Can Trump's Health Care Cuts Be Stopped?
01:15:24 Share

Today's presenting sponsor is SimpliSafe Home Security. School's out, the kids are home, and the schedules are all over the place. SimpliSafe is how you can keep a sense of calm amid the chaos, whether it's monitoring deliveries, keeping tabs on the front door, or just knowing your home is protected. SimpliSafe has your back all summer long. I've set up a SimpliSafe system. It's incredibly easy to do. The app is reliable. The customer support is reliable. It's easy to customize for your home.

and I highly recommend it. Most security systems only take action after someone breaks in. That's too late. Too late. SimpliSafe's new active guard outdoor protection helps stop break-ins before they happen. If someone's lurking, agents can talk to them in real time, turn on spotlights, and call the police proactively to turn crime before it starts. No contracts, no hidden fees. SimpliSafe is named Best Home Security System of 2025 by CNET and trusted by over 4 million Americans.

Ranked number one in customer service by Newsweek and USA Today, monitoring plans start around $1 per day, 60-day money back guarantee. Visit simplisafe.com slash crooked to claim 50% off a new system with a professional monitoring plan and get your first month free. That's simplisafe.com slash crooked. There's no safe like SimpliSafe.

Hey, it's Mike here, one of the hosts of The Guardian's award-winning daily news podcast, Today in Focus. Every weekday morning, we bring you a single story, going beyond the headlines and taking you closer to The Guardian's global journalism. Combining personal storytelling with analysis, we take you inside the stories that matter most. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. Tommy is on vacation. Lucky him. It's just us. Just you and me, buddy. How do you feel? We'll get through it. Okay, good.

On today's show, we're going to cover Stephen Miller screaming and firing people at ICE for not rounding up enough immigrants. ICE, not tough enough for Stephen Miller. Big companies deciding that they'd rather hire law firms that haven't bent the knee to Donald Trump. And potential Democratic presidential candidates starting to test the waters with speeches and super PACs. I'm also going to talk to our friend Brian Schatz, senator from Hawaii, about the party's plan to fight Trump's tax cuts for the rich and health care cuts for everyone else. But

But let's start with the White House response to yet another anti-Semitic attack. This one in Boulder, Colorado, where a man unleashed a homemade flamethrower and Molotov cocktails on elderly Jewish people who are marching peacefully in honor of the hostages still held by Hamas. Twelve people were injured, some seriously. And the guy already confessed he was apparently planning the attack for a year and told police he would do it again if he could. He's being charged with a federal hate crime.

But because this is Donald Trump's America, that's not the end of the story. Because the perpetrator is an Egyptian national who entered the U.S. on a tourist visa, applied for asylum, and then overstayed his visa while waiting for his asylum claim to be heard. So Trump's first post on the attack said that the guy came in under, quote, Biden's ridiculous open border policy, which isn't true since his tourist visa appears to have originated in 2018.

Trump went on to say, quote, this is yet another example of why we must keep our borders secure and deport illegal anti-American radicals from our homeland. Thoughts on the attack and Trump's response.

So, the second anti-Semitic attack in as many weeks. This one left people horrifically burned. The previous attack left two people dead. That one was perpetrated by a citizen, so it is not an immigration issue. This one is perpetrated by someone who is not a citizen and who is here illegally, so it is now an immigration issue.

As you said, he came in under a tourist visa. There's some reporting that he may have been also on a work visa that expired in March of this year. So it very well may turn out that he entered when Trump was president and became an undocumented immigrant when Trump was president. Now, the fact that that is the case doesn't make sense.

Trump administration policies responsible, nor the fact that Donald Trump has been far more focused on border security and images of the border, because that's what's in his head, than people overstaying their visas, which is an incredibly common problem and a big part of the population of undocumented Americans.

immigrants. So we're left with sort of this sort of messy set of facts. Donald Trump is going to lie about those set of facts. His spokespeople are going to lie about that set of facts. And the end result is we have a big, messy, broken immigration system. When a terrible crime like this happens, it is evil. It is awful. If it turns out that there were steps that should have been taken along the way that could have prevented it, then we should learn from that.

and figure that out. But the knee-jerk effort to turn this into an indictment of Biden policies versus Trump policies, so far, it's just not borne out by the facts, not at all. - I know, I found myself digging through the timeline and type of visa and why did he get the work permit because he was waiting for his asylum claim to be heard and while you're waiting, even if you overstay your visa, it's okay to stay here with the work permit. And then I'm like, you know what?

What am I fucking doing? Like crime is bad. When people commit crimes or terror attacks like this, the police should have every available tool to apprehend them as they do right now. Immigrant or not immigrant, citizen or non-citizen.

And it shouldn't have to – like we shouldn't have to have every single crime now turn into a debate about the person's immigration status. In fact, the government has vetted people who are coming into this country more than your average American citizen who may commit a crime or may commit an anti-Semitic attack like the last two anti-Semitic attacks that have happened this year that we know about. Right.

What are we doing? What we're doing is they are exploiting this Trump and Stephen Miller. They are exploiting this horrific anti-Semitic attack in order to justify an immigration crackdown that is getting more extreme and dangerous by the day. And by the way, that's affecting people who aren't not only aren't criminals, but people who aren't who are here legally, who have legal status and are legally allowed to be here. We have a broken immigration system.

There are people who have come here that were undocumented the day they got here. There are millions of people who came here by overstaying their visas. That is a policy problem. We also built an economy on the backs of undocumented people. That is a policy problem.

If you want to make a claim that undocumented people are more dangerous or more violent, if you want to make a claim that people that have overstayed their visas are this sort of violent contention in our society, you can try to do that. It's not borne out by the evidence. Now, if your political views...

tell you that even though, yes, you know, uh, uh, immigrants do not commit crimes in the United States at a rate higher than citizens or undocumented immigrants do not commit crimes at a rate higher than legal immigrants, but any crime by an undocumented person is an indictment as an entire broken system. And therefore we must deport everyone who's overstated visa. We must do an incredibly, uh, uh,

violent and cruel and widespread crackdown on everybody, even though the vast majority of people who are here legally, illegally are here because they're trying to build a better life. They want to get jobs. And we built an economy on the backs of undocumented and documented immigrants, to be honest. And if that's the policy proposal you want to put in place, propose

Propose it, put it forward, right? But instead they just want to take a specific case, a terrible, evil fucking case of antisemitism and turn it into an immigration story. By the way, when there was that shooting a week and a half ago and it turns out to be a citizen, it can't be an immigration story. So now it's a leftism story or it's a story about this other group of people we also don't like. When there's a terrible shooting at a softball game in Congress, that's also going to be a political story. But when you have kind of right-wing violence...

when you have people goaded by racism, by xenophobia. - Then it's a mental health issue. - There's mental health issues. Those are lone wolves. - Lone wolves, yeah. Of course, Stephen Miller has been all over this too. His first tweet about the attack said, quote, "No more hostile migration. Keep them out and send them back."

He then followed up with a second tweet, in case people didn't read the first, I guess, just a couple hours later, that read, suicidal migration must be fully reversed. Suicidal migration. He doesn't really talk about what suicidal migration is in the tweet. Yeah, it seems like it's just, this is a person from Egypt, and so it's sort of vaguely like a suicide bomber. I agree.

Yeah. Or just that, you know, migration of people who do not assimilate, who in Stephen Miller's mind don't assimilate into our culture is suicide for America. I don't know. And then but it's like this is not a migration. This is somebody who overstayed a tourism visa and who applied for other kinds of visas. Again, we're going to get more detail. We'll find out the exact fact of it.

I like what is your policy on that? Right. I saw, you know, J.D. Vance was sort of said an offhand comment. If you're visiting for the World Cup, you better leave after. Right. But as far as I can tell, like what they're not this has not been a focus of this administration. Miller showed his true colors based on a report in The Washington Examiner about him losing his shit on ICE agents for not detaining and deporting enough immigrants because

He basically calls a meeting in D.C. and everyone, all the field offices, everyone in ICE has to come to this meeting. And he is apparently livid that the agency is behind schedule on deporting a million immigrants this year. And in this meeting, he told all the people there, all the top ICE administrators, quote, you're not doing a good job and, quote, you're horrible leaders.

When they told him that they were focusing on going after immigrants with serious crimes on their record, which is what Tom Homan and Donald Trump and everyone else has been saying on TV, what they said during the campaign, Miller reportedly said, quote, Why aren't you at Home Depot? Why aren't you at 7-Eleven? Two top ICE officials were later fired after that meeting, reportedly because ICE isn't hitting the White House Stephen Miller target of 3,000 arrests per day.

Then over the weekend, Miller went on Lara Trump's Fox News show to deliver his typically chill criticisms of our immigration and legal systems. Let's listen. These district court judges have precipitated a constitutional crisis. The craziest, most liberal lawyer seeks out the craziest, most liberal judge out of the 700.

The illegal aliens are getting rich.

What are you fucking talking about? Because they're just, they're getting all those beautiful hotels in New York City. Yeah, I don't, what are you talking about? He just, he's not even, he's not even trying to lie well anymore. He's not even trying to lie even like sort of, like not even a baseline of believability here. Yeah.

We certainly suspected that all the talk from the Trump White House about focusing and prioritizing the worst of the worst and the criminals was bullshit. But it's clarifying to have Miller confirm it to all these ICE officials. Apparently, he said, what do you mean you're going after criminals? Why not go to the 7-Elevens? Why not go to this? And then one ICE official said in the story, quote, Stephen Miller wants everybody arrested. That's why he's mad.

Yeah. So there's a couple of things that are interesting about this. One, he goes on television and says, these judges are stopping us. These judges are stopping us. But that's not what's stopping them here. Right. That's not what this is about. Right. What's actually what's interesting to me about this is he's going directly to these field directors and saying, why aren't you deporting more people? And what he's hearing back is the kind of reality of governing, which is

limited beds. The Homeland Security Investigations Division doesn't feel it's their responsibility to do some of these sort of street arrests. The enforcement and removal officers feel like they're overburdened and there aren't enough beds. And so the truth is, and this is what we've been saying, right, that they go on television or they

post, how judges are stopping them. Judges are stopping them. Judges are stopping them from using the alien enemies act. Judges are stopping them from deporting people without a, uh, a hearing to foreign prisons, but no one's actually stopping them from using their power to do the deportations and removals that they're legally allowed to do under the law. What's stopping them is just governing their inability to govern. And so then you end up with, this is, I think,

the second point is incredibly strange meeting, right? A White House senior official going, not just not with, with the secretary of, of Homeland Security there, apparently, Kristi Noem is there kind of. Playing the good cop. Yeah. And for the first time. Really strange. She's like, you're doing okay, but you could be doing better. Right. But, but I mean, this sort of fucking, you know, a little fucking, you know, worm shouting at these field directors and ICE officials who I am sure, uh,

were pretty fucking heated to be having to take this from, from, from, you know, Trump's lackey, who's not a member of law enforcement, who's not any kind of national security or law enforcement official in his past. So that's deeply strange and really incredibly political, right? Like it's no, there's inconceivable to imagine a senior advisor of the Obama administration going directly to a group of field directors at ICE.

Also, it really unlocks why they are going after all of these people who have legal status, our kids, our families, our people who've been here for 20, 30, 40 years, their whole lives. Because

So after yelling at them, they fire two top ICE officials. Right. And now he's telling them you need 3000 arrests per day. So if you're say you're an ICE federal agent who doesn't love arresting immigrants. Right. Which is being generous. Right. You're just you're just trying to do your job. You're a civil servant. You've been there through the Obama administration's Biden Trump.

Now, your job depends on arresting, making sure that you hit these numbers and arrest all these people a day. Of course, people are going to get swept up in this that are either American citizens, legal residents, kids, dreamers, all of it. It's very much like it's like evil Alec Baldwin in Glenn Glarigan Ross standing up in front of everybody saying, you know, first place gets Cadillac, second place steak knives, third place you're fired. And the third piece of this, which is just

again, like just deeply strange to have

So you have Donald Trump who is trying to turn divisions of our federal government into his sort of personal minions. It's not the American military. It's his military. It's not America's Immigration Customs Enforcement Bureau. It's his, right? It is actually quite strange to have a quote in there from an administration official saying, if they don't get better, then everyone will know they're just not good at what they do. They can't perform at the level of expectation.

And it's, it's like, oddly, it's, it's just strange. It's just strange tack for them to be taking. And it clearly is like a message they're sending directly to the agency.

Yeah, I thought for a while that I mean, I do think part of this is a lot of these roundups that they know are going to get people angry are designed to send a message to keep immigrants away. Right. And I think that's still partly true. But I also think they just they really want to hit that million number and they want to make those arrests and they want to do it however they can.

And that's why we're getting – that's one of the reasons we're getting these just horrific stories. I mean just over the last week, like there was this Missouri mother. She's from Hong Kong. She's been here 20 years. She's got three kids.

She was scooped up by ICE. She's in a jail somewhere. Kids don't see her. And she's from this like very rural, Trumpy community in Missouri. And all these people are like, what? No, she's like an upstanding citizen. She's the best person. And she works so hard and everyone loves her. And she goes to her kids' soccer practice. And these aren't the people I thought we were deporting. And no one can figure out how to get her out of prison. Greg Sargent.

did a podcast talking to her and her lawyer that was out today. And she's like, you know, my daughter, she's seven. She said, mom, please come home. Nobody tells me bedtime stories anymore. I miss you. I need you like this. This is what they're doing. There's a Massachusetts high school kid, high school senior honors student in the band going to volleyball practice and

scooped up on his way to volleyball practice. Now he's in jail somewhere. He's 18 years old. He's with, he's like shackled. His hands and his feet are shackled. He's in this crowded cell with all these older men. And again, everyone in the community is like, he is the best kid. Here since he was five. Five. Five years old. Five years old from, his parents brought him here from Brazil when he was five years old. That's not fucking his fault. And he's been here all this time. It's the, like the,

It's the play, they run on, this country is overrun, there's been an invasion.

We're overrun with criminals. We're overrun with gang members. Not true. They can never hit this number by just going after criminals. And when the rhetoric meets the reality, they don't obviously ever say, well, we actually overstated this. The reality has to meet the rhetoric. And so that is why we see if you touch the immigration system and they could deport you, they need to hit their quota. They need to hit their number.

And, uh, it's going to increasingly, uh, touch the kind of people that, uh, people didn't understand would be targeted by this, even though people were saying that, right. Even though if it's, it's a bit naive to, to pretend that Trump didn't tell us what he was going to do, but that's why I think you see the outrage in that town. That's why you see, and there was a, an ice raid in San Diego that went after the staff of a popular restaurant. You saw people on the street being furious, standing in the way of cars that led to, uh, um,

ICE having to, or the local cops that were part of it, I'm not sure, just use like crowd dispersal and like, I don't know what they were using, but they were allowed to get people out of there. And I think you're going to start seeing more and more of that. And I think this gets to what we'll talk about in a second. But I do worry about this sort of vicious loop we're now about to be in when ICE views itself as being under siege. Right.

Right. Not able to hit these numbers because they were never realistic. While the public goes and gets increasingly angry and views them less and less as their representative. Pod Save America is brought to you by Rocket Money. Prices might go up, but your budget doesn't have to break.

Whether or not tariffs hit your household, having a solid budget puts you back in control. Rocket Money tracks your spending, flags price hikes, and helps you adjust. See where your money is going and find out ways to keep more of it. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. Rocket Money's dashboard gives you a clear view of your expenses across all of your accounts. Easily create a personalized budget with custom categories to help keep your spending on track. See your monthly spending trends.

so that you can know where your money is going. Get alerts if bills increase in price, there's unusual spending activity, or if you are close to going over budget, Rocket Money will even try to negotiate lower bills for you. The new goals feature automatically saves money for you so you don't have to think about it, help pay off bills, put away money for house, or just build your savings. Rocket Money has over 5 million users and has saved a total of 500 million and canceled subscriptions, saving members up to $740 per year when they use all the app's premium features. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions right now.

And reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money. Download the Rocket Money app. Enter our show name, Pod Save America, in the survey so they know we sent you. Don't wait. Download the Rocket Money app today and tell them you heard about them from our show. JVL wrote about this at the Bulwark in his newsletter on Monday about the fact that these guys are all, a lot of them are wearing masks now, a lot of these ICE agents. And he points out that there are only two kinds of countries where law enforcement wears masks, authoritarian states and failed states. Uh,

I read the piece. I'd love to say it's alarmist. Don't think I can. Yeah. So Congressman Dan Goldman, who's a former federal prosecutor, worked with law enforcement for years. He talked to ICE officers about this. And this was and he said, why are you wearing masks? And one replied, because it's cold. And Goldman Goldman responded, would you say that under oath? And the guy walks away. And

He's a member of Congress. He's a representative of Congress and of the people in his district. And there's, I think, a couple things going on because...

I don't think this person who has them, I don't think an ICE officer has a mask on says, I have this mask on because I'm part of a fascist takeover of the government, right? It's two things. It's one, it's a culture that flows from Trump, which is Trump doesn't believe he's accountable to Congress. He doesn't believe he's accountable to the people. These guys work for him and they know, right? I can say whatever I want to a member of Congress. I can arrest a member of Congress.

I can get into a quarrel with a member of Congress outside an ICE facility, even though that person is just doing their job. And I know that I'll be fine because Trump doesn't give a fuck about those people. And if anything, me showing this kind of toughness and intransigence on his behalf will only earn me more respect. So this is good. I'm protected by doing this. But the other piece of it is,

There's a kind of siege mentality, and I think this comes from right-wing media, which is like America is a decadent and declining country where we forgot what's important and how to keep ourselves safe and how to do what it takes. We're not tough enough. Empathy is a weakness. And so if I show my face, even if I'm doing what's right for the country, even if I'm doing what my president wants to keep Americans safe and stop this invasion, I might be canceled. I might be publicly vilified. People might come to my house because you can't trust

the American people anymore. Not the ones that don't agree with me 100%. It's not about protecting Americans or working for Americans anymore. I have to keep myself protected because it's only the Trump administration that understands the stakes here. Yeah, their response to the mask thing is, oh, well, they're getting harassed and doxxed and they need to wear masks because of that. And it's like, okay, well,

And Dan Goldman points this out in that piece. He's like, so the Trump administration is banning masks for protests. So you can't wear a mask protesting the government, but you can wear a mask if you are the government and arresting and cracking down on not just immigrants, not just undocumented immigrants, but like you said, members of Congress or anyone.

New York, I don't know if you saw it, New York Magazine had this piece about the American citizens who've been detained by ICE, not just in this administration, but it's happened for decades. Of course. But the difference is,

Other administrations and even the first Trump administration at times, when they realized it was a mistake, would let the person go. We now know that this administration, even when it admits a mistake in court, is not rectifying the problem. They point out in that story, if you're an American citizen and ICE detains you,

They'll say, are you a citizen? You're of course going to say I'm a citizen. Maybe you have an ID. Maybe you have a social security card. Maybe you have, do you have your birth certificate or your passport on you? Probably not. But even if you did, you're

They were saying that the agents usually suspect that the documents are fake. So they don't take your word for it by just giving the passport. So then they take you in. So now you're detained. And because of the backup and judges and there's not enough time and resources to have these trials on a speedy basis, as Stephen Miller complains about, now you're sitting in detention for weeks, months, and you just can't get out, even if you're an American citizen. And this is like this can happen. And this can happen if it's an accident.

And now think about like alien enemies and all the other stuff they're doing. Like it just it goes to a very dark place very fast. I mean, I think we're already there, but. Yeah, but look, they're going to start this bill that's mostly being debated around Medicaid and taxes because that is the lion's share of what it does. Puts a lot of money towards giving ICE the ability to ramp up detentions, to ramp up deportations.

And that is an agency that feels unaccountable to the people that is being spurred on by someone like Stephen Miller on behalf of Donald Trump to do deportations at any cost that is willing to lie to the public about the people they're deporting.

is incredibly dangerous. Americans will get caught up in this and they will get trapped. Do I do I think like how bad does that get? How long are they held? We don't know. We don't know. We don't know. Doesn't seem like we want to find out. Yeah, let's I would hate to find out. In other regime news, there was a fun update. This is actually this actually is fun in The Wall Street Journal about how big companies are starting to cut ties with law firms that capitulated to Trump.

or are at least starting to steer more business to firms that have refused to bend the knee. The list of companies reportedly includes Oracle, whose executives have made some pretty significant donations to Trump over the years. Also, Morgan Stanley, McDonald's, Microsoft. One lawyer for Citadel, the hedge fund founded by Republican mega-donor Ken Griffin, recently told major law firms that their fund likes to work with lawyers who, quote, aren't afraid of a fight.

We also learned a couple of weeks ago that our old friend Karen Dunn and some other partners are leaving Paul Weiss to start a new venture together after Paul Weiss capitulated. And, you know, meanwhile, courts have blocked all the Trump executive orders against law firms who dared to challenge them or refused to capitulate. And they're just carrying on. Yeah, it's pretty great. You think Paul Weiss and some of these other firms are regretting their decisions right about now?

I, I hope so. I hope it, what it looks like is a kind of fit of peak at the very beginning of the administration when people didn't know what it would look like to say no. Yeah. Right. And, uh,

Kind of this this there was this moment right when Trump comes in it's before we're seeing the the inevitable chaos and failures and and and lying and and and Obstacles in the court. I think it's Derek Thompson who talks about this that that that this also happened in part in the first Trump term Which Trump makes a lot of crazy decisions and then unmakes a lot of crazy decisions I think core I think the also

watching what happens after you capitulate to Trump has played out and it doesn't play out well. I talked about this with Adam Schiff on Love It, Relieve It. And you make this deal with the devil, it doesn't work out. That's the whole thing with deals with the devil. And it was really reassuring to see

a bunch of their clients walk away from these firms, not because they're partisan Democrats, but because it's just fucking embarrassing, right? Like if you're looking at sort of a media organization that has capitulated to Trump and one that hasn't, who are you going to trust more, right? Whether you're a member of the audience or you're going to somebody who's going to work there. You think 60 Minutes is hiring a lot of journalists right now? You think they're getting a lot of applications?

And so, of course, you want a lawyer that's going to be willing to fight, especially when the executive orders are so patently unconstitutional. So such a clear violation of the First Amendment and a bunch of other amendments on their face. I've talked to a couple lawyers who are in firms that focus mainly on litigation. And, you know, they made a good point, which is like, look, some of the firms that have capitulated are firms that do a lot of corporate mergers, a lot of that kind of work.

and the firms that haven't tended to capitulate are the ones with a lot of litigators. And the reason is because when you hire a litigator, that's what they do. They fight in court. Yeah. And you don't want to fight. You don't want to hire a litigator who's afraid to fight. That's like the whole reason you have a litigator. Of course it does. Yeah. We've talked about this before. It does speak to kind of like the different temperaments of certain kinds of lawyers. And like, there's like, it's just embarrassing. Who wants to be part of an embarrassing, uh,

You're a law firm. You're a fucking law firm. You exist to fight on behalf of your clients. Yeah.

All right, let's talk about the state of the opposition. Democratic activists held a bunch of gatherings this weekend in South Carolina and California, the kind that usually attract political leaders who may have ambitions beyond their current office, let's say. Sure enough, Maryland Governor Wes Moore showed up in South Carolina where he talked up his family's history in the state. Tim Walz visited both states in the same day. Wow. Tim Walz going for flying from South Carolina to California. And he promised to, quote, bully the shit out of Donald Trump.

It is South Carolina stop and also said that he supports keeping the state as the first primary contest in 2028. Not to be outdone, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy announced a new super PAC on Monday to oppose cuts to Medicaid and organize young people, focusing for now on five states that happen to include Michigan, Georgia and Pennsylvania. What do you think? Too early for this shit or is it is it good to have potential Democratic contenders out there right now? Oh, I think it's great to have them out there. I don't I

I don't even know what it means to be too early. They're going to give him political speeches. That's how I feel. My only feeling about it is that it all, it just feels like it's from another era that you pretend you're not running for president. And maybe some of them won't, right? Actually, it is the case that some people really may decide not to do it. But if you are considering it, I kind of,

saying, you know what, I'm thinking about it. We have a lot of work to do before then, but I'm thinking about it because I do think like kind of moving past the like footsie era of presidential politics. And then it's to me less about the like, is it too early? What are they saying? How do they want to fight back? What do you think the best strategies are? Did you get a chance to listen to any of Wes Moore? Yeah, I thought he was good. I thought so too. I would say that he had a real emphasis on

The argument he wanted to make is that the Democratic Party needs to be one of action. I think his line was, gone are the days when the Democrats are the party of no and slow. We must be the party of yes and now. And so, you know, it wasn't like too heavy on specifics about what that means in the current context. But he did have his record in Maryland, which is a very impressive record to talk about. I find it interesting that when he's talked about what they got done in Maryland, the first thing he talked about was crime and how homicides and crime are way down in Maryland.

Yeah. Which is interesting. And then he talked a lot about sort of jobs and opportunity and wages there. Yeah. It's felt like and maybe it's felt like until now that the potential 2028 senators have been out there a bit more. Maybe that's just the nature of their jobs while the governors have been a little bit more restrained. I also think the governors have a more thorny challenge. And we see this with Whitmer. I think we see this with all of them that.

They're trying to govern. Some of them have Republican legislatures. Some of them worry about natural disasters and other times when they have to kind of work with Trump. We saw Whitmer kind of delicately try to figure out how to bring money into the state. And she ends up smiling for the cameras right before Trump says he's going to pardon the people who fucking tried to kill her. So it's challenging. It's challenging. But I do think it's meant that like the governors haven't been as sort of strident politicians.

and out there. And then I think J.B. Pritzker gave a great speech that was sort of an exception in terms of the tone of the governors that felt more like what we've heard from some of the senators. But beyond that, to me, I think Wes Moore is the one who said this, that we shouldn't be talking about 2028 because we have too much to do in 2025. And I think there's some truth to that, but at the same time,

how you fight in 2025 and 2026 is really important to whether or not you're the right person in 2027 and 2028. I liked Westmore's speech. I thought it was solid, especially because it was interesting that it wasn't like too Trump focused at all or too focused on like exactly what's happening in Congress right now, which I think is probably the right thing to do since most Americans don't give a shit or like aren't paying attention. That also has a quality where you're like, when could this speech be given? Yeah.

you know, it could be given at another time. But I was like, great, I want to hear more from him. And then Walls was saying, maybe it's time for us to be a little meaner.

Yeah. And that and that nobody said nobody votes for roadkill based off that New York Times story where Anat Shankar Osorio, who's a friend of the show, was talking about how in focus groups it comes up. The Democrats are like deer in headlights. And so I said, yeah, deer in headlights. Well, no one votes for roadkill. I think that's true. I think that's true. There's. Yeah, we look like we got the we talked about this when we were when we were with with Jon Stewart and his pod, which is that we got the stink on us. We do have the stink.

I like that Murphy is starting his super PAC, at least starting off now, by donating to grassroots orgs and not candidates. I always think there's like, you get a super PAC from a candidate and it's like, I'm donating to a slate of city council people in South Carolina. Right, no, look, this is... And they're all going to do that, I'm sure. You got to do that. That's just politics. But it was nice that he's like, it's like an organization that's going to raise awareness around the Medicaid cuts. And that's good. Good for Murphy.

Yeah, it's great. You know what? The more the merrier. I just like, you know, anybody, I like, how do we figure out what Democrats are supposed to sound like? How do we figure out who's the right person to lead? The Times had this story about these guys running through South Carolina and, uh,

The question in everybody's mind is who's gonna be the person who can win? And they're all going down there to prove that they're the person who could win. Nobody knows who can win. Nobody knows who the right person is. We're gonna figure that out by hearing what they'll actually do, how they'll talk about taking the fight to Trump and these other Republicans. So I'm glad to have more. The more people out there every day, the better. Yeah, I agree.

Pod Save America brought to you by Haya. Typical children's vitamins are often packed with sugar, unhealthy chemicals, and unnecessary additives. Haya offers a superpower chewable vitamin with zero sugar.

Yeah, he did. Also, he solved the Ryman Hypothesis.

Oh, the Riemann hypothesis? I saw you Googling. It's the Riemann hypothesis. Which I obviously know about. You should tell the audience. Yeah, but we were just talking about the Riemann hypothesis before recording because James has solved it. One of the 10, I believe, unsolved prizes for which you can get a million dollars. Is that right? Yeah, that's right. Since 1859. Wow. So that's a big one. So check that off the bucket list for James. He's a one-year-old.

If you're tired of battling with your kids to eat their greens, Hiya now has Kids Daily Greens plus superfoods, a chocolate-flavored greens powder designed specifically for kids, packed with 55-plus whole food ingredients to support brain power, development, and digestion. Just scoop, shake, and sip with milk or any non-dairy beverage for a delicious and nutritious boost your kids will actually enjoy. The same multivitamin that more than a million kids and parents love are now available with Disney's The Lion King with a new Lion King unboxing experience, including a Lion King bottle and a Lion King sticker and a little bit of Lionheart.

in each gummy. We've worked out a special deal with Haya for their best-selling children's vitamin. Receive 50% off your first order. To claim this deal, you must go to HayaHealth.com slash Crooked. This deal is not available in their regular website, so go to H-I-Y-A-H-E-A-L-T-H dot com slash Crooked and get your kids the full-body nourishment they need to grow into healthy adults.

Speaking of strategy, Lauren Egan at the Bulwark reported on Sunday that some Democrats are pushing the main Democratic pack working on Senate races to put its money behind the independent candidate in certain key states, mostly red states, purple states, saying it's our best bet for preventing another Republican majority. The idea is that the investment would happen quietly, or at least it was going to be quiet and potentially lessen.

later in the cycle. So the example of this would be, you know, Dan Osborne, the independent candidate who ran in Nebraska. And, you know, if Democrats at the end there, some Democratic super PAC, you know, funneled a bunch of money to help Dan Osborne out. What do you think about this plan and the potential trade-offs? So,

It's funny. I think that like what you're saying of like, you know, okay, so we get these independents to run, all right? They run on kind of popular Democratic politics, right? But against the Democratic Party or in some way shows their kind of independence from the Democratic Party. And we all are very quiet about it. And then right at the end, we dump a bunch of money, but so they don't get the stink, our stink on them. So they don't know that they don't know it's from us. And I say that, it's like, okay, that can make sense in certain circumstances. And I agree with,

the argument that we cannot fix what is broken with the democratic brand in these places between now and 2026, especially when a lot of what is broken with the democratic band is yes, self-inflicted, but some of it is just living in a world with a massive right-wing propaganda apparatus that has been pumping people with kind of inoculation against becoming a Democrat for a very long time. So in that way, it makes sense, but it also...

it all feels like it's treating people like they're a little bit stupid because is what people want a person who doesn't have a D next to their name. Yes. So, so, so yes, I think like, unfortunately, well, I think that's like, I think probably yes, but also right. You know, there's a point that tester makes that could a Democrat who seems independent when could an independent become tainted like a Democrat? Absolutely. So I just, I think in the end it's like,

If we're going to have a chance in some of these places, yes, we need independent-minded people who are able to have a brand that is distinct from the tarnished National Democratic Party brand. Can that be somebody running as an independent? Yes. Is it possible that it's the right kind of person running as a Democrat? Absolutely.

Yeah, I think to me, this is less about whether some democratically aligned super PAC dumps a bunch of money in at the end. It's less about the money and more about the composition of the race, right? So if you have a Democratic candidate running in Nebraska, which is a very red state outside of Omaha, and then you have a Republican candidate, and then you have an independent candidate,

The independent candidate is the only one with a real chance there, right? The Democratic candidate is probably not going to win in Nebraska. And so do you want to make sure that the Democrats are helping get it down to a two-person race between the independent and the Republican by like saying, it's okay, we're not going to feel the Democratic candidate, or at least we're not going to support that Democratic candidate because we think we have a better bet with the independent candidate. Now, everything depends on who the person is, what their positions are, et cetera, et cetera. But...

You talked about the Democratic brand. Like, it is most damaged with the people who pay least attention to politics. And so for the people who pay least attention to politics but still vote, they are thinking R next to the name. That must be a Trumpy person. D next to the name. They must be losers. And there's this independent person running, and maybe I'll take a look at the independent person. And then who knows? The independent person could have massive,

many Democratic positions on many issues and maybe have a few more conservative positions on a couple issues, right, to win in that state or not. Who knows? But, I mean, I like the idea. I think who cares about the party label and the brand? It's worked for Bernie Sanders for all these years. And that's why it's not an ideological thing either, right? Like you can have a set of positions that doesn't necessarily put you on the far left, on the center right. Like you could just have a mix of positions and just run as an independent.

Yeah, no, I, I agree. The thing I care about least is like, well, they're not a Democrat and it's going to rile the democratic base, which is, which I remember when, when, uh, that was like one, one of Hillary's lines towards the end. It was like, well, he's not even a Democrat, you know? And it's like, who gives a, I don't care about that. I really don't. I never did. I still don't. And, and so I, I don't care about that specifically. I just being too cute by half. Yeah. It's being too cute by half. And of course, if the, if the, it's also this kind of like

Like, hey, we're going to start talking about it a year and a half before the election or we start running into trouble when all these candidates that you needed to be independent start getting tagged as Democrats kind of running in disguise. Right. It was like in the run up to the Osborne race. They're all going to have to run around with like a big button on with a picture of Schumer's face and a big red.

X through it. For sure. Hey, no bad ideas in a brainstorm. But I remember the Osborne thing, everybody was trying to make sure they didn't make it seem like they were too much behind it. Try not to talk about it. Don't nationalize the race. And maybe that can work. Don't go on Pod Save America. Don't go on Pod Save America. Listen, a lot of people are hearing that. It seems to be something... And I don't know where that's coming from, but got to nip that in the bud. Wes Moore, Tim Walls, come on. We love you guys. Yeah, get on here.

Anyway, I think it's an interesting idea. I think it's worth bringing up and you're right. Talking about it too much is a lot, but I think that it speaks to the deep problem with the Democratic brand that may not just be about specific issue positions, but like the totality of all the baggage and all the shit for the last 10 years. Yeah. And I do think like, you know, we should probably be doing two things at once, which is one, figuring out how to elect independents who will caucus with Democrats in places where the Democratic brand is toxic. But you can't say that.

Caucus with whoever they like. And caucuses with whoever they like, yeah. While at the same time...

asking ourselves why it seems almost impossible to elect a Democrat who has popular positions, even in states that have expanded Medicaid, that have raised the minimum wage, that have voted to legalize weed, that have voted in favor of unions, why the delta between Democratic policies and Democratic politicians is so vast. And where do we have agency there? Where are we victims of the media there? Where is it that there needs to be some kind of

that the leaders of our party need to make some kind of break with the past? What does that look like? It's a big, hard question, but we should be doing that too.

All right. Quick check in on Trump's massive tax cut legislation. Going to talk about it with Senator Schatz in a bit, but thought we would get into it first. It's now in the Senate's hands. John Thune is trying to cobble together a version of the bill that can pass the Senate where he can only lose three Republican votes. He's already got Rand Paul and Ron Johnson threatening to tank the bill over the fact that it'll add a few trillion dollars to the deficit.

uh... and a group of other senators who are worried about the fact that it'll cause more than ten million people to lose their health care coverage

Most of the other Republicans in Congress are pretending neither of those facts are true. Here's what Mike Johnson said on Meet the Press over the weekend. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Tax Foundation, the Penn-Wharton budget model all say this will add trillions of dollars to the deficit. Are you really telling the American people this will not add one penny to the debt and deficit? You can guarantee that? I...

I am telling you this is going to reduce the deficit. Do you only believe the CBO when a Democrat is president, Mr. Speaker?

No, this is very easy to explain. The CBO sometimes gets projections correct, but they're always off every single time when they project economic growth. If the bill becomes law, the top 10% of households would see an increase in resources, but the bottom 10% would see a decrease in resources. Why are you comfortable with that? No, that's simply not... I'm not comfortable with that. It is not true.

It is true. It is true. It is true. It is true. So there's a there's a big group of them. They're just lying through it. And Trump Trump's there to Trump. You know, he was just posting today. No cuts to Medicaid. He's been saying that no cuts to Medicare, Social Security. Mike Johnson did this with Welker to meet the press. He was like, absolutely no Medicaid cuts. We're not cutting Medicaid. It's just work requirements. But of course, he's someone's one of these Republicans said it's your choice.

if you want to have Medicaid, because if you're just trying to work, then you're fine. Even though they have, you know, hundreds and hundreds of, how much are they saving? Almost a trillion. Anyway, even though they're saving nearly a trillion dollars, $800 billion from Medicaid cuts,

And by the way, only a portion of which would come from work requirements, even if you take what they're saying about work requirements at face value, which you cannot. Right. That is, work requirements will hit a bunch of people who will be hit only because the paperwork requirements will be onerous and people will screw up and lose their health care. That's their plan. That's a bureaucratic plan. Then why, Speaker Johnson, does the bill include a multi-trillion dollar debt ceiling increase that you also believe is essential and has to be passed by August because it adds interest?

to the debt. Why right now are Republicans debating internally in the Senate, uh, how to get out some of these Medicaid cuts because you have, uh, members of the Senate Republican caucus who have said they will not go along with benefit cuts to Medicaid, which you have to figure out how to get rid of because they are currently in the bill.

Yeah. Senator Warnock, Raphael Warnock from Georgia, put it well. He was like, remember, these aren't work requirements in the bill. These are work reporting requirements. Right. And it's the reporting that is going to kick people off because when you actually get into it, these are like websites that go down all the time. And they're in like suddenly it's you have to fill out some paperwork. You have to drive to an office. And it's just ridiculous. And, you know, again, they tried it in Arkansas, 18000 people who should have been eligible, most of them working.

almost all of them working or with a really good excuse why they're not, caregiving, et cetera, disability, lost their health insurance.

Almost immediately. So it's just like it's designed to kick people out.

be using work requirements to make Medicaid cheaper by making it cheaper for the government to pay for tax cuts for the rich, which means people will lose their benefit. That's the only way it makes sense. If it's saving money, it's because people are losing their health care or it's not really a cut. There's just it's in cross purposes. Right. Right. So, you know, lying about it seems to be the most popular strategy. But then then there was Joni Ernst.

And I know you and Dan talked about this a little bit on Sunday's show, but she's at a town hall. One of her constituents asked her about the Medicaid cuts. And she basically says, well, she actually says, quote, we're all going to die. Yeah. Well, we're all going to die. We're all going to die. In the long run, we're all dead. Yeah.

Which was rightfully the front page of the Des Moines Register. So someone probably told her to try to clean it up a little bit. Didn't really clean it up. Here's her video, not really apologizing for it. Made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes,

We are all going to perish from this earth. And I'm really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well. The tooth fairy joke. I,

yeah i don't even understand it i mean i understand it but it's really lame yeah i think she's saying um oh are you all uh children you must also believe it you you have not yet come to understand the nature of life on earth yeah because because the objection with the comment was was that we didn't know that she revealed that we're all gonna die that was the objection not that she compared oh well we're all gonna die too if losing your health insurance due to our cuts uh

maybe kills you or whatever, we're all going to die. Right. The criticism, to put it plainly, was in saying, well, we're all going to die, you're being cavalier about people's health care, something that they're really relying on. A lot of constituents rely on. They're worried that you're lying about this bill and supporting something that will actually hurt a lot of people, including people who rely on life-saving medical care through Medicaid, and that if you take that away, people might

die prematurely because they can't access the medicine that they need to live. And she said, well, we're all going to die, which felt cavalier and glib because it was. But also...

points for honesty right it was that was all these people lying on the sunday shows no cuts no cuts she's just like well we're gonna die yeah thank you for your honesty and and look if in that there's more savings there right because there's social security savings yeah right the death panels right they're finally coming around to the death panels we were we were trying to push that in obamacare forever they made us take it out they take all of our best ideas i

Let's jump back to the Hawks, to the Ron Johnsons and the Rand Pauls. On Face the Nation this week, Rand Paul said that, including him, there were at least four Republicans in the Senate who were willing to block this bill.

Meanwhile, I talk about this with shots, but Politico is calling them the Medicaid moderates. We'll see how long that lasts. But there's Markowski, Collins, also maybe Jim Justice, also Jerry Moran from Kansas. I think there's someone else in there. Anyway, so you get a bunch of people who don't like the Medicaid cuts. Like you said, they're cross purposes. Do you think this holds?

So it's, it's very, how does little Donnie T wriggle out of this one? It's very, first of all, nobody knows right now. Cause none of it makes here's, here's, here's the, the challenge in, in figuring out what's going to happen for anything to happen. Somebody right now, or many people right now are lying.

That's the only way. They're all lying. Most of them, except Joni Ernst. Well, it's more that what I'm saying is what in order for any bill to pass, a group of people have to be lying about the thing that will cost them their vote. Right. And so what Rand Paul is saying is I won't vote for this because it includes a multi-trillion dollar increase in the debt limit.

Okay. And then you ask him, okay, well what if they just took that part out? And he's like, well, we should vote on that separately. But if the bill is still as expensive, then it's basically the same as voting for the debt limit increase because Democrats will vote for that anyway. So it's really about the cost inside of the bill. Okay, fine. So you need something that raises the deficit less than this bill, even though you must believe Mike Johnson is lying because he's saying there's no deficit increase, but you clearly recognize that there is. Okay, well, let's go over to Holly and the Medicaid moderates.

They're saying they want to remove, basically, they're okay with work requirements. They've gotten their heads around that, but they want to get rid of, which is only, by the way, it's not a majority of the Medicaid savings in this bill. So they want to get rid of a bunch of other stuff. There's co-pays in there, other cost cutting, other ways of shifting the costs to the states. They want to get that all out of there. What does that do? It makes the bill cost even more.

right? And, and what is, what have we heard from, from the house Republicans? They will not entertain anything that doesn't fully extend the Trump tax cuts. So I don't know how it's, it's not resolvable based on what the public argument currently is. It involves some group of people eating a bunch of shit. Who are those people going to be? Is there enough people to eat enough shit for whatever comes out of the Senate to make it out of the Senate and make to the house? I don't know. It's fascinating because house members,

especially House Republicans, they're used to eating shit. Yeah. They enjoy the taste at this point. Yeah. They've gotten, yeah, that's right. Just close your eyes and picture a steak. It's like a, it's like a hook, you know? But the Senate is like, yeah,

You know, is Rand Paul really afraid of Donald Trump? Not as much. Maybe Ron Johnson. Although, does Ron Johnson run again? I don't know. He might not run again, right? Like, this might be his last term. So it's interesting. And then Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins also don't really care about pissing off Donald Trump that much. They already have. They already have. So that's like four right there, even if all the other ones fall in line, which you could imagine that happening. But again, to get, like, it's just hard to...

Unless they maybe like push the Medicaid work requirements back, like imagine it like, oh, it doesn't take place till 2029, 2030. So they, you know, they get some of the Republicans to say they're going to do it, but it really doesn't do it. But like either way, what's really funny about this is the easiest way to solve the math problem is

is to, I don't know, you get a trillion dollars by not fucking extending the tax cuts for people making over a million dollars. And you'd get even more money by just raising taxes just a little bit on people making over a million dollars. Well, that's inconceivable. Think about all the ways that they could fix this math problem and make sure that they have something that is paid for, that reduces the deficit and does some cuts to government, maybe cuts that we wouldn't agree with.

And then also just raises revenue. There's a solution. Yeah. And by the way, also what Rand Paul was mad about is that there's a bunch of money for padding the military budget that he's not in favor. There's a bunch of money for immigration he's not in favor of. Like there is a, yes, there is a path if they were willing to entertain allowing some of the Trump tax cuts to expire. But that's the project. That's why they're here. That's why all of this, that's what led us all to this moment. Wonderful moment. Can't wait.

All right. When we get back from the break, you'll hear my conversation with Senator Brian Schatz about how Senate Democrats are planning to push back on that tax bill. But before we do that, you all have two opportunities to to to see John Lovett in person this week. If you're in L.A., you can come see our big pride show on Thursday, June 5th at Dynasty Typewriter. We've got Adam Rippon, Clea Duvall, Joel Kim Booster, Brendan Scannell, Darby Lynn Cartwright, Alexis Bevel, Sabrina Wu. So that's a really big pack show. And I'm red eyeing.

Right then Wow then on June 6th on Friday night I'll be live in DC with Tim Miller and Sarah Longwell from the bulwark for free Andre a fundraiser at world pride at the Lincoln Theatre will be raising money to help bring Andre Hernandez Romero back to the US after he was denied due process all Proceeds will go to the immigrant defenders Law Center Which is the organization fighting in court on behalf of Andre and others like him Before the show vote save America is going to be doing a big event with the Human Rights Campaign for a protest will be at the Supreme

Supreme Court with a bunch of other special guests. So come see us Thursday. Come to the events Friday. You can RSVP for the protest and grab tickets for both shows at crooked.com slash events. Wow. Red Eye. Red Eye, two shows. You might need one. Are you going to get Elon's little pill bottle with all the loose pills? Hey, you know, you don't need a tech billionaire to get a doctor in L.A. that understands your needs.

Pod Save America is brought to you by ZipRecruiter. Summer's here, and seasonal businesses are hiring everything from mule packers to drama camp leaders. This means people with these specific skills are in high demand, and it's not easy to find. In one case, you need somebody that has to carry a lot of weight, and in the other, it's a mule packer.

Whether you're hiring for one of these roles or any other role, how do you find top talent before the competition gets to them? It's ZipRecruiter. And right now, you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash CrookedZipRecruiter uses powerful matching technology to quickly identify the top talent for your job openings. Their smart technology shows you qualified candidates immediately after you post your role, performing a deep dive to find the right fit, looking for a standout candidate. ZipRecruiter enables swift connections, utilize ZipRecruiter's pre-written invite to apply feature to directly engage top prospects.

We've used ZipRecruiter to hire here at Crooked Media. They've helped us build this incredible team. Gear up for summer with ZipRecruiter's high-speed hiring tools. CY4 out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. Just go to the exclusive web address right now to try ZipRecruiter for free, ziprecruiter.com slash crooked. Again, that's ziprecruiter.com slash crooked. ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.

Brian Schatz, welcome back. Nice to be back. Happy birthday, John. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. It's been too long since we talked. This is great. Yeah, nice to see you. Wanted to get your perspective on Trump's economic plan, which hands a trillion dollars to the 1% of Americans who make over a million dollars and cuts about a trillion dollars in health care and food assistance for everyone else.

It's now the Senate's turn to try to pass this shit sandwich. Republicans can only lose three of their senators. I imagine the 47 Senate Democrats are already united in opposition to this thing. What else can you guys do? And how are you thinking about the strategy?

Well, this is outside in. You know, sometimes it's an inside baseball strategy, but this has to be outside in. This has to be that we generate enough public pressure. And as we get closer and closer, people start to realize how crappy this bill is. It's not sort of your run of the mill strategy.

tax cut bill this thing really throws at least 14 million people off of their health care and then with the loss of the Affordable Care Act subsidies you're talking about many many millions more who are gonna pay I mean hundreds of dollars additionally per month

as soon as November because these rate cases have to be filed by the end of July, in the middle of August for next year's rates. So even pretty soon, people are going to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars extra. And of course, everybody knows that it cuts nutritional assistance. And for what, right? Not for deficit reduction, not for other investments.

Nothing that people actually are clamoring for, even on the sort of conservative side of the aisle. Nobody is asking for tax cuts other than the people who are benefiting from them, who are, you know, a pretty small percentage of people. But this is tax cuts that will benefit primarily people who make

$4 million a year or more. And God bless them. I'm happy for them to be successful. But they're actually not asking for a tax cut. And that tax cut definitely should not be funded by reductions in health care for regular people.

Politico has a piece about what they're calling the Medicaid moderates. Collins, Murkowski, Josh Hawley, Jerry Moran, Jim Justice, all Republican senators who they report aren't fans of the level of Medicaid cuts in the House bill, if not the some of the cuts. How real do you think their opposition is?

Pretty real until it's not, right? I mean, I think they genuinely don't want to enact this, but the question is whether they will stand up for their constituents and against Donald Trump. When he makes those phone calls and says, listen, I need this from you, it's getting in the way of our friendship, then, you know, very few people have demonstrated the willingness to sort of stand up. But I think the reason for optimism here is that this, two things. First of all, this bill could not have been designed

purposefully to be more offensive to more people, right? I mean, this is like, if you like got a bunch of democratic pollsters and said, I want you to go into the lab and come up with the least popular piece of legislation, this is pretty close to what it would resemble. So this thing is not popular and we are on the popular side of the most important issue that is facing the country over the next month or two. That's number one. Number two is we won a fight like this in the first Trump term.

We did not have the votes. We had already lost the House and the Senate and the presidency, and they thought they were gonna kind of mow us down. And it was started with united opposition,

and then to a huge grassroots movement, which included people on the left, but also people on the center and center-right who care about rural hospitals, who care about the health of our agricultural industry, who care about nutritional assistance. You know, evangelicals are pissed off about this. And so we do have a chance to kill this bill. We really do have a chance. All we need is four senators or four House members

To kill this bill their math problem is really challenging because you've got a bunch of people demanding that these cuts get even steeper and even more ridiculous and then you've got a bunch of people who are demanding that they You know get to be less severe that math doesn't add up and the only solution they have is to bullshit both sides and then have Donald Trump essentially bully his way into a bear majority They have a chance

They hold some decent cards, but I sort of like our chances too because I just do see a mass movement and it's not just the people who care about the rule of law, although they're included. It's not just liberals, although they are included. It's also just regular folks who are like, I thought I was voting for this dude to reduce the price of stuff. And this guy is affirmatively going out of his way to increase the price of energy, of food, of

of health care and everything you buy at the Walmart, the Costco and the Target. And so I just think there are some people, not all of them, a lot of MAGA people who will do whatever he says. But there are a lot of voters out there who did swing in the direction of Trump because they thought he was going to make things cheaper for for them. And this is like I it's such a turbocharged version of doing everything that he promised not to do.

So our, it seems like our eternal challenge in the Trump era is to get a

attention and coverage of these kinds of debates over cost of life issues, health care, taxes, anything that affects people's economic well-being, because they just don't break through as easily. And especially in this term, when Trump is doing so many things every day and taking up so much attention with all of the very sort of horrible things he's doing. You guys have ideas on how to help make sure this breaks through? And then what can people who want to help

make sure it breaks through due? What's the best way for people to get involved in this debate? So I got one do and I got one don't. And both of those dos and don'ts apply both to everybody out there in the world and Democratic elected officials. The first thing is we need to spend however long it takes until this bill is either defeated or passed, talking about one thing and one thing only, which is that they are going to increase the cost of everything. Healthcare, food, energy,

consumer goods in order to shovel big tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. And we need to talk about only this. That's the one thing that we need to do better on. And there are lots of outrages in this bill that I could kind of delineate, but then we're off message. We need to talk about the thing that is maximally impactful, not the thing that scratches my particular itch about the bill, right?

That's the first thing we need to do is just talk about this bill. The second thing we all need to stop doing is talking about ourselves, talking about the Democratic Party as some institution that if we just get enough op-eds written or sub-stacks written or podcasts, all due respect, podcasts,

podcasts conducted or floor speeches or MSNBC hits, if we just dial it exactly right, we're going to unlock popularity. What we need to do is start being the party of action and less navel-gazing. And even when people act moderate or progressive, they like to talk about themselves as if they are observing themselves. See, I'm a progressive, not like those moderates. See, I'm a moderate, not like those pro...

Who gives a shit? They're about to cut Medicaid. They're about to increase the cost of energy and food and healthcare. We need to focus on one thing and one thing only, which is killing this bill, and we can do it.

Yeah, good luck. Look, you're right. You're right. And it's hard. I mean, but like, I'm a pundit. I talk about this shit all the time. I feel like maybe it's our fault, too. But in the last couple of years, especially the last year since the election, a lot of Democratic politicians, Pfeiffer calls this reading the stage directions. There's a lot of like, here's what we're supposed to be saying. And we're going to say this more because we're told by the polls we're supposed to say this. And it's like a lot of analysis, right?

as opposed to just like, this is how I feel about this and this is what it could mean for you and I'm gonna try to go fight it. - Well, and it's just, I'm now thinking out loud completely, but like, it's a little bit of a symptom of the fact

fandom in politics. Like politics is just like your fantasy football team and you just kind of root for them, but it's not a participatory question. And then there's a kind of aspect of it where even if you're on the field, you're like Draymond Green, who's a basketball player slash podcaster about basketball. And so I just feel like we need to get out of our own damn heads, look at that bill, not think too carefully about it, call it a piece of shit and try to kill it.

So we were talking earlier about the anti-Semitic attack in Colorado, which Trump and Stephen Miller are, of course, blaming on Biden's immigration policies and using to justify their crackdown on all immigrants. Miller tweeted suicidal migration must be fully reversed.

They seem to be getting even more extreme on this issue, which doesn't seem possible. And the next day it's something worse. They're ignoring the courts. They're ignoring public opinion in the vein of let's talk about what we can actually do. What else can be done here? I mean, how are you guys thinking about this?

I think, well, let me just start with the anti-Semitic attack from a day ago and the one in the previous week. You know, as a Jewish American, as an American, this is terrifying stuff. And this is terrible stuff. And everybody left, right, and center needs to sort of have a complete sentence where you're not pivoting from the question of anti-Semitism in America, which is a very real threat.

to whatever else it is that you want to say, right? As a throat-clearing exercise before you say, and that's why something-something pro-Israel, or that's why something-something pro-Palestine. Let's just acknowledge that anti-Semitism is a vile, poisonous thing that appears to be on the rise, and we now see it in three dimensions. So I want to just stop. Now, a new paragraph says,

regarding what Stephen Miller and the Trump administration are doing is they are using it to justify immigration crackdowns that have nothing to do with

anti-Semitism, and of course an assault on free speech and the rule of law and higher learning generally. But the challenge is in politics that you don't usually have enough time to say both things without it sounding like you're just using one thing in order to talk about the thing that you've always wanted to talk about.

And I think whether you're part of the kind of pro-Palestinian peace movement or you're more hawkish about Israel, like we should all be able to agree that anti-Semitism has no place in public life in the United States of America or anywhere.

And that anti-Semitism is never justified by disagreeing or agreeing with the actions of Hamas or the PLO or the IDF or Prime Minister Netanyahu. And so I just feel very strongly that we kind of have to take our time on this and to try to find the maximum number of people who can agree with some basic premises about our shared humanity.

Yeah, no, I totally agree. And it seems as though that Trump and Miller can't do that because they are already using it to, they're already exploiting the issue to carry out their deportations agenda. Well, you get the, I mean, you get the, I got members who I like on the Republican side, I'll talk to them about antisemitism and they immediately, I don't want to say inexplicably, but like weirdly, like as an interpersonal reaction, it's kind of weird because they'll immediately go to, hey, I'm one of the biggest supporters of Israel you've ever seen. And I'm like,

That's like, no one says that to a Chinese American, right? No one says that to a Puerto Rican American. You just don't immediately pivot to the sort of place of origin in such a way where you are conflating support for the government of Israel with opposition to anti-Semitism. It does get complicated because of motivations and because of generations of history and violence, but I just feel like

That has become a shield and a sword on behalf of people who want to kind of wield it against liberals, generally speaking. Yeah. Do you guys have any other tools on the deportation stuff? Just because I feel like, you know, they're in open defiance basically of multiple courts, including the Supreme Court.

They are losing the public opinion war on this issue even. And it doesn't seem to matter, right? The deportation forces are getting bigger. They're taking high school kids, little kids. People have been here for years and years and years. People have legal status. And, you know, I scream about this all the time and everyone raises awareness. I know you do. We all do. But I'm like, are we just going to – is there nothing to do but just –

wait and hope that Democrats take back Congress and then we get Trump out of the White House? And do we just have to endure a brutal immigration deportation regime until then? I mean, I think local governments can do some things. I think nonprofits can do some things to protect people on the ground. Obviously, you don't want to get into a kinetic situation with law enforcement, but just physical presence and observation is

can very much help to diffuse situations and keep everybody safe. But, you know, look, most of the lawsuits, Trump, I think, has won 4% of his lawsuits in the federal district and circuit and Supreme Court. So we are winning on that level. Compliance is, as you've mentioned, spotty. But one of the things I promised myself I would do in the second Trump term is not bullshit someone that there's some magic button that is available to us that we've just like not yet revealed for lack of courage.

I'm not sure what the legislative branch can do, and I'm not sure that this will change until our government changes. We can, like I said, work with nonprofit partners, work with litigation partners, of course work in the legislative context, but there is no law that we're going to pass to constrain these people in the short run. Mike Johnson is in charge of the House of Representatives. Yeah. Yeah.

How's your race for Democratic whip going? And why do you want the job? It feels like it requires dealing with some pretty big personalities and taking a lot of shit for things that aren't necessarily your fault. For some reason, I like that. I mean, the state senate president from Hawaii used to say 90% of politics is social work. And so when you think about the caucus, 47 of us,

It's like case management. It's sort of understanding the needs and the assets and the aspirations of each person. And I just like that part of politics. And I think it's especially interesting in a place. Look, you can be pissed at Senate Democrats and as a collective, but they are individually a bunch of very impressive people. And if I can help to kind of maximize the use of everybody's talent geographically,

You know, on the ideological spectrum in terms of personal background and all the rest of it, like that sounds fun to me. And I think I'm pretty good at it. So it's going reasonably well. I don't have anything news to report other than, you know, this is a job that I think fits my disposition and personality, and I'm hoping I can do it.

What's your level of alarm right now, now that we're this many months into the Trump administration? You seem determined and not too freaked out, which I like, but I'm feeling a little, I'm feeling both frustrated, exhausted, and just sort of like, what happens next? What do we do? We've been yelling about this for over 100 days now, and I don't know what, you know, I guess we just have to wait for the midterms. I think it's a grind, right? And I think that

People should not mistake my apparent calmness for being naive about the threat to the United States itself. I think it is real. My sort of role model, this sounds ridiculous, but I'm just talking disposition. This guy's an actual hero. But as I watched him, I thought, oh, that's how you should conduct yourself in a crisis. It is President Zelensky because that man –

um, does not look freaked out and has every reason to be freaked out. Everything he cares about, everything he's responsible for on a daily basis is in jeopardy. And yet he understands that the best way to lead out of that is to not have your hair on fire and, um, and, and lose your cool.

That doesn't mean you lose your determination or have some lack of seriousness, but it does mean that people like me have to be able to communicate clearly, keep everybody else alert, alarmed, but still calm enough to make strategic choices. And so that's the attitude I take. It doesn't mean I don't have moments of,

whoa um i should and you know the times are very weighty right now um but so my level of alarm is quite high um but my level of determination is higher uh last question i'll let you go you aren't posting as much i've noticed what's going on there uh i didn't i didn't even know that

So my, my like posting habits, like, you know, there's correlations between how much I'm traveling, how much I'm exercising, how much I'm, you know, surfing, how much I'm, you know, sleep patterns. So this was not some conscious political choice. This was just like, I don't know.

I don't know if you've... What's going on in my life? You're a fellow poster like me. And I was just, I'm like, what's your secret? I don't know if you suddenly, you know, developed some healthier habits. No, no, no, no, no such luck. Okay, good. Just wanted to make sure. Senator Schatz, thank you as always for joining and appreciate you coming on. Thank you. Happy birthday. All right, everyone. That's our show for today. Thanks as always to Brian Schatz for coming on. Dan and I will be back with a new show on Friday. Bye, everyone.

If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad-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 Rubin. Our associate producer is Farrah Safari. Reid Cherlin is our executive editor, and Adrian 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 Seglin and Charlotte Landis.

Madeline 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 Cohn, Haley Jones, Ben Hethcote, Mia Kelman, Molly Lobel, Kirill Pelleviv, and David Tolles. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.