we have asked and answered, we paid in blood for Joe Biden, giving up the bully pulpit. Like, yes, now we're talking about all these Democrats kind of overthinking like, how are we going to respond to this? Let's get out the advocates and like move the move the move the
move the beads around to figure out the perfect response. And I can't possibly start speaking until I know exactly what my overall vision is for the future of the country. And it's like, is that the lesson you draw from the last four years? Get the fuck out there. Get out there. Start responding. Tell the truth. How about that? Like, you're asked about what you think about the January 6th pardons.
Tell us what you think of them. You're worried about what's happening at the National Institute of Health. Tell us what you're thinking about it. You don't leave the field and build some playbook for how to respond and defeat Donald Trump. You get out there and you start doing it. You see what works. You see what doesn't. That whole piece was just a bunch of people kind of trying to like.
We're going to crack the code finally a long last. Yeah, the political piece was just all about how we're going to crack this fucking code. And it's like, guys, everybody's applauding Stephen A. Smith for this, like, this rant of, like, basically easy to refute nonsense. Where are we? Here's what I found frustrating about this Stephen A. Smith thing is it.
It sort of pulls you in and your first instinct is to tick off why all the reasons it's wrong, right? Because you want to defend, right? And then suddenly you find yourself like defending Joe Biden's record for four years, which by the way, there was a lot of good things. We've said this and also saying things like,
guess what Joe Biden didn't really couldn't really control inflation right that was that was you know and also republicans picked out a bunch of culture and identity issues that yes democrats gave them some ammo on but they get more attention in this information environment culture and identity issues than the fights that we want to pick as democrats right so you can explain away why this happened and yet that perception is real about the party and so you don't want to just be like running against the perception that's there and so like
I don't know. All you can say to Stephen A. Smith is like, you know what? Yeah, we want people want Democrats. People don't want excuses. They want politicians who are going to actually go out there and fight for them and give a damn and look like they give a shit and not look like they are reading. I said this on Fridays, pause, Dan's line, but like reading the fucking stage directions.
Already I feel like I feel like sometimes giving messaging advice to Democrats is like giving fucking kids matches You know it's like you say something about like inflation and the cost of living and suddenly they're all out there being like That's not gonna do anything to lower the price of eggs that it's like come on make it fucking believable guys It's not believable right now. No one is out there thinking that Donald Trump is gonna lower the price of eggs or lower the cost of everything after a fucking week I think that
What was annoying about some of the statements you guys talked about was, you're right. You don't have to combine the cost of eggs and January six pardons. It's bad to pardon insurrectionists that beat up cops. What I think I found so annoying about Stephen A's kind of the end of his rant is he was criticizing Democrats for criticizing Trump or trying to block Trump or being an opposition party. And it's like in 2008, when Barack Obama won 365 electoral votes, did the Republicans just like lay down arms and give up?
No, they filibustered every single thing we did. That's the role of an opposition party. You're going to disagree with the president and you're going to talk about it. And he makes them sound like they're just out there carping when the reality is that they're not really actually saying much. Saying anything, yeah. Trans issues keep coming up. And then people are like, it's 1% of the population. It's 1% of the population. Yeah.
It's a tiny group of people that are scared to go to the bathroom at the airport. And the Republicans have made trans issues the center of our politics. But I will say, John made the point, well, it's based on something she said in 2019. But I do think it's more than that. And it is a larger credibility issue. If Democrats had more credibility broadly with the American people on the big issues, the economy, on the cost of living,
on education, on healthcare, whatever it is. If Democrats had earned credibility, they were seen as fighters, as champions, for the people we need to be fighters and champions for. There would be more space to say, and you know what, we may not agree on trans issues, you may not be where I'm at yet, but I'm gonna fight for trans people every goddamn day.
been the case for decades. This used to be the case with abortion, right? When abortion was not when the pro-choice position was not as popular as it is now, and there were Democrats who would be in red or rural districts, and they'd say, Sherrod Brown always would tell stories like this. He would tell you about guns, right? He has a story in Ohio where
He's talking to these people and they're like, you know, well, I don't like your position on guns, right? I think, you know, I want to keep my gun, but I like you because you're for me and you've been fighting like hell for me, you know? And so like you're absolutely right about that. It's like right now it is overthinking every single thing.
And I think sometimes we, you know, let's do what we say people should do, which is like, we're like, let's explain why that's bad, right? Like we say that all the time, oh, you sound like you're reading from a message document. You sound like you're reading from a message document. Why is that so bad? Well, it's because if people don't believe you when you are talking about the economy or issues they really care about, because you sound like you're reading from a script. You sound like you sound like a normal politician. They're not gonna come along with you when you disagree. They're not gonna trust you when you see things a different way.
I also think that part of the whole price of eggs thing is Democrats aren't saying what we want Trump to do or what we would do. And when they spent four years attacking Joe Biden for all kinds of bullshit, they would say things that I didn't believe Trump would say, I'm going to do tariffs and that's going to fix those. I'm going to drill, drill, drill.
We cannot go around for the next year just saying that did not lower the price of eggs. That is not fucking sufficient. And you know why it's not sufficient? Because people aren't going to believe it. Because it's not believable to just go around saying that all the time. Have a story you tell about what working people are facing in this country, what we should do for working people, how we're going to make sure that everyone who works and actually pay their bills, have a whole fucking story about it. It just sounds bitchy. It's just so expensive. People are just not stupid. He's been president a week.
You know, it's going to take a minute. I have a little more sympathy for Democrats. He just took office. We're probably not hearing, like, Pat Ryan did a bunch of Twitter threads, talked to Playbook over the weekends, Congressman from New York, saying some smart, thoughtful, interesting things, framing, good focus, right? People are saying the right thing. There's just no leader. There's no megaphone. Nobody's getting picked up. No one's getting hurt. It's just the Trump show all day, every day.
But there's also not a lot of emotion, you know, like, I've seen Democrats, you know, or you give like a floor speech in the Senate, that's not going anywhere, or you're doing a video where you're talking about why this is, it's like, even the, it was interesting, even the way the political story was framed, how it's like they didn't.
Democrats didn't do statements on the Elon Musk thing or the J6 pardons, because they connected those both. And I'm like, those are nothing alike. It's like one matters and one does. That's what I was at. The Elon Musk thing, it's like, we're going to say you did a Nazi salute. He's going to say, no, I didn't. The conversation dies there. It's like, what are you going to you're going to win the great debate about whether he did the Nazi salute or not? That goes away. He disappears.
Talking about is AFD rally. That's a lot more relevant. Also, I just had a time story. The Trump administration has instructed organizations in other countries to stop dispersing HIV medications purchased with the USA, even if the drugs have already been obtained in our sitting in local clinics. What are we doing?
A tool go on day who has led the health programs for USAID, he tweeted this long thread about all the consequences of both freezing foreign aid from health perspective and having the CDC not work with the World Health Organization and that was part of that. This is just PEPFAR. PEPFAR saved 25 million lives and we're letting these drugs just sit on a shelf.
I do want to say like the January six pardons, though, like not speaking about that is crazy to me because like most importantly, they are dangerous in that they give right wing extremists a green light to go commit political violence, even against law enforcement because, hey, Trump's got their back, right? But they're also extremely unpopular, even if you just want to be political about it.
So why wouldn't you go out to the microphone somewhere and be outraged about that? And then I know that I'm glad all the Democrats are signed on to a resolution condemning the the the the the pardoning for the J6. It's like it's a minute. It's Monday
That's a week after this happened. What are you doing, guys? There's an insurrectionist that was already arrested on gun charges before recorded today. Jokes aside, there was one killed in an incident with police resisting arrest. These are dangerous people that don't forget politics, forget ideology. Donald Trump released 1,600 people, many of whom are very dangerous, and they're out there being arrested and causing mayhem right now. The QAnon shaman tweeted, time to go buy some guns.
Also, you know, when they, when they had this story this morning about the resolution, every Senate Democrat had signed on except John Federman. And at first there was a lot of criticism. I was like, what the fuck? What's wrong with him? He's not signing on to this. So then he signed on. So it was fine. And then someone asked John Federman, I guess just, just a couple hours ago, why didn't you sign on it first? He's like, no, no, no, I was out. Look, he was like, I've been against pardons for January 6th insurrection is forever. I've been on record. He goes, but I do think what we need is another, another performative, more performance art where we pass another resolution. That'll really, that'll really get him. And it's like,
Yeah. Okay. Okay, buddy. Your life is performance art. You wear shorts and hoodies to like the Senate floor to like send a message. Come on. But I do get where it's like, I would rather have Democrats have gone to the mic the morning after it happened with the Jay or six thing and like all of them with with Capitol police officers with everyone else and like shown some real emotion. Then I would an official resolution that passed. Well, I just think it's very easy to do both.
Yeah, I think the problem though is it's like really what you're saying is not so therefore our strategy should be to look for opportunities to show emotion and really what we're saying. It's like, and it's reading the stage directions. Just fucking do it. Well, right. Well, we wanted somebody who sees this happening unfolding and is like, fuck, I got to get out there. Yes. This is terrible. I'm going to go to the microphones and bring some people out. Is that too much to ask? You know what? Let's get. Hey, get a couple of Capitol police officers stand behind me because this is so outrageous. I'm furious. Not everything has to be planned, perfect, thought out. Just go fucking do stuff, guys.
And, you know, forget it. It's just, I don't think we're at this point a little. Okay, we're just. No, no, no, I'm in the traffic. I do think one of the other very funny things that I just want to bring up before we go is see an end of the story on this. And they talked about how this was all in the, and they had this meeting in the Senate Democratic caucus about how to go viral and the media environment, all that. And the CNN story said,
One of the, they call this a bright spots, the Democrats highlighted, according to a source familiar, was a viral video from the pandemic of Mark Warner making a tuna melt in his kitchen that led to the lawmaker being cheered and jeered by people who questioned his culinary leanings. That was the bright spot. That's the Senate. Going back, going back to 2020, like, Hey, remember when Warner had that viral tuna video or grilled cheese tuna melt? It was, it was.
A warm tuna. That's that's where we're at. That's the bright spot. The bright spot is hot kitchen tuna when it was such a badly made tuna sandwich. There's a microwave, right? Wasn't a microwave tuna melt? You did such a bad job making this thing that people got excited about it. So all these questions, uh, loom, especially large in the, uh, in the DNC chair race, uh, DNC members will vote for the new chair on Saturday. As you all know, uh, we here at the show, big Ben Wickler fans, uh, and supporters for a long time. We've talked about in this pot a million times, but.
We wanted to talk to any of the candidates who wanted to come on. I interviewed Ken Martin and Ben, Dan interviewed Faz Shakir on a Friday show. I personally think all three of them would make great DNC chairs. But maybe unsurprisingly, we were almost impressed with Ben's vision and his plans. And maybe we're all just hopelessly biased because we have known him and worked with him now since basically we've started this podcast. But even putting that aside, I think,
Wisconsin was the most Republican-leaning blue wall state in 2020, the third most Republican-leaning swing state of all in 2020 after Arizona and Georgia. Everyone was worried about it in 2024 because it's very rural, non-college-educated state. It ended up to the left of the national vote. That means that Kamala Harris did worse in the national popular vote than she did in Wisconsin. And the operation that Ben built was a huge part of that.
If we were voting members of the DNC, which they will probably never make us, he would get, he would get our vote. But what do you, what do you guys want to add? Siren. Potts of American doors. No. Add the siren in post. So first of all, I also like, was that.
Just based on our conversation, I also just think all three of them had very smart things to say in the conversations that you had with them on Ponzi America. In particular, I thought Faz talking about what it means for the Democratic Party to look like it's fighting for people.
and was very smart, and regardless of who's the DNC chair, I think that is really important. And it actually fits a lot with what Ben was talking about as well, and what we've been talking about, that it's not just about the right words or the right message, it's about picking the right fights, it's about breaking through and figuring out how to do that in this messy and noisy environment.
We talked about this a long time that if we could duplicate Ben Wickler and put him in all 50 states, we'd be much better for it. I think we've felt this personally just over the years of going to Wisconsin, that Wisconsin was this warning.
about what could this omen for what could happen in the country when a group of radicalized Republicans tried to do unpopular things and strip away democratic accountability for it. And as he said in your interview that they've been kind of on the edge of a cliff this entire time. But what's been exciting having gone to Wisconsin starting when we first did the show all these years later is watching them slowly build this operation and figure out how to respond to that kind of a threat and do it in a way that's successful. And like there are so many lessons from what Ben has done in Wisconsin that are valuable nationally.
Yeah, I mean, we're biased. I got met Ben in 2006, so it's like nothing against anyone else in the race. But I think one thing that we've all noticed about Ben is he has no off switch. You're getting texts from him 24-7 through 65 days a year about races big and small across Wisconsin, and he was able to raise money and awareness.
and build a state party organization that was always doing work, always organizing, always building and trying to get power back. And they started from a serious deficit in Wisconsin. And that doesn't mean they won every race, but that's not a fair expectation, but they didn't sit out any races. And I think that's the kind of mindset you want at the DNC. And it's also just like a vibe and a tenor and a tone. Ben, we went to lots of events and organizing sessions with him and trainings.
He's always preaching like an inclusive and empowering form of politics that I think would help out the party and translate well to the DNC and make people want to be a part of the Democratic Party. So I think you'd be great at it. All right. Well, and you know what? If you're listening and you're a DNC member and you're going to be voting and you like Ben or you think that Ben should be the chair, then I think it'd probably help in this last week to go public and making it probably more helpful than us because we're not voting.
i'm i'm i'm probably turned off a few people i think i look i think i think hopefully net positive hopefully not positive but if you're out there listening in you and you're thinking the same thing you know after the break you're gonna hear tommy's conversation with darland the american immigration council but two quick things before we do that
Late this episode of Assembly Required, Stacey Abrams is joined by Strix scrutiny's Melissa Murray to dissect the impact of Trump's sweeping executive orders from renaming Denali to ending birthright citizenship and what we can all do to protect our democracy. New episodes of Assembly Required drop every Thursday. Find them wherever you get your podcasts or on YouTube.
Also, we're out with our first post-election episode of Polar Coaster, Dan's subscriber-only show. In this episode, Dan takes a look at the early polling from Trump's return to office, unpacks the chaos that got us here, and tackles listeners' questions. To access this exclusive subscriber series, enjoy ad-free episodes of Pod Save America, and more, subscribe now at cricket.com slash friends, or directly on Apple Podcasts. When we come back, Darwin.
Potsie America is brought to you by Fatty 15. That was my nickname in high school. I did that same joke last grade. Have you heard about C-15? It's an essential fatty acid that's naturally found in whole fat dairy products. But over time, our intake of these foods has decreased. Combined with the natural decline of C-15 as we age, many of us aren't getting enough of this important nutrient. Not me, because I've been taking Fatty 15 for the last three days. Oh yeah. Look how good I look.
You look amazing. Introducing Fatty 15's C15 supplement, a simple way to replenish your body with this essential fatty acid. Co-founder Stephanie Van Watson discovered the benefits of C15 while working with the US Navy. Backed by science and supported by over 100 studies, C15 helps support cell function and resiliency and can be a valuable part of your long-term health strategy.
Fatty 15 is vegan, 100% pure and free from flavors, fillers, allergens, or preservatives. Just pure C15 and a gorgeous glass jar. Can't confirm. Nice looking jar. It's designed to fit easily into your life with refills conveniently delivered to your door. Use even your C15 deserved to live the set it and forget it lifestyle. So do yourself a favor, replenish your C15, restore your health, and let your cells do the heavy lifting with Fatty 15. I'm excited to kick my lazy ass cells into gear this year.
Yeah, that's what 25 is all about. Yeah, it's all about them working for you. FADi15 is on a mission to optimize your C15 levels to help you live healthier, longer. You can get an additional 15% off their 90 day subscription starter kit by going to FADi15.com slash crooked and use code crooked at checkout.
So the Trump administration has been firing off executive orders left and right. Many of them seem extremely consequential. Some are glorified press releases, but many of the more consequential seeming EO's focus on immigration policy, which is why I am so excited to have Dara Lind on with me today. She's a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, an immigration policy expert, an excellent journalist. Dara, welcome to the show.
Thank you, it is, I mean, I can't say it's great to be on, right? But it's like, it's certainly the kind of moment that people with my expertise are in demand, I guess. Yeah, yeah, very much so because it is quite confusing and we're gonna turn a talk through some of the complexity and uncertainty of this moment, especially when it comes to immigration. So first question is just big picture. I mean, what do you think are the most important things that Trump has done so far when it comes to immigration policy?
I think that the most salient thing, and this is not just the day one executive orders, it's a lot of stuff that has come out since then, in the form of like departmental or agency memos or just in what people are seeing on the ground, is a really aggressive ramp up of interior enforcement against people who have been living in the United States, many of whom were given some form of protections under the Biden administration. We know that
The Trump administration has changed regulations so that anyone who is apprehended anywhere in the US who cannot prove to an immigration agent's satisfaction that they've been here for more than two years could be deported without a court hearing. Huge change. We know that they are making an effort to strip parole protections from people who came under the
Cuban Haitian Nicaraguan and Venezuelan parole programs, other Biden parole programs, when they encounter them, not that we don't know how broad that's going to be, but that those people will be considered vulnerable for deportation and that there might be efforts to take people who are in immigration court, close the immigration court case, and try to deport them without court hearing. And we know that they're stepping up
the use of, you know, agents from other agencies, whether that's DEA, ATF, that they're stepping up the use of military assets, including planes. And so, given that most of the biggest impediments to, like, deporting 11 million people were not legal but logistical, that kind of force multiplier could be a very big difference in how many people they're ultimately able to deport.
I wanted to ask you about that logistical point because you wrote in this great Times Up Ed after the election, but before inauguration, that the largest constraint on mass deportation is logistical and that deporting 1 million people per year would cost an annual average of $88 billion. Can you kind of unpack those logistics for us and explain whether you think there's kind of anything in that insight that opponents of Trump's immigration policy could use to fight it?
Sure, absolutely. So there are essentially four major steps that are generally taken to take somebody who is in the US without authorization.
and move them to being somebody who's been deported. The first is arresting them. The second is finding somewhere to keep them in custody, given that this administration doesn't particularly like releasing people pending, you know, their court hearings or pending further action. There's the court case itself, which, you know, they're trying to kind of abridge by using this expedited removal provision more aggressively, but like, you know, so that's kind of an optional one. And then four,
you have to physically deport them, you have to have the seat on the plane, and you have to have a country that's willing to accept them. So even if you look at what they've done over the last week and say, okay, in general, they're really trying to get rid of this third stage of the process wherever possible, that still leaves arrest, detention, and deportation. So the more agents they have on the ground who are not just ICE agents, but other agencies that are being tasked with immigration enforcement,
And the more they're able to enlist state and local police to do immigration enforcement, the easier the first one gets. The more they're able to build temporary facilities, especially using military money under
the emergency declaration that was one of the day one executive orders, the easier the second of those is. And the more that they can both use military planes and bully other countries. And we saw some of this over the weekend with a, you know, a standoff, a very brief standoff with the country of Columbia over the use of military flights to deport Colombian nationals. The more they can bully other countries to take back military planes or to take back a lot of ice air flights,
the easier the deportation part of that is. So those are kind of where I'm seeing the big variables right now. But ultimately, all of those are still resources. And even if you're tapping the DOD budget for a lot of things, Congress still has to, at a certain point,
You're going to either run out of ICE budget or Congress is going to have to appropriate in the future the kind of money that it anticipates that you're going to be running a Department of Defense that is also engaged in immigration enforcement. And so while in the short term, they're acting really, really aggressively, how long they can keep this up is going to depend on whether Congress is writing them a blank check or whether they're going to start asking questions about just how much can be spent on it.
And just to point four, I think, we don't have the best relations with Venezuela, for example. There are a lot of folks who have left Venezuela over the past decade or so and made their way north to the United States. What happens if Venezuela just says, no, American C-17s will never set down in our territory. I mean, do we get to a point where we're like having to coerce that militarily? Is that what Trump is threatening here?
We're not quite to that point yet because immigration law doesn't technically require you to deport somebody to the country where they came from. And this is where the diplomatic aspect of this gets very complicated and very important. In the recent past, under the Trump and Biden administrations, Mexico has agreed to accept some non-Mexicans, whether that's
temporarily while they await court hearings in the United States under the remaining Mexico program, which the Trump administration is now trying to restart, or whether that's actually taking people who are essentially being deported, but deported to Mexico.
whether and how many people they're willing to accept. And that is going to be a very important variable because it's so much easier to deport people back to Mexico than it is to fly them other places. You know, it's just so much cheaper that not only is that going to be a help on the logistical end, but also, as you mentioned, for countries like Venezuela, where it's not really foreseeable that you're going to have some kind of breakthrough where the Maduro government is going to like say, yes, this is awesome. We love the US now.
Having other places you can return them to starts to become a really important variable. We've already heard rumors that the government of El Salvador is very gung-ho about signing an agreement with the United States that will allow people to be deported to El Salvador who aren't from El Salvador. That sort of thing, you know, the more options that they have, the easier it's going to be for them to get around the recalcitrance of any one country.
Of course, Bukele is willing to take whatever number of people Trump wants to send to El Salvador. It seems to me that a lot of what's happened so far is PR and foreshow, right? I mean, I think the Trump administration is talking about the number of deportations over the weekend that may or may not be all that much above kind of the average you might have seen in terms of total deportations under the Biden administration.
I suspect part of it also is they want to pick fights with like Democrats in liberal cities. I mean, what kind of strategies do you think these progressives can take to push back that doesn't play into this sort of PR effort, but actually is impactful for people in communities that are being harmed? So I tend to think about this as like a, a, you know, coordinate plane, right? One axis is how likely is this to get a lot of headlines to generate a lot of the role, that kind of thing.
the other axis is how much does it increase scope? How much does it make it easier for them to put more people into the process and move them through the process? And you're right, a lot of the things like putting out a press release every single day can imply that more is being changed than actually is. That said, one of the reasons that we're not really seeing movement on the numbers yet is because
Some of the authorities they're tapping into haven't really scaled, like they haven't really been able to make plans for what doesn't ice raid look like when everybody's getting put into expedited removal proceedings, that sort of thing. So I think that the biggest reason that picking fights with blue cities is
You know, it's a big PR showdown is because in jurisdictions that don't have a lot of local cooperation with federal law enforcement, we're like, if they call up the city and say, you got to give us the addresses of everybody, you know, who doesn't have legal immigration status in cities that have laws requiring that information not to be shared.
It's a lot harder for them to arrest people, to identify who is removable and take them into custody. And so when they have these big raids on blue cities in the past, what we've seen is the numbers of actual arrestees, they get them out of them are very low. The biggest impact is in terms of freaking people out, getting people to not leave their homes, to not go to school, that sort of thing, which is a real harm. But it does mean that in kind of holding the line on lack of cooperation,
and lack of information sharing and certainly not, you know, offering like state and local resources to help with immigration enforcement that the amount of money that's being spent and time that's being spent is going to be greater
proportionally than the number of people who they are getting out of it who can then be arrested and deported, which means that those resources are then being taken from other things. Right, right, because a lot of the cooperation you've seen in the past has been federal officials going to local, state and county jails, right, and then picking people up there for deportation.
One other element of this is Trump is trying to end birthright citizenship. So that would end the practice of giving automatic citizenship to the US-born kids of undocumented immigrant parents or to the kids of foreign workers or students. So I think it's important to note that that latter category is people here legally.
When I talk with smart lawyers about the birthright citizenship, they say this is clearly unconstitutional, but if it gets to the Supreme Court, God help us. Does that sort of jive with your sense?
I mean, I have a general rule against engaging in Supreme Court punditry because I do think that to a certain extent, the law is whatever the judges say the law is. And heaven forbid they take that. They actually seize the reins of that power. But I do agree that I think that the way that this executive order was done, which is just saying, as far as we're concerned,
This is not who birthright citizenship applies to and we're not going to be honoring the citizenship of anyone who was born in the US under you know to these two parents who like have these particular you know this lack of status or temporary status after February 19th that that is we've already seen one preliminary ruling against it. I would be very surprised if it goes into effect as planned you know like
in a few weeks. That's not to say that the Supreme Court won't ultimately rule in favor of the administration on this one. But it is worth noting that this is, there's a pretty explicit century old Supreme Court precedent that even if the parents of the child cannot become US citizens, the child is still a citizen of the United States. And so they would be, it's not really a
reasonable people have disagreed on this for decades kind of situation. It's it is an effort to innovate the law in a particular direction. And so there's reason to believe that the Supreme Court is going to be a little more skeptical of this than they would be of other Trump administration policies.
Yeah, I mean, you mentioned there was this one ruling already from a judge. I believe was a Reagan appointee. He said, I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.
Yeah, he was steamed. And you know, the other thing about that case is the plaintiffs were extremely ready to file a complaint and the administration, despite the fact that it was, you know, that it was their government filed all of three pages and replied that we're basically not. So like, they're not doing at least so far. They're not doing a tremendously robust job of
If they truly believe this is what the law says, they're not doing the best job of showing up in court and saying that. Congress is also getting in on the act here, so they just passed a piece of legislation called the Lake and Riley Act, passed on a bipartisan basis. The bill got 64 yes votes in the Senate, 263 yes votes in the House, including 46 Democrats in the House. Can you give us just a quick overview of what the Lake and Riley Act does?
So there are two totally, like fairly separate parts of the law that are one of which is kind of, it expands immigration enforcement in a way that Congress often acts to expand immigration enforcement, and one of which is totally unprecedented and could unfold in very unpredictable ways. The first is that the Lincoln-Riley Act requires that the federal government
expeditiously take into custody, anybody who is arrested or charged with or convicted of a certain certain set of crimes, including theft charges. Now that by saying you can't you don't have to be convicted, you can just feel like accused essentially certainly does raise due process concerns. There are also prioritization concerns. Like if you're saying that
somebody that there's somebody in custody in rural Georgia, and you have to get in your patrol car and go immediately to go get that person, there are other enforcement actions you could be engaging in. But the other part of Lake and Riley says that states can sue the federal government to force the federal government to deport somebody who they've chosen not to execute a final order of deportation against, to detain somebody, or to stop visas for a category of visa or a country.
if the country is being recalcitrant in accepting deportees. Because there is on the books, the federal government has the power to take sanctions, and so if the federal government isn't taking these sanctions, the thing we're all thinking about is, okay, so what is stopping Ken Paxton?
from suing the federal government to force it to stop issuing H-1B visas to China, because China doesn't take quite as many deportees as the U.S. might like. That's kind of a real wild card.
We don't know how it's going to play out yet, but it certainly adds an interesting wrinkle to the dispute that we know is going on within the Trump administration over H1B and high skilled visas generally, because if the Trump administration goes in a more dovish direction than say the Bannon wing would like, they now have this legal tool that they can use to try to stop them.
Yeah, just to dig in on those two sort of pieces. I mean, look, I'm not a lawyer, but I thought that undocumented people had due process rights under the fifth and the 14th Amendment. This bill says, if you're just accused of basically petty shoplifting, you can be deported. I mean, that does not seem like due process to me. Am I wrong?
The fundamental thing you have to remember about immigration law is that deportation is not a criminal penalty. It is a simple penalty. And it's one you incur potentially simply by being in the US without authorization. You don't have to have committed any other any crime or anything else in order to be deportable. So what this does is say this person's already deportable by getting arrested. They're now an enforcement priority.
Um, which is not something that you really have a due process claim against. Now, if you're not in fact removable, you can try to get yourself out of ice custody. And yes, of course there are due process concerns in like in the sense of you're saying this person's a priority because you're classifying them as a criminal. They're not, you know, that, that, but they're not concerns that are legally actionable.
God, that's terrible. Part two, I mean, so like the Attorney General in Oklahoma can tell Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, that he's no longer allowed to issue visas to a random country because, I don't know, it helps this Attorney General in Oklahoma politically to demand that the federal government, even the Trump government, be tougher on immigrants, that seems completely unworkable.
It absolutely could be unworkable. This was originally part of the bill when it was introduced under the last Congress, which is to say under the Biden administration, which might go some way in indicating why it was added to the bill to begin with. I think that the assumption to a certain extent is that
you know, state AGs are going to not necessarily want to embarrass members of their own party. But I think the other part of the assumption is that judges are not necessarily going to be super eager to weigh in on this stuff. Judges tend to have a pretty narrow construal of like this sort of
their ability to weigh in on this sort of thing. I think that there's a certain kind of adults in the room understanding that that would prevent it from being too entirely disruptive. I don't know that that's merited, but I think we'll see what combination of political pressures and judicial professional pressures exist to check this.
You're going to give it to liberal attorney generals in blue states just suing the State Department over nothing for fun. I also saw that I said the bill would cost $26 billion to implement in the first year. So back to your resourcing and logistics question. It seems wildly difficult to do this without, I guess, an appropriation of new money.
Well, so the way that usually ICE has operated over the last several years is they keep spending the money, which is usually faster than their budgeted to spend it. And then they write Congress letters of increasing alarm of tone, saying, if you don't give us more money before the end of the fiscal year in a supplemental, we're going to have to start releasing criminals. And usually Congress says, fine, fine, here's the money you asked for in the supplemental.
Okay, so you mentioned also, you know, temporary protected status. On the way out the door, President Biden granted an extension of temporary protected status or TPS to nearly a million immigrants from Venezuela, El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan, which should protect them from deportation through, I think, the fall of 2026. I know the Trump administration is not a big fan of TPS or lots of, you know, pathways of legal immigration. Can they just rescind that extension or like, what do you think happens to TPS?
This is where we get into some really uncharted territory, both legally and policy wise, because the Trump administration said in one of its executive orders that it is going to review grants of TPS given under Biden.
We don't know whether that means they're going to say that some of these, you know, 11th-hour TPS grants shouldn't have been issued to begin with and try to argue that they shouldn't be forced to honor them or not. That's something that's not clear. We don't know what happens to people who have applications for TPS who, you know, if you were paroled in under the CHNV, Cuban Haitian Nicaraguan Venezuelan parole program,
But you were here as a Venezuelan when the Venezuelan TPS extension was issued and you've applied. What is that? Can you be removed once your parole expires, even though you have this pending application? Are they going to try to do that? There are so many open questions about this, and it's really
It's concerning because frankly, a lot of these are folks who are not the most tapped into high information news sources anyway. And so the uncertainty that they're facing and the potential legal complexity of what they're facing is really difficult to predict. But we absolutely could be seeing a pretty aggressive club back front on TPS.
You know, it's just going to depend on what they decide to announce from here and how much effort they're willing to spend on the USCIS side and sending, you know, individualized, no thank you. You don't have status anymore notifications and defending it in court.
Man, I mean, just to underscore how cruel it would be to start sending people back to Sudan, which has been in the middle of the horrific civil war for well over a year now, there's accusations of genocide against the rebel forces and even some of the Sudanese armed forces. I think half the country is at risk of starvation, millions of people being displaced. I mean, the idea that you would just put someone on a plane back to cartoon right now is just like unthinkable from a moral level.
Yeah, and this is, I mean, it's worth underscoring, even though we've been discussing it, that there is a difference between saying that somebody is legally vulnerable to deportation and actually taking the effort to deport them. And with TPS, you know, there is a certain extent to which the Trump administration has made it pretty clear that
people who arrived under Biden are in their crosshairs. But in general, it is not necessarily true that somebody who had legal status and is going to have it sunset is going to become a target, but even just putting them in that pool puts them more at risk. And it also makes it harder for them to plan their lives with TPS in particular, because so many of these people have had, you know, so many of these countries have had TPS for
years and decades. These are people who have been making their lives in 18 to 24 month increments to begin with. And now you're giving even that assurance away from them. So it's a fairly profound change for the circumstances in which these people are living. Yeah, absolutely. Do you think is it now kind of all about enforcement and the kind of memos to agencies about how to implement these policies? Are you expecting more executive orders and major policy changes? We just don't know.
We absolutely do not know. When Russ Vogt got caught on a hot mic, last year, it wasn't a hot mic, it was essentially a sting operation. The now again head of OMB who was running product 2025, he said that
you know, there were a lot of things that they were working on that were very close hold that they weren't putting in Project 2025, a lot of memos and policy guidance that they were pre drafting. And so we just don't know what the volume of those is. We've continued to see things going out that almost certainly were developed before inauguration because it would just be a tremendous amount of effort to get them done after that. But we don't know how much there is. And
it is, you know, there are some things in the executive orders that kind of hint at future action. There is, for example, one executive order that says that within 90 days, there should be a review of whether the Insurrection Act is necessary to invoke. So that is something that they've actually flagged could be coming. But for the most part, the MO of this administration is and was during the, you know, the end of the first term,
defined places in federal law that can be used to ramp up immigration enforcement that have kind of lame dormant for decades. So we don't know how many of those other places they've found.
The one thing I just haven't heard much about is any kind of increased penalties or scrutiny of employers versus individuals. I mean, for a long time, that was kind of the approach of a lot of immigration policy, which is to make it really hard for people to work by punishing their employers if they hired undocumented people. But I don't feel like I'm hearing much about that.
The primary way that they would be going about this would be just engaging in enforcement. Usually, when there are large-scale workplace raids, those are associated with some form of prosecution or sanction or something against the employer who they're raiding. That's a
kind of stochastic thing, right? You're not like, you're not auditing an entire sector. And so the extent to which it's going to really shape employer behavior is unclear. But yeah, the biggest tool, the biggest thing that kind of hasn't been done on employer extensions is legislative. It's mandatory nationwidey verify. And that has not been as much of a priority of this generation of immigration restrictionism as it was like a decade ago, in part because
there are employers who would, who are willing to stay quiet even as it becomes harder for them to hire people legally. But if you try to go after their workforce, then, or if you try to prevent them from hiring anyone who doesn't have authorization, then they'll get mad at you.
So, you know, I think it's still to be seen. It's certainly not a, it's not a rhetorical priority for them unless you start talking about the economic benefits of immigration, in which case they start talking about how exploitative employers are, but there hasn't been a whole lot of effort to make it, you know, for example, Department of Labor priority to go after employers for exploiting unauthorized labor.
I mean, just finally on the politics. I mean, curious how you think or why you think the politics on immigration policy changed so much over, I don't know, let's say the past decade or so. I don't know if it was just generally more migration, Biden's policies, like the relentless busing from states like Texas to blue states. I mean, what's your big picture sense of that?
I think that for one thing, the thermostatic effect of public opinion, swinging in favor of immigrants under Trump and then swinging against under Biden, is really, really hard to overstate. And it's also hard to disentangle anything else from that kind of basic
Oh, the government is doing some things I don't like. I'm going to make this more salient. In general, immigration isn't salient for a whole lot of people. And so they're very, it's very easy to kind of swing them from one direction to the other based on opposition to who's in office, based on, you know, seeing B roll of people coming in, that sort of thing. I don't think that I think it's, I think it's kind of not clear.
whether what we're seeing is an increase in the number of people who are really, really activated against unauthorized immigration or against immigration generally, or whether what we're seeing is the culmination of the fact that this is the signature policy issue of the man who's been the standard bearer of the Republican Party for a decade. And so anyone who's affiliated with the Republican Party has decided that this is a more important issue to them. But I think the other side of this is a lot of people who were in solidly blue jurisdictions
saw strains on state and local governments were responding to recent arrivals and so were forced, you know, I think, I think, were like put in a space where they were considering that actually there was a certain amount of zero sum tradeoff between investing in people who are already here and investing in new arrivals and the Biden administration by kind of not
doing a whole lot to ensure that new arrivals were coming in an undistructive way didn't necessarily help with this. But whether that was something that's going to really change a whole lot of people's opinions permanently or whether it was a reaction to a moment under an administration that is no longer in office is something that remains to be seen.
Yeah, very good point. Well, Dara, thank you so much for coming on the show. Final, final question. You got the band back together with your old crew from the weeds with Ezra Klein and Matthew Glacias the other day on Ezra's podcast. Is there any chance of a comeback tour where you hit a few kind of the nerdiest cities? You know, we could sell out some stadiums.
I am entirely on board with this if and only if we can at least start talking to a venue in Stockholm because if I have to talk about Swedish administrative data one more time without being in Sweden to do it, it's going to be very upsetting. I'm not even sure what you're referencing and I love that. We're going to leave it there. That is perfect. Dar, thank you so much for coming on the show. I appreciate it. Thank you.
That's our show for today. Thanks to Darrelind for coming by, and Dan and I will be back with a new show on Friday. Bye, everyone. If you want to listen to Pod Save America, add free or get access to our subscriber discord and exclusive podcasts, consider joining our Friends of the Pod community at cricket.com slash friends or subscribe on Apple podcasts directly from the Pod Save America feed. Also, be sure to follow Pod Save America on TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for full episodes, bonus content, and more.
And before you hit that next button, you can help boost this episode by leaving us a review and by sharing it with friends and family. Pod Save America is a crooked media production. Our producers are David Toledo and Saul Ruben. Our associate producer is Ferris Safari. Reed Charlen is our executive editor and Adrien Hill is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick.
Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Segland and Charlotte Landis. Madeleine Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cone, Haley Jones, Phoebe Bradford, Joseph Dutre, Ben Heffcote, Mia Kelman, Molly Lobel, Kiro Peloviv, and David Tolls. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.
Was this transcript helpful?
Recent Episodes
Trump's War on the U.S. Government

Pod Save America
Donald Trump and Elon Musk continue their all-out assault on the federal government, shuttering USAID, rooting out and firing workers linked in any way to diversity initiatives, and breaking and ignoring laws as they go. Jon and Dan hash out all the latest, including Trump's plan to have the US "own" and redevelop Gaza, Democratic pushback, and whether federal judges will step in to stop—or at least slow—the madness. Then, Tommy talks with Sen. Brian Schatz about Democrats' all-night floor fight against Trump's OMB pick, what they think is working, and how they're gearing up for the big battles ahead. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast.
February 07, 2025
Elon Musk's Nerd Coup

Pod Save America
With Donald Trump's blessing, Elon Musk and a small crew of inexperienced software engineers take near full control of the government, moving to shut down USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and taking control of a critical payment system at the Treasury Department. Trump delays his trade war with Canada and Mexico by a month after securing minor concessions that were probably already in the works. Meanwhile, congressional Democrats begin to push back harder—though whether it'll be enough is still an open question. Jon, Lovett, and Tommy break down all the latest, and Lovett speaks with former Obama and Biden economic adviser Brian Deese about just how bad things could get if a real trade war kicks off over the next four years.
February 04, 2025
Trump Heals Grieving Nation

Pod Save America
Trump continues chaos with spending freeze, loyalty tests for federal workers, and threat of mass deportations to Guantanamo Bay. Three extreme cabinet picks face tough confirmation hearings. Dan and Jon discuss the dismal week and oppostion party signs of life. Jon interviews Senator Chris Murphy about threats against Democratic leaders.
January 31, 2025
Rachel Maddow on Surviving Trump 2.0

Pod Save America
Rachel Maddow discusses Trump's first week in office, her strategies for navigating chaotic news environments and staying sane, as well as the role of embarrassment in politics on Jon's podcast. She also mentions her unusual hobby, ice fishing.
January 26, 2025

Ask this episodeAI Anything

Hi! You're chatting with Pod Save America AI.
I can answer your questions from this episode and play episode clips relevant to your question.
You can ask a direct question or get started with below questions -
What was the main topic of the podcast episode?
Summarise the key points discussed in the episode?
Were there any notable quotes or insights from the speakers?
Which popular books were mentioned in this episode?
Were there any points particularly controversial or thought-provoking discussed in the episode?
Were any current events or trending topics addressed in the episode?
Sign In to save message history