The 10 Numbers That Defined 2025

Summary

Podcast Episode Summary

GD POLITICS – "The 10 Numbers That Defined 2025"

Host: Galen Druke
Guests: Mary Radcliffe (Head of Research at 50 Plus One), Nathaniel Rakic (Managing Editor at VoteBeat)
Date: December 29, 2025

---

1. Episode Overview

In this year-end special, the GD POLITICS team – Galen Druke, Mary Radcliffe, and Nathaniel Rakic – set out to build a "2025 Time Capsule" filled with numbers that best capture the year in American politics and society. Each panelist brings forward their most significant stats from 2025, debating and deciding which ten will make the definitive list. The episode is infused with holiday humor and friendly banter, while still offering incisive political analysis.

---

2. Key Discussion Points and Insights

The Process: Choosing the Top 10 Numbers

• Each guest was asked to bring five numbers representing pivotal trends or events.
• Only ten can fit in the capsule, so nominees are debated and placed into "definite," "maybe," or "no" columns.
• Numbers range from the highly political (executive orders, shutdowns) to the more cultural or societal (AI usage, GLP-1 adoption).

---

Standout Numbers & What They Represent

1. 43 — Days the Federal Government Was Shut Down
[03:54] Mary Radcliffe nominates this as the longest shutdown in U.S. history, notable for bringing healthcare and ACA subsidies into mainstream debate.

"It did successfully change a lot of the conversation that we were having about American politics." (Mary Radcliffe, 03:54)

2. 225 — Executive Orders Signed by Donald Trump
[06:10] Nathaniel Rakic brings the explosive acceleration of executive action to the forefront, indicating a profound shift in the separation of powers.

“This is just very indicative of... the complete acceleration of the consolidation of executive power... Donald Trump has really just supercharged it.” (Nathaniel Rakic, 07:01)
Host Galen contextualizes this with past presidents: Biden (77 in first year), Trump’s first term (55), Obama (40), showing the stark increase.

3. 106 — Congressional Districts Redrawn for 2026 [13:52] Reflects the extensive redistricting activity in 2025, much of it partisan, impacting about a quarter of House seats.

“This has been one of the overarching political stories of 2025—this push for partisan redistricting... in a way we really have not seen in recent American history.” (Mary Radcliffe, 14:53)

4. 3.4 Trillion — Ten-year Deficit Increase from the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'
[16:22] The team debates the best number to represent the year’s singular legislative achievement and its fiscal/care consequences.

5. 170 Billion — Five-Year Budget Increase for ICE
[33:36] Mary’s pick represents the huge expansion of immigration enforcement, with the ICE budget nearly tripling over five years.

“...Almost unfathomable to think about how any organization absorbs a 179% increase in its budget, let alone a government organization.” (Mary Radcliffe, 34:48)

6. 271,000 — Federal Workers Fired, Bought Out, or Retired Early
[38:26] Nathaniel highlights the "defining story" of the early Trump 2.0 administration—Elon Musk-style federal workforce reduction.

“Elon Musk coming in... shutting down entire departments and slashing others, I think, has impact for the functioning of the federal government.” (Nathaniel Rakic, 39:08)

7. 62% — Percent of Americans Interacting with AI Multiple Times a Week
[25:44, 27:36] Chosen to represent the "AI revolution" as a major societal trend.

“Artificial intelligence has been... a big explosion in this becoming a big part of the economy and people’s daily lives. We don’t know where it’s going...” (Nathaniel Rakic, 27:08)

---

Other Major Numbers Highlighted

• 70 — “Affordability” Mentions in Congressional Emails
  (Galen, [09:34]). Used as a “stickiness of affordability” as a key political buzzword.

• 12% — Americans on GLP-1 Drugs (Ozempic-type medications)
  (Galen, [19:36]). Tied to broader health, economics, and even political negotiation (Maha movement/government price control).

• 605,000 — Deportations in 2025
  (Galen, [30:18]) with debate over including this vs. the more verifiable ICE budget number.

---

Broader Trends & Context

• Executive power consolidation dominates discussion, with both shutdowns and executive orders seen as symptoms of broader institutional stress.
• Redistricting is depicted as a throwback to 19th-century-style partisan maneuvering.
• Immigration crackdown is noted for its scale and unprecedented budget outlays, with doubts about data reliability.
• AI Integration and GLP-1 adoption are recognized as key markers of how rapidly politics and society are changing—even when not overtly “political.”
• Buzzword politics: Words like “affordability” illustrate how language and public concern shift faster than raw economic data.
• Each number is debated for inclusion based on significance, accuracy, and ability to represent larger stories.

---

3. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the shutdown:
  “That was like 1/10 or over a month—it was 1/10 of the year the government was shut down, and it was a big deal for the functioning of Congress and the government.”
  — Nathaniel Rakic, [04:57]

• On executive orders:
  “Donald Trump has signed 225 executive orders... more than any president in their first year in office since FDR in 1941.”
  — Nathaniel Rakic, [07:14]

• On GLP-1 drugs:
  “Dr. Oz... proclaimed at one point that this would result in Americans losing 135 billion pounds... we all have to lose 3 to 400 pounds. The number was quite misguided.”
  — Galen Druke, [19:47]

• On ICE funding:
  “Almost unfathomable to think about how any organization absorbs a 179% increase in its budget, let alone a government organization.”
  — Mary Radcliffe, [34:48]

• On AI societal integration:
  “My personal flag for when AI is fully integrated into society is when people don’t feel the need to announce that they are reading the AI summary when they Google something.”
  — Mary Radcliffe, [28:25]

---

4. Timestamps for Important Segments

| Timestamp | Segment/Number | Description | |-----------|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:54 | 43 | Longest-ever government shutdown | | 06:10 | 225 | Executive orders by Trump | | 13:52 | 106 | Congressional districts redrawn | | 16:22 | 3.4 Trillion | Deficit from the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ | | 19:36 | 12% | Americans using GLP-1 meds | | 25:44 | 62% | Americans interacting with AI | | 30:18 | 605,000 | 2025 deportations | | 33:36 | 170 Billion | Five-year ICE budget increase | | 38:26 | 271,000 | Federal workers fired/bought out/retired early |

---

5. Panelist Dynamics & Tone

• Warm, witty, and self-aware—the hosts acknowledge the "nerdiness" of their process while providing accessible explanations.
• Healthy skepticism—data reliability, especially from government sources, is discussed openly.
• Teamwork with debate—Mary, Nathaniel, and Galen gamely challenge one another’s numbers but always reach consensus.

---

6. Conclusion & Resolutions Teaser

• After the main segment, Galen teases continued debate on paid subscriber audio, including wilder numbers (400, 500, 600) and the panelists’ 2026 resolutions.
• Ends with well wishes for the New Year and an invitation to become a subscriber for more in-depth episodes.

---

The Final Numbers in the Time Capsule (as aired):

1. 43 — Days government was shut down
2. 225 — Trump executive orders
3. 106 — Districts redrawn
4. 170 Billion — Five-year ICE budget increase
5. 271,000 — Federal workers let go
6. 62% — Americans interacting with AI weekly (Others moved to "maybe" or for later debate in bonus content)

---

For listeners, this episode delivers a fun, sharply insightful review of 2025’s biggest political and societal shifts, structured through memorable numbers, rich discussion, and just enough holiday cheer to keep things light but substantial.

Transcript

[Galen Droock]

I have 17 numbers. What?

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Well, I. I cut myself off clearing.

[Mary Radcliffe]

My calendar off at 7.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

You guys worked too hard. It's a holiday. I don't know if you've noticed, so. I certainly have.

[Galen Droock]

And we love you for it. Nathaniel.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

I. You know, I won't say whether there's alcohol in this eggnog or not, so.

[Mary Radcliffe]

It is 11 o' clock in the morning.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah, that's why I'm not saying. Mary.

[Galen Droock]

Hello and welcome to the GD Politics Podcast. I'm Galen Droock and happy almost new year. 2025 has been a big year for this GD podcast. Of course, it's the year of our birth, but we didn't stop there. We hosted a number of live shows, we got rebranded, created merch, and even made some news. So, first and foremost, enormous thank you to everyone who joined us this year. You made this all possible. 2025 was also a big year for America. We began our semi quincentennial year for the second time ever a US President was inaugurated to a non consecutive term. The country also got a rebrand of sorts. There's more gold detailing on the walls these days, and the East Wing no longer exists. There are many more things I could list here, but then I might give away too much of what we're going to talk about in this video episode. And what's that, you may ask? We are building a 2025 time capsule. And in case that's not nerdy enough, we're filling it with numbers. I've asked dear friends of the podcast, Nathaniel Rakic and Mary Radcliffe, to choose five numbers each they would like to place in the capsule. I've also got my five numbers. Well, actually, I have a lot more than that. But the bad news is that only 10 numbers fit in the time capsule, so we'll have to duke it out and see who gets their way. So, to start things off, Mary Radcliffe, head of research at 50 plus one, welcome to the final GD Politics podcast of 2025.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Thanks, Galen. Great to be here. I'm excited for this. This is going to be fun.

[Galen Droock]

I am excited. This was a mind meld, by the way. Nathaniel, Mary and I sort of came up with this idea at the end of another podcast. So a lot of credit to you guys for helping come up with the theme of this podcast. Also here with us, Nathaniel Ragich, managing editor at Vote Beat. Welcome to the podcast.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Thank you, Galen. Well, you know what they say. Holidays are time to be spent with dear friends, and I am very glad to be here. With you and Mary sipping some eggnog, still very much in the holiday spirit.

[Galen Droock]

That's so sweet. You are also wearing a Santa hat and a Santa hat, button down shirt. So you're very much in the spirit of things. In fact, are you Santa Claus?

[Nathaniel Rakic]

I can't say.

[Galen Droock]

Okay. All right.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Look at Galen trying to spoil the match.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

I am pretty tired from last week, though. That's. That's what I will say.

[Galen Droock]

Also at the end, we are going to share three New Year's resolutions, each one for the Democratic party, one for the Republican party, and one for ourselves. So we got a lot to cover today. We going to start off by filling up our time capsule. And I think the way that we're going to go about this is we're going to take turns sharing our numbers and we will, at the start, settle on whether it's definitely going in the time capsule, whether it's maybe going in the time capsule or whether it's absolutely not going in the time capsule. And we'll have to debate a little bit, but hopefully in the holiday spirit, we can come to some sort of common understanding about the 10 numbers that represent this hell of a year. So, Mary Radcliffe, would you like to kick us off with the first number of Christmas, the first number of the GD time capsule?

[Mary Radcliffe]

Sure. The first number. I. I should say I'm not sure that my numbers are like in some kind of an order, but the first number on my list to propose for our time capsule is 43. 43 is the number of days the federal government was shut down this year, the longest shutdown in American history. And what I think is really important about the shutdown this year, while it did not achieve the policy outcomes that the Democrats were hoping for, which shutdowns usually don't, and we've discussed this in the past, it did successfully change a lot of the conversation that we were having about American politics. It really pushed this issue of healthcare and Affordable Care act subsidies into the mainstream, where more people know about this and more people are thinking about it. So that's My first number, 43.

[Galen Droock]

I, for a starter, I think that's a pretty good one. I'm not gonna argue with it. I would put it in the time capsule for now with the caveat that at the very end, we're gonna add some more numbers into the mix and see if anything needs to be swapped out. And I will admit that I also have this number on my list. So that's one of the reasons I'm not going to disagree with you.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Mary?

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah, I think that's a pretty good one. I think that it is, at least it has been somewhat in vogue to be like, oh, government shutdowns don't matter. And I think electorally that is generally true. But I think in terms of telling the story of the year in, that was, as you point out, that was like 1/10 or over a month. It was 1/10 of the year. The government was shut down, and it was a big deal for just the general functioning of Congress and, and the government and everything. So I like it. You know, I'm not sure I like it as much as some of my numbers, but, you know, we'll see.

[Galen Droock]

Okay, so we're going to, we're going to put it in for now, add 43 to the definite column, and as we move forward, maybe say your number and then pause for a second and see if we can guess for dramatic effect what it, what it represent.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

That's good.

[Galen Droock]

I don't know that I would have been able to get that one. Maybe I miscounted. I miscounted, though. The number on My list was 45, so I would have gotten that wrong. That might be because we hit the record at 35 days. So the number in my mind was 35, but I knew that it was 40 something. I'm not gonna try to explain.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

This is why you need Mary to fact check.

[Galen Droock]

I know exactly. This is why everyone needs an editor. Nathaniel, take it away.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

My first number is 225.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Oh, I have that on my list.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah. Galen, would you like to guess?

[Galen Droock]

Is it the number of executive orders signed by Donald Trump?

[Nathaniel Rakic]

It is indeed.

[Galen Droock]

Did we have all three on my list, guys?

[Mary Radcliffe]

Oh, man.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Melt.

[Mary Radcliffe]

You gotta put that one in, I guess.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah, I think that's a pretty, pretty good recommendation. All right, to do my spiel for this one. So Donald Trump has signed 225 executive orders. Um, this is as of December 23rd. That is more than any president in their first year in office since FDR in 1941. It is also more than any president in their entire term since Jimmy Carter. And I think that this is just very indicative of what I think is probably the biggest overall political story of 2025, which is just the complete acceleration of the consolidation of executive power, which has been a trend, a bipartisan trend in American politics for decades now. But Donald Trump has really just supercharged it. Right. He has essentially made other branches of the government almost obsolete. Right. The House has been out of session for large stretches this year, and they haven't passed much legislation, but Donald Trump has just been decreeing things and going ahead with them whether they are legal or not. You know, that's kind of the courts have been going back and forth and doing their Cordy thing, but he's just been going ahead with stuff. And I think that that is a really important trend, the kind of obliteration or toppling over of the, the separation of powers and the, the, the balance of checks and balances system.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Yeah, I mean, we all have this on our list, so I think none of us are going to disagree.

[Galen Droock]

Yeah, I won't be disagreeing. I did add a couple more numbers to contextualize this. So just to say here, Biden's first year in office, he signed 77 executive orders in 2021 for Donald Trump for his first term. First year of his first term, that was 55 executive orders in 2017. For Barack Obama, it was 40 executive orders in 2009. So what is that? A 300% increase in the number of executive orders signed in the first year in office? And yeah, I mean, I think that was the story of the first 100 days was a real, you know, shock and awe executive order campaign where every time he held an event, he was on the stage being like, okay, we're doing this. And also, by the way, I have 10 more executive orders to sign. And a lot of them are not in place right now. You know, for example, birthright citizenship, ending his attempt to end birthright citizenship. They will make their ways through the courts. In some situations, the court is hearing these cases where we maybe thought they wouldn't even hear a case like this. And so this is also a story that's gonna carry forward. Forward. It's not over yet. Yeah. So I'm.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Three more years of executive orders to come.

[Galen Droock]

Exactly. And I guess there's no decree that you have to sign your largest number of executive orders in your first year. He could, you know, beat that in his second year if he wanted to. Okay. So I did not put this in order from most salient. So just bear with me in case you think this is a bad number, but I think it's pretty good. My first number that I'm adding to the time capsule is 70.

[Mary Radcliffe]

I don't know.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

I don't know.

[Galen Droock]

It is the number of mentions of affordability as an umbrella term in emails from members of Congress. And to contextualize this, in the year 2020, there were 0 per month. In 2021, there was less than 1 per month. In 2022, there was 1 per month in 2023, 6 per. Per month. Then in the month From November to December 2025, there were 70 mentions of the word affordability. This does not even include things like housing affordability or health care affordability. It's only affordability as a standalone, amorphous, politicsy kind of term. So this, this is data that was put together by the New York Times as sort of evidence for the stickiness of the. The political cachet of affordability. You know, there are a lot of numbers that describe the economy. In fact, some of them I have on my list. But in some ways, the numbers that you would that describe the economy are significantly better than they were in, say, 2022. But in 2022, there was one mention of affordability per month. So in some ways, we're talking about a political phenomenon, not we were talking about an economic phenomenon, but more than that, we're talking about a political phenomenon.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Yeah, but I wonder the extent to which like this was mentioned in the past. It's just that we used to call it cost of living.

[Galen Droock]

Wow. Wow. Really throw some cold water on that one, Mary.

[Mary Radcliffe]

I just.

[Galen Droock]

We're have to go back to the data and now search cost of living.

[Mary Radcliffe]

No, I mean, I'm just curious, like, the extent to which this is just like a buzzy buzzword that, that gets at something we've talked about in the past. I mean, that being said, I think you're right. I think the salience of like, cost of living or affordability issues is higher now than it has been in previous cycles or in previous years. I'm just curious if it's like buzzword.

[Galen Droock]

Data in and of itself, like being a piece like I would stick a buzzy word in a time capsule. You know, it's a. It captures the time that we're in.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah, I think it's a. It's a maybe. I think it's definitely true that affordability, slash cost of living, slash inflation. Right. Has been a very salient political issue, probably the most salient political issue of the last three years or so. And I think that that has not changed under Donald Trump, much to his chagrin. We've talked on this podcast about how his approval rating, specifically on the issue of inflation or affordability, or however you ask about it, is lower than his overall approval rating, which is unusual for him, given that the economy was a strength for him in his first term. And I think that that could very well be the key to a key, perhaps to Democratic victories in future. I think that we saw Zohar and mom Dani, of course. I think I feel like the affordability as, like, the specific buzzword started with him, and a lot of people are just kind of, like, picking up on that. But, yeah, I think that it is. I think it's definitely an important trend. You know, I think you could throw in, you know, this wasn't one of my numbers, but, you know, maybe it's one of your gazillion. Galen. Right. The continuing trend of, you know, inflation being, like, a little bit above average for 2025, I think the most recent.

[Galen Droock]

2.7%.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah.

[Galen Droock]

Yeah. Annual.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah. So, you know, not. You know, not terrible. But when you get on the campaign trail and say prices are gonna go down and then they don't go down, when you become president, that's gonna cause.

[Galen Droock]

You some problems, even though prices going down would be its own disaster. But we don't have to get into Economics 101 with Gaylord, as the president.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Is now very earnestly trying to explain to people.

[Galen Droock]

Okay, so I'm gonna put. I'm gonna be. I'm gonna totally take your recommendation. I'm putting 70 under the maybe column. And we are back to Mary.

[Mary Radcliffe]

My next number is six.

[Galen Droock]

I think I know what this is the precursor to.7. As in 6 7. The 67 phenomenon from 2025.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Yes. I have teenagers in my house, but that's not why I chose it, because.

[Galen Droock]

I have 67 on my list.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Oh, geez.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Is this the number of states that have redistricted in 2025?

[Mary Radcliffe]

It is the number of states that currently have new maps in place for the 2026 election that were not used in the 2024 election.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

I had a similar number, but it was going to be 106, because that is the total number of districts that have been redrawn, which is a quarter of the House, which I think is even more kind of startling, because the two biggest states. Right. Texas and California are on that list.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Yeah.

[Galen Droock]

I mean, see, this is where. This is where our brains diverge. We were talking about a mind meld. My brain went to 6, 7. You guys were thinking about redistricting.

[Mary Radcliffe]

I mean, I think either of those numbers is actually fine, and maybe we could, like, put them in as a team.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

There we go.

[Galen Droock]

Yeah, I think I. I think I'm the arbiter of this because I'm more of a neutral party. I would pick the 106 number, strangely enough, because I think that it's the totality of the impact. And again, we only have room for 10 numbers. So we have to be, you know, economical.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Yeah. I mean, not all 106 of those districts changed really dramatically.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

This is true. Most of them are still either safe blue or safe red.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Yeah. But I think. I mean, this has been one of the overarching political stories of 2025 is this push for partisan redistricting in order to try to gain some kind of advantage in the midterm elections in a way that we really have not seen in recent American history. There were periods of American history where this was very common. You can look at the mid-1800s if you want to, but, like, this is relatively new for our modern moment in history. And so that seemed really notable to me, the sort of outright partisanship generally.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

You know, like, doing things that happened in the 1800s is not necessarily a good thing, at least when you're talking about, you know, democracy, when, you know, democracy was not at its strongest, Perhaps.

[Galen Droock]

In the 1800s, which podcast listeners will have learned, if they did not know already, from our Roman Empire elections series from last week, where we. We detail some of the craziest elections in American history. And if, as somebody who covers these things for a living, I had to choose whether or not I would like to cover such an election, I think I would opt out, to be quite honest.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah.

[Galen Droock]

Okay, so I have 106 in the definite column with a little parenthesis next to it that says six states. Nathaniel, we are back to you.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

I mean, that was. That was gonna be my next one. I can skip ahead, but then I'm gonna be. I'm gonna be one number down.

[Galen Droock]

I came up with a bunch of extra numbers for exactly this reason.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Okay. All right, well, my next number is. Is all. Is kind of. They're kind of smushed together. They're a pairing. So I don't know if you're gonna allow that in your time capsule, Galen, but the numbers are. One half of it is $3.4 trillion, and the other half is 10 million.

[Galen Droock]

$3.4 trillion is our deficit.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Deficit or debt.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Close.

[Mary Radcliffe]

The increase in our deficit. The increase in our debt.

[Galen Droock]

Yeah. Yes.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

You're getting closer.

[Galen Droock]

Oh, the amount of money that we spent on Covid. No, not the. Oh, from the one big, beautiful bill.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Exactly.

[Galen Droock]

Yes.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

And the 10 million is the number of people who will lose their health insurance under it.

[Galen Droock]

You got to pick one number, though, Nathan.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

I know. I know. This whole. I think I just. It was a. I basically. I was trying to get, you know, the one basically, like, major legislative accomplishment of 2025 was the big Beautiful bill. And it, these are the two numbers from the Congressional Budget Office that, you know, the impact that it said that it would have. And it was notable to me that it had this effect that at least on the debt side, normally Republicans, you know, or you know, 10, 20 years ago, Republicans would not have been super enthusiastic about it. And some Republicans were not happy about it. They were basically dragged kicking and screaming over the finish line on this one. But the push to just kind of like get a win for Donald Trump was, seemed to be the overarching important thing for, for Republicans and, and they obviously got that win and you know, it could have a very, very impactful impact. Very impactful impact. That's the end of the year, guys.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Very important in the morning.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah, sorry, let me take another sip. But it seems like it's going to be a very impactful bill going forward. And so, yeah, that some, some mention of the big beautiful bill should be in the time capsule.

[Galen Droock]

And some of the biggest winners were upper middle class people in states like mine.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Between those two numbers, I think 3.4 trillion is the one that I would pick. I also have an upcoming number related to the one big beautiful bill. So we, I don't know if we want to put this in the maybe column and see. Maybe we use them both. I don't know.

[Galen Droock]

Okay, we'll put it. I mean let's, well, let's be rigorous about this. So we're going to put 3.4 trillion. I'm, I'm with that. I'm good. 3, 0.4 trillion in the maybe column, which is, that's adds to the deficit over. Or the debt over how long? 10 years. What's the. Because it's not.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yes, from 2025 to 2034.

[Galen Droock]

Okay, we are back to me, I am going to take a left turn slightly out of politics territory because I think we can also cover American society here and I think it has political implications and speaks to some things going on with Maha and, and otherwise. So My number is 12.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Oh, is it measles deaths?

[Nathaniel Rakic]

No. Oh, interesting.

[Galen Droock]

That's dark though. I'm not, I'm, I feel like measles.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Deaths might be higher.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Measles deaths might be higher.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

I don't know. Is this like, wasn't there when, when he like fired all the board members? Is that the number of board members?

[Galen Droock]

Oh, come on. So specific. Okay, I'll, I'll go ahead and say it is the percentage of Americans on GLP1s in 2025.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Oh.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Oh, wow.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

You weren't kidding with your ozempic joke.

[Galen Droock]

So 12% of Americans on GLP1s. It has risen very rapidly. And for the first time in a very long time, Americans are becoming less overweight. This has even become a part of the Maha movement where they've negotiated the price of GLP. The government has negotiated the price of GLP1s with Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. And Dr. Oz, who was a, you know, significant part of this, even proclaimed at one point that this would result in Americans. I forget exactly what the quote was. It was like Americans losing, losing 135 billion pounds by, by the midterms, which, if you do the math was like, we all have to lose three to 400 pounds. The number was quite, was quite misguided.

[Mary Radcliffe]

But yeah, we're not putting that one in time caps.

[Galen Droock]

Administration is making this a political thing too, in terms of talking about how it's a net benefit to society, the availability of these drugs and more people getting on them and more people being able to afford them. And if it's 12% now, and I'll say, you know, you still see ads everywhere. I think we're just at the very beginning of this process. I think it's an indicator of where we could go from here.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Yeah, I think that's an interesting one. I also think it's. It's worth noting that these GLP1s have impacts in other areas of health besides weight. There's a lot of people that have found that using these drugs helps them deal with problems of addiction and sort of other related compulsive behavioral issues. So I think there's like pretty widespread application of these and sort of yet to see the long term consequences. I'm like, very nervous that in five years there's going to be commercials on my TV that was like, have you or a loved one taken GLP1's call?

[Galen Droock]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I'm not a scientist. I have no idea where this is all headed, but I think that snapshot of where we are today is still an important number.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah, I mean, I definitely agree. I think it is an important trend in society, I guess. I'm not sure that it would belong in a presumably politics focused time capsule, but, you know, it's your time capsule, Gale.

[Galen Droock]

Politics and data. Politics and data, you know.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah, yeah, put it in the maybe.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Yeah, put it in the maybe column.

[Galen Droock]

Wow, I'm really striking out here.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

We're just keeping our options open.

[Galen Droock]

Okay, we're back to Mary.

[Mary Radcliffe]

All right, my next number is 10.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

It could be anything?

[Galen Droock]

I have 10. I have 10 on my list. I'll just say it. The percent tariff that Trump imposed on an island that has no human residents.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

That's good.

[Mary Radcliffe]

That is not the 10 that I have.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

What's your 10, Mary?

[Mary Radcliffe]

My 10 is the percent ownership share the US government now holds in the chipmaker Intel.

[Galen Droock]

Okay, Mary. The libertarian critiquing the state capitalism that took hold in 2025. Why am I not surprised?

[Mary Radcliffe]

Well, I haven't made any critique. I just said a number.

[Galen Droock]

Okay. All right.

[Mary Radcliffe]

No, I think this is actually really important because I think, you know, we have talked before about this shift we have seen in the last. Not just the Trump administration, but also the Biden administration and the first Trump administration towards more industrial policy, more spending by the government to support industry in the US And I think this is a step much further than what we have seen in recent years. This is the government taking a direct stake in a US Company. And I think it's important to think about, like, how that shift might alter the relationship between the government and various private corporations, the steps that they might take in order to not just support intel as a company, but also to support the bottom line of the U.S. government. Right. Like, this is seizing the means of production in some meaningful way if. If only a 10% stake. I have a related number that didn't make the cut, which was 25, the percent share that Trump wants out of Nvidia chip sales in China. So I think, you know, this sort of government directly taking stakes in private companies is something to keep an eye on.

[Galen Droock]

I understand the impulse, and I. I would go, maybe, but I think Nathaniel's about to say no. And if he says no, I won't.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

We gotta start making some cuts. Sorry, I just don't think this is one of the top 10 most important numbers.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Sorry.

[Galen Droock]

Intel. Okay. All right, Nathaniel, now you gotta have a good one because you just rejected one of those.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Okay, well, so I've been. Because, you know, one of mine got burned up earlier. I've been furiously Googling some of my, like, other ideas. And so I think I have a good one that it is kind of where since we're getting into kind of the, like, you know, wonky and, like, broader societal shifts part of the podcast, I am going to say one of these new ones that I just found, and it is 62%.

[Galen Droock]

62%. It's too low to be the percentage of Americans who say that we're on the wrong track. It's probably too low to be the number of Americans who don't trust Congress or other key institutions.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

But still. Okay, it's thematic with the last two that you guys have said, which is that it's like a. It's like a big. It's related to a big societal trend from 2025.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Is it the percent of Americans that identify as religious?

[Nathaniel Rakic]

No.

[Galen Droock]

It. Is it the percentage of Americans who say that the economy is bad or getting worse?

[Nathaniel Rakic]

No.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Okay, well, I give up.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Those would all be. You should, you should look up all those numbers, because I think those would be pretty good for the pot time capsule. But no, this is the percentage of US Adults who say they interact with artificial intelligence at least several times per week. According to the Pew Research Center.

[Galen Droock]

We. Nathaniel, I have this number as well, but the number that I have is 34% of US adults have used ChatGPT.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Okay.

[Galen Droock]

Which is an interesting. It's an interesting difference because so many people would say, okay, that's the go to sort of AI that everyone uses. And it's. That's double the share that it was in 2023. But people are. Whenever I bring this up in conversations because I'm that kind of nerd, people be like, whoa, that's way lower than I thought. And I'm like, yeah, because you have to think about the whole of American society when you think about these applications. And like, you may use it on a regular basis, but that puts you in a distinct minority. Anyway, I'll let you make the case for your number.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

I mean, it's also like, I think, like, anytime you Google something, unless you are being, like, really, like, conscious to avoid reading the AI summary, you're using AI anytime you're using, like, your phone. Like, you know, lots of phones have the AI capabilities when photo editing or whatever. So I think, like, chatgpt is too narrow. But no, I mean, I think this one, the argument for it is obvious, which is just that artificial intelligence has been a. That we've seen a big explosion in this becoming a big part of the economy and, you know, people's daily lives. And we don't know where it's going. We don't know whether it's going to have a net good impact and that bad impact. We don't know if it's a bubble that's going to burst and all that stuff. But it does seem like an important trend that kind of marked 2025. And we're going to look back five years from now and be like, oh, wow, that was the beginning of, you know, this big industrial revolution of AI. Or we're going to look back and be like, wow, remember when everybody was obsessed with AI and that turned out not to be a thing, or it was overhyped or whatever. So that's my argument.

[Galen Droock]

No matter what happens, I like that number. No matter what happens. I think at this point, five years from now, we're not going to be using it less. You know, like, I think the worst case scenario for AI people is that we stay about where we are for a long period of time. I don't think people are all of a. All of a sudden going to take away the editing features on your iPhone that make your photos look like you took them in a studio, or, you know, even the transcription features that I have on the app that we're using to record the podcast right now, or any. You know what I mean? All that is to say I think it's a good number. And even, like, we could probably debate what's the best number to represent the AI revolution, but I think it's important that we get a number in there that represents the AI revolution. And I'm happy to accept that one. So I'm going to put it in the yes, column. 62.

[Mary Radcliffe]

I will say my, like, personal flag for when AI is like, fully integrated into society is when people don't feel the need to announce that they are reading the AI summary when they Google something. Because I don't know if this. I don't know if you guys have this experience, but I have this in my life where if I look something up and I'm in a conversation and we're like, looking up something together, whoever is looking it up, if it's an AI summary, they start with AI summary. Like an announcement.

[Galen Droock]

Well, AI says. ChatGPT says.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Right, exactly. Because we all know that, like, whatever comes after you announce that this is the AI summary is like a thing to be taken with a grain of salt. So that's my, like, personal flag is like when people stop declaring it is the AI summary, then we're in it.

[Galen Droock]

Right. Whereas people originally were probably like, well, the Internet says it's this, and now we're just like, go to the source or whatever. So it's the percent of Americans who use AI with what frequency, Nathaniel?

[Nathaniel Rakic]

At least several times per week. So the options were, let me.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Is it use AI or interact with AI?

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Interact, yes.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Okay. I think that's an important distinction.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yes. So percentage say they interact with artificial intelligence, 31% say almost constantly, slash several times a day, 15% say about once a day, 17% say several times a week, and then 38% say less often.

[Galen Droock]

Okay. So that 62 encompasses everything. That is not the first three. Less often. Okay.

[Mary Radcliffe]

At least several times a week was the bar. Right, Right.

[Galen Droock]

Okay. My next one is I am struggling here a little bit to decide which number to choose, because these numbers have been spun in a particular way. And I also just don't know how reliable this data is, but I'm going to pick this number, which is 605,000.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Is it the number of deportees?

[Galen Droock]

It is.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

It is.

[Mary Radcliffe]

I thought about this number.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah.

[Galen Droock]

Okay. Did you?

[Mary Radcliffe]

I chose a different number that is related, which I'll get to next.

[Galen Droock]

So is it 2.5 million?

[Mary Radcliffe]

No.

[Galen Droock]

Okay, so this is according to the Department of Homeland Security. And their press release from the middle of December reads, thanks to President Trump and Secretary NOEM, more than 2.5 million illegal aliens left the U.S. dHS is shattering records with more than 605,000 deportations and 1.9 million self deportations. So they are saying that 1.9 million people in the country illegally chose to leave on their own. I want to give some point of comparison here, you know, because people talk a lot about Barack Obama's tenure and sort of treatment of immigrants who are in the country illegally during his time in office. So for, you know, the year 2013, for example, there were 432,228 removals, and there were, you know, about 175,000 returns. That 432,000 is the comparison point to the 600,000 that the Trump administration is talking about. So when it comes to the actual deportation numbers, this is a significant increase from one of the highest years, highest numbers under Obama, but it's not orders of magnitude higher. The sort of self, quote, unquote, self deportation numbers are much, much higher. I imagine that's like a more maybe amorphous number or a malleable. I don't know exactly how you confirm those things. Maybe take. Maybe take some of this data with a grain of salt. But I guess this is part of why I would put the 605,000 number in the time capsule, because that's the number of deportations there should be records for.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah, I think in general, you know, we wrote an article about this at FiveThirtyEight before it shut down at the beginning of the Trump administration about how, you know, they were only releasing data very, what seemed like selectively, and then they stopped releasing data for a while. And so I would take the data with a grain of salt. That said, I think it is certainly one of the most important news stories of 2025 was the crackdown in immigration enforcement. I would absolutely put something like that in the time capsule. I would also point out, Galen, that even according to their numbers. Right. They are short of the goal that Donald Trump set out during his campaign of deporting every single undocumented immigrant. There are an estimated 14 million. And even if you look at the broader number of self deportations, which are probably just like low hanging fruit. Right. If you are going to leave, if you're kind of like on the fence about maybe staying, you probably are going to do that like now and then, you know, the people who are going to stick are not necessarily going to leave later on in Trump's term.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Well, and especially because the Trump administration has been directly incentivizing people to leave the country. Right. Providing funds and helping people get plane tickets and whatever.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Exactly. So you know, certainly it has been a, you know, immigration but. Right, exactly. But it's not going to reach 14 million.

[Galen Droock]

Yeah.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

By the end of his term.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Before we decide on this number, can I do my next one? Because it's related to.

[Galen Droock]

Yeah, go for it.

[Mary Radcliffe]

So my next number is 170 billion. The.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Is this like the amount of money.

[Galen Droock]

That appropriated to ICE or Department of.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act? This is the increase in the ICE budget over the next five years. So just to put that in context.

[Galen Droock]

Mary loves a budget item.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Just to put that in context, the previous ICE budget was around $19 billion annually. So this is a, this is that 170 billion is over five years. So this is a 179% increase in the ICE budget over the next five years. The administration says that they want to use those funds to hire more agents to open more detention centers. And curiously, I don't really know exactly what this would look like to build partnerships with outside companies to track people down that do not have legal status. Which is a sentence I hate saying because I don't really trust outside companies to protect the data of Americans. But God, the libertarian in me is really coming out to me.

[Galen Droock]

Caitlin, let that libertarian flag fly.

[Mary Radcliffe]

But I think this is, this is an enormous amount of money. Right. I mean it is almost unfathomable to think about how any organization absorbs a 179 inch increase in its budget, let alone a government organization. And I just want to flag that. Like broadly speaking, I don't expect this increase to be very popular. So according to Pew research, in October, 53% of Americans said that the Trump administration was doing too much to deport illegal immigrants, which is a majority. 10% said too little, 36% said about the right amount. So if the, if there's already a majority that thinks that, that the administration is doing too much and we are infusing on almost 200% increase in capital into this, it's I, I think this could potentially make for quite a lot more chaos on the immigration issue.

[Galen Droock]

Also, if you judge the Trump administration on its own goals, this 200% increase has certainly not increased the number of deportations by 200%. They're spending far, far more money and getting an outcome that is something like 20% increase from the height of the Obama years. So, yeah, that's, I mean, I imagine that part of that is like one time expenses like building a wall or building surveillance or things like that.

[Mary Radcliffe]

I don't know, building a detention center perhaps.

[Galen Droock]

But in any case, okay, I'm still going to lobby for the 605,000 number because that is the sort of hard number at the end of all of this.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Yeah.

[Galen Droock]

And I don't have a number that's been put in the yes column yet. So I'm gonna make my own personal.

[Mary Radcliffe]

Appeal to make my case for why I chose 170 billion over 605,000. Because I looked at both of them because I wanted a number that really represented the, the story of immigration. I chose 170 billion because I am sure that number is correct.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Right. That's the, that's the issue. I would love to have the number, the actual number of deportations, because that I agree is like, that is the thing that matters, the end result here. But like, like not sure about how reliable that number is. So I don't know. That's, it's a real, it's a tough call.

[Galen Droock]

You're gonna have to, you've got, you got your two cases in front of you. Yeah.

[Mary Radcliffe]

You're the tiebreaker here.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

I'll go with Mary's also because of the impact that it'll have going forward. Right. Like, it's not necessarily, I mean, like it's a 2025 time capsule, but like that number is going to allow for many, many more deportations going forward. And I think that that is important.

[Galen Droock]

Okay. Budget increase for dhs. Is that what it is?

[Mary Radcliffe]

Ice Specifically over five years.

[Galen Droock]

All right, so Nathaniel, we are back to you. And I'll just say, here's what we have so far. We got five numbers in the yes column. It is 43, the number of days of the shutdown. 225 the number of executive orders in Trump's first year back in office. 106 the number of districts changed in this mid decade redistricting cycle. 62 the percent of Americans who use AI at least several times per week and 170 billion the budget for ICE over five years. Budget increase for ICE. Increase, increase, budget increase.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yep, those are good.

[Galen Droock]

And we see we have three numbers in the maybe column which is 70 mentions of affordability in congressional emails. 3.4 trillion, which is the increase to the deficit over 10 years which now I'm wondering if we're, you know, we need two budgetary line items and then 12% the GLP ones. So here we are. Nathaniel.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Okay, so there, this is another one where, you know, I think the exact number is hard to measure. Slash, you know, maybe isn't super reliable. But the, it seems like the number is between 250,000 and 300,000. The number I will choose is 271,000 which is from the Cato Institute.

[Galen Droock]

Would you guys like to guess 271,000. Is it the federal workers fired by Doge?

[Nathaniel Rakic]

It is.

[Galen Droock]

We really guess we. I, because I got the, I have a different number but I, it's very close to the number that I have because Reuters was tallying this as well, so they maybe came to some different conclusions. But it was, it's a combination of fire taken buyout or retired early.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Right? Yes, the reduction in the federal workforce. Yeah, I think that, you know, maybe this is my DC bias showing, but that has certainly in DC been, been a huge impact of the Trump administration. And I think that obviously for that the 271,000 people, 100,000 people, that is also a big deal. But yeah, the, the, that was obviously a huge story. Elon Musk coming in, it feels like a long time ago now, but him coming in and shutting down entire departments and slashing others, you know, I think has impact for the functioning of the federal government. It kind of fe into the executive consolidation of executive power that we talked about. You know, a lot of these moves were questionably legal and you know, but they were, they were done and by, by the time courts got around to ruling to be like, hey, you shouldn't do that. A lot of those people had left or were, were leaving anyway because, you know, like if your job is kind of, if you're hanging under the sword of Damocles and your job is uncertain, you're probably going to maybe self, you know, deport from the federal government. So Yeah, I thought that that was an important trend from 2025 as well.

[Galen Droock]

Self deport from the federal government. You should offer them that language, Nathaniel. Russ Vaught might like it.

[Mary Radcliffe]

No, I think this is a great number. Okay.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

All right.

[Galen Droock]

I guess by proxy of Nathaniel. You had to use Nathaniel to get a number in the, you know, in the time.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Yeah, sorry. I'll give you this one, Galen.

[Mary Radcliffe]

It seems like a long time ago, but like this was really the defining story of the early days of the, of the Trump administration. Um, it seems like a long time ago because everything happens all the time, but really set the tone for the early days.

[Galen Droock]

Okay, I will accept that. We're putting 271,000 in the time capsule and we are back to me, we've had a mix of some serious, some not so serious numbers. I'm going to offer a very self serving number for all of us because after all, this is our time capsule and the number I'm picking is 3, 5, 3, 5.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Not 3.

[Mary Radcliffe]

That's not a number.

[Galen Droock]

3, 5, 3.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

It's like 3, 2, 5. Like, it's like a, like a record. A win, loss record.

[Galen Droock]

You don't do sports. 3. Hyphen 5. Yeah, 3 backslash 5.

[Nathaniel Rakic]

Oh, I know what this is. I had. This is one of, one of my numbers too.

[Galen Droock]

All right, that's the end of today's preview. Head over to GDPolitics.com to become a paid subscriber and listen. Listen to the full episode. Mary, Nathaniel and I spent another half hour hashing out which numbers are Most representative of 2025. Some of them were pretty out there, like the numbers 400, 500 and 600. Can you guess what I'm talking about? We also shared our resolutions for 2026, which were mostly pretty earnest. Like I said, head over to GDPolitics.com to become a paid subscriber and catch the whole thing. Paid subscribers get about twice the number of episodes. Can join in the paid subscriber chat and most importantly, we'll keep this podcast going through 2026. When you become a subscriber, you can connect your account to wherever you listen to podcasts so you'll never miss an episode. There's a link in the show notes explaining how again, head over to gdpolitics. Com, see you there. And either way, have a happy new year.