← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
How America’s Red-Blue Divide Plays Into the ICE Shooting in MN, and Trump’s Global Power Plays Explained
01:15:46
Mark Halperin opens the episode with his reported monologue examining what the Minnesota shooting reveals about America’s deep Red–Blue divide — and why the national reaction to the tragedy says as much about our political culture as the violence itself. From the language used by leaders to the moral certitude on both sides, Mark breaks down how polarization is shaping conversations about grief, blame, and accountability. He then turns to the immigration debate, explaining why the left’s anger at ICE misses the larger forces driving the conflict — and how the Minnesota tragedy fits into a broader national struggle over enforcement, sovereignty, and political responsibility. Mark is then joined by Democratic strategist Hyma Moore and Republican Strategist Jeff Roe for a wide-angle discussion of where the immigration fight goes next, how both parties are positioning themselves, and what this moment reveals about the limits of political messaging in the face of real-world consequences...
Loading summary
Transcript131 lines
- [00:03]
A
Hey, everybody. Welcome back. I'm Mark Halpern, editor in chief of the live interactive video platform 2way and your host here, guide to everything. Next up, Delighted to have you back, all you nexters who tuning in for our second episode of the week and second of the year. Very happy to have you here. We've got some great guests and a great conversation in a busy, busy news week already. Jeff Rowe will be here. He's a Republican strategist, one of the smartest people in politics I know and he doesn't do a lot of media. He's a, he's a semi reclusive figure. So Jeff will be here along with Jaime Moore, Democratic strategist. We'll have a great conversation about everything that's going on in politics. And then after that, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, longtime Republican member of the Congress, who was tapped by President Trump to figure out a new way to balance the economy, how to grow the economy with a clean environment, and talk to the administrator about how he's trying to do those things, which some see as contradictory. But Lee Zeldin thinks they can do them both. So we'll talk about that with those three great guests coming up. But before that, in just a moment, my reported monologue on the national crisis in Minnesota in the wake of a shooting by an ICE officer. We'll talk about what I've learned about that since it occurred. My reported monologue is next up. Look, real New Year's resolutions aren't hashtags. They're about deciding to be sharper, more effective, more in control. Beam is a company proudly founded in America run by people who share our values. And they build products that help you keep the promises you make to yourself, the promises that actually matter to you. Their best selling Dream Powder is a healthy nighttime blend packed with proven ingredients shown to improve sleep so you can wake up refreshed and ready to take on the day. Dream is made with a powerful blend of all natural ingredients, Reishi, magnesium, L theanine, upogenin and melatonin. It's designed to help you fall asleep, stay asleep and wake up feeling amazing. No next day fog. The peanut butter flavor is legit tasty, like a guilt free honey hot cocoa. Dream is made right here in America. No shortcuts, no junk founders who value hard work and real results. Beam's already improved over 28 million nights of sleep. So if you've been waiting for the right time to try Dream, this is it. Go to shopbeam.com, use the code mark for up to 40% off. That's just $39 with code mark. Dollar and a quarter a night. Shop beam.com mark today. All right, next up, my reported monologue on Minnesota. I gotten so many messages in the last few days and talked to so many people since the murder, murder occurred. There you go. Since the woman was killed in Minnesota, one text this morning, early pre dawn, from someone I know, very thoughtful person, a Republican, who. This is what they texted. The ICE thug murdered her. That was it. Just a declaration. And then a little later in the morning, Hillary Clinton went on Twitter and tweeted a picture of the memorial service, impromptu memorial service that was held for Renee Goode, the woman who was killed. And she used the N word, too. Last night at the corner where an ICE agent murdered Renee Goode, thousands of Minnesotans gathered in the frigid dark to protest her killing. And I know people on the right are upset that anybody's saying that the officer murdered her or in some cases, said he did anything wrong. Here's my friend Eric Erickson on in his newsletter, which again, a substack I recommend to you. Eric had a much different point of view. Another person like Hillary Clinton, a person of good faith and concern about what happened in Minnesota and, and mourning the loss of life of Renee Goode. Eric wrote this. Ms. Good should not have been attempting to obstruct ICE agents. She should not have used her car as a barricade. She should not ignored the ICE agents. She should not have struck an ICE agent with her vehicle. So my reported monologue today is a little bit different than normal. Normal. I'm talking normally, I'm talking to people at senior levels of government and politics and business to learn what's going on. Right. The best information typically in your reporting is going to come from the people most in the know. And for good or for ill, that's often the most powerful people. My reporter monologue today is a little bit different. I have talked to a lot of people in politics and government and business about the events of Minnesota. But a lot of the, the best reporting I've done, including some coming my way, has come voluntarily from what I would call everyday people, regular Americans, some call them ordinary. I would say the opposite of ordinary about, about their reaction to it. And it's been consistent so far. If you voted for Kamala Harris in the last presidential election, you're more likely to have said to me that this was murder or something like that, that the, that the fault lies with Donald Trump, that the fault lies with the agent who pulled out his gun. And if you voted for Donald Trump, you're more likely to say that the Fault lies with Ms. Good. And while her death is a tragedy, that she shouldn't have done what she did. What Eric Erickson has said, and I've heard from so many people in emails and texts and phone calls and then on two way where we've now done two shows where we've heard from a lot of the members of the two way community. And it just falls very neatly, unfortunately, along red, blue and as often happens in controversial stories where I try to just describe what I see and not take a side. I've taken a lot of criticism already, most of it pretty friendly, not entirely of people on the blue side saying, you know, you're an idiot for not just calling it a murder, of course it's a murder. And for people on the red side who are saying, how could you lay a single piece of the blame at the feet, at the foot, the feet of the, of the officer who did this, the ICE official who pulled the trigger, it's ambiguous. We're going to get more information. So I think sensibly, some people on two way and who have contacted me said it's too soon to say. So for some it's too soon, but for many it's not. Here's another email that I got from someone, a very well meaning person, did not vote for Donald Trump. And so maybe not surprisingly, here's his point of view. He emailed me, I tried a lot of homicide cases. This is back when he was a practicing attorney. What happened in Minneapolis was at least voluntary manslaughter, slaughter or second degree murder. The latter harder to prove, especially because the shooter is a cop. ICE has to cool it, start hiring selectively, not anyone who wants to be a cop. And this email again, another person expressing the notion that the person who's criminally at fault is the shooter goes to the broader issue, which is this debate about the policy the Trump administration has about ice. And I've heard from a lot of people on that too, who are divided again, red versus blue, and that's with elites and that's everyday people. What I'm asking everybody to do, you know, a day into this crisis here as we speak this morning, is take a deep breath. Take a deep breath. Then take four more and let's wait to see what we learn. What do we learn about what happened in the run up to the shooting? What was that woman doing in that neighborhood? Was she engaging with ICE officials at all before they approached her vehicle. And what were they doing? What was the mission they were on that had them be in that neighborhood? And then what happened after. I remain very concerned about this. What seems to be a failure to get her the best medical care as quickly as possible in the aftermath of the shooting. We don't know that yet, but there's some video evidence that suggests that. So got to get more facts about before and after and of course, during. People can watch the videos and make, and make their own judgment. Unfortunately, sophisticated people of good faith so far have watched the same videos and they've come away as far apart as an igloo in a volcano. Just, just diametrically opposed about what it is that you can see in those videos. And it's troubling to me because this should be fact based. You know, it shouldn't be red versus blue on this. But what's driv driving this is not just red versus blue reflexive. It's not just red versus blue as they, as they experience the video of the shooting. It's for red America, the arrival of ice in these blue cities, these blue states, which we see now in other places, but in force in Minneapolis. Ice for them is like a sheriff arriving in town after a long delay. A frontier town that's been overrun by outlaws and they're there there to fix the problem. So red America looks at ICE's presence in Minneapolis and says, great, thank you. This is what we need because there are people in the state, in the city illegally, and ICE is there to figure out how to get those who should be gone, gone. That is different than the way Blue America sees this. Blue America sees something quite different. They see an occupying force marching in with the subtlety of a drum line and steel boots of a group of people who don't belong there, who've been sent by Donald Trump to disrupt the community. And you saw that in the videos. If you, if you watch more than just the shooting, you saw the pain of a lot of people in that community because they don't want, they don't want ICE there. They certainly don't want Donald Trump's ICE there. And you saw it in the pain. The statement made by the mayor of Minneapolis, I was not a big fan of what he said. I thought, I thought demanding ICE depart at that moment, given that they're not going to depart, was, was too confrontational. I applauded his saying people, if they want to protest, should do it peacefully. But as always, I ask people to see both sides, even if you don't agree with the other side. See both sides red America. You gotta see that people in Minneapolis don't agree with this policy. Now, President Trump won the election, right? And for many people, that is, pardon the word play, that is the trump card. Trump won the election. No one who listened to Donald Trump for the last decade should be just surprised that he sent ICE into these communities. And let's find out what this woman did potentially to interfere with what they were doing. In the end, we'll see what other information comes out. It's going to be hard to imagine that this woman put herself in a position that she did not listen to law enforcement. Horrible that she's dead, but they seem to be asking her to get out of her car. They seem to have made it clear that her parking her car in the road to block them apparently was not something she should have done. And you can oppose ice, and this was said to me by a Republican member of Congress who's heartbroken over what happened. You can oppose ICE and the mission, but you cannot say that I'm going to express myself in my opposition to law enforcement activity by trying to impede what they're doing. And certainly you can't threaten them physically. Certainly you can't do that. So this is a, this is a, a moment where we need to be coming together as a nation, not, not being apart. I just want to say a few more things about, about what I've heard from folks. Most Americans are not dogmatic. If you watch certain cable news channels or go on certain social media feeds, you're going to see a very strong red opinion. The officer was in the right when Secretary Noem called the woman who was killed a domestic terrorist. You're going to see a lot of people nodding their heads on, on red America, in media, in blue America, you're going to see a lot of people agreeing with Hillary Clinton and saying this is murder, including aoc. Here's what she said. So this is now turned into what our greatest fear is and has been.
- [12:43]
B
For a long time around ice.
- [12:44]
A
That this will be used as an anti civilian force, that it has no accountability. At the end of the day, what we saw today is a murder. And murders in cold blood need to be prosecuted. Saying it's murder. The facts just don't support that now and I doubt, I doubt they will. But unfortunate to me that people are using that word and for most Americans, and I've heard this on two way and I've seen this in the emails I've gotten, even if they did vote for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. They're in the middle. They're anxious about the situation. They're resigned to the politics of it, unfortunately. And they're suspicious of whether it's the mayor of Minneapolis or Governor Waltz or Christine O. They see people playing to the cameras. That's not what people want. And this is a time when, hopefully, things don't get more out of control. Hopefully, there's no more violence. But if you're looking for a silver lining, the early signs suggest that's not what's going to happen and that the country's braced for that country's braced for it. And there's got to be more cooperation. So I've asked people in, in public life, a lot of current politicians, former politicians, what are the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 things that need to happen now, not just to prevent this kind of shooting from happening again, but to see if we can't bring the country together as Pollyannish as some people see that as being? And here are the things they've told me. Number one, there's got to be more coordination. The fact that the mayor is not coordinating, the fact that there weren't local cops there in that neighborhood to deal as intermediaries between ice, whatever their mission was, and the protesters, that's got to happen. So more federal, state, local law enforcement cooperation, even if it's a sanctuary city, even if the local mayor doesn't want ice, there gotta be more cooperation. Number two, they want to see a greater degree of understanding of what the mission is. And I think, you know, it's law enforcement. They can't. They can't for. They can't give away everything. But along with that operational coordination, they want greater understanding of what ICE doing there. What. What are they trying to accomplish? And how can the community understand that? Okay, that's. That would be a heavy lift given all the political rivalries. Number three, they want Minneapolis and Minnesota and Governor Walsh, they want to try to take the temperature down on these things because the personalities. And that's unfortunate, the way this has transpired. Minnesota has been at the center of so much controversy, societal and political controversy in the last few years. But what they're asking is, you know, can't Kristi Noem, can't the governor in particular, and they talked yesterday, according to Secretary Noem, can't they talk more? Can't they. Can't they remove themselves from making the situation worse? Okay. Also, what people have suggested to me, and again, this is talking to law enforcement folks as well as Politicians and former politicians is there has to be an appreciation for the other side dialogue to say what is the mission and what is the objection? And bringing into the conversation in media, but also on the ground in these cities. Clergy, business people, community leaders who can try to put in context what the other side's thinking. Why are so many people in Minneapolis opposed to the arrival of ice? Why does the President think it's important to put ICE there? We have become cartoonish in our partisanship. But what people are asking me is why can't there be just a greater understanding and agree to disagree sensibility about all these things? And I would hope that would happen. And then finally everybody needs to be patient, as I said. But there's got to be a sense that society can have justice. One of the things that that's going to make that a challenge. I've turned this, I've turned this up in my reporting about, about where we are is, is this going to be investigated as a crime on the part of the, the officer? Typically that would be a federal investigation, but the state of Minnesota has suggested they're going to investigate it. I doubt the officer who shot the gun will, will cooperate. Maybe he will. I've heard mixed things about that as well. But we need a full accounting of the facts and that's going to require cooperation between the FBI and the Justice Department with the Minnesota authorities. What happened. There'll be tons of journalism about it. There's going to be more about this woman's life, hopefully more about her day, how she started her day, what she was doing there, what led up to her being on that road at that moment. But journalists don't have subpoena power. Journalists don't have the ability to compel people to tell everything they know, to look at electronic records, etc. But I think for the sake of America, for the sake of any prospect of unity and understanding and ability to move on from what has happened, we got to know it all. We got to know with more videos, more interviews, more information, even if it's not in the context of anybody ever being indicted, what happened. And people are saying, calm voices, let's wait, but this should be expedited. This should happen on a fast track. We need to know all the facts available to the government. What happened with these two people? How did they end up feet apart from each other, where somebody died? Gotta know. All right, that's my report for today. Very curious to know what you think about this situation. Whether you agree with me or disagree with me. Agree with Hillary Clinton, agree with Secretary Noem. Love to hear from you. Maybe I left something out that you think is important. I didn't talk about the rules of engagement that, that the ICE officers are under. I've talked about it elsewhere. Whatever you think I might have left out, wherever you agree to disagree, send me an email, let me know. NextUp HarperInMail.com NextUp HarperInMail.com if you want more of my content, you can subscribe on YouTube to this program. Go to Next up on YouTube. Go to NextUp Halperin and subscribe and you'll get all the latest clips, etc. Also, if you'd like to listen to the program as a podcast, you can do that too. So again, YouTube podcast on whatever podcast platform you use, subscribe. Like tell all your friends we're trying to grow our community rapidly here in January. So get to it right now. If you haven't done it already, whatever, wherever you're watching or listening, subscribe. Maybe use the share button and send it to 40 or 80 people. You know, that's how this all works. All right, next up, after a little bit of a break, we're going to talk to two smart people. Republican Jeff Rowe, Democrat Jaime Moore, more on Minnesota, but also the rest of the political stories in the news. That is next up. If you're a homeowner in America, you need to listen to this. The FBI is not now warning about a new type of real estate fraud. It's on the rise and it's called title theft. And your equity is the target. Here's how this works. Criminals forge your signature on just one document. Then they use a fake notary stamp. They file the documents with the county. And just like that, on record, they own your home using your ownership. They take out a loan against your equity or even sell your property to somebody else. And you won't know about any of this until foreclosure or collection notices show up in the mail. That's why I've partnered with Home Title Lock. So you can protect your equity. And find out right now, today, if you're already a victim, use my promo code mark@hometitlelock.com and you'll get free title history report and a free trial of their million dollar triple lock protection. That includes 24,7 monitoring of your title records, urgent alerts to any changes that occur. And if fraud does occur, their US based restoration team is going to spend up to $1 million to fix it. Don't be a victim. Protect your Equity. Today, that's hometitlelock.com promo code mark or you can use the link below. All right, joining me now and next up, to continue, at least at the start, the conversation about Minnesota, Jaime Moore, Democrat, principal at Cornerstone Government affairs, and Jeff Rowe, Republican, founder of Axiom Strategies and a man who's, he's, he's as impressive as the myth. How about that, gentlemen? Thank you for being here. Happy New Year to you both. Jaime, you got to get some branded stuff on like Jeff has. You don't want the firm to feel like you're under.
- [21:36]
C
I know we, we have. I didn't have enough time to go to the podcast room because I had a call before this.
- [21:40]
A
For those of you listening on the this podcast as opposed to watching on YouTube, Jeff is sporting a very handsome Axiom. What is that, a vest? Sweater. What is a vest? Very vest. Very nice. Jeff, since I haven't talked to you this year and I have talked time, I'll start with you. Just your, your broad view. We're all, all in shock about what happened in Minnesota and certainly no one, no one celebrates in any way a loss of life or, or thinks about it in non human terms. But in political terms, how does, how does this incident, in the broader context of the fight over immigration, over ICE and, and the President's relationship to the Democratic cities and states, how does this change the trajectory we were on? Where does it leave us?
- [22:26]
B
Well, definitely. Well, yeah, let's not bypass the loss of life and the tragedy and the, the attempt to make everything political in our modern day culture. I think there's something going on obviously in Minneapolis that they've experienced less of a crime drop than Chicago. They've, they have more illegal immigration in the last four years than, than most major cities as a percentage. And this is going to highlight the administration's efforts to root some of that out. They've had more arrest there than any other operation ISIS conducted in the United States. And so it's a, it's a, it's a big focus of the administration to do that. We've seen crime rates drop as a result. Typically when economic conditions occur that we see nationally, typically that drives crime up. But as it turns out, when you arrest some of the bad dudes out there, that committing a lot of the crime, the rates can go down and Minneapolis is not benefiting from that same slide that other major cities are seeing. So it's a tragic situation. I was happy about the peaceful protest last night. I think there's a lot of bad actors on this politically, but hopefully it will Pass quietly and we can have a meeting of the minds to come together on this, because this can't happen in America.
- [23:49]
A
Jaime. Same. Same thoughts of just where this leaves us as a country less political than just kind of cultural and societal.
- [23:57]
C
Yeah, I mean, look, I think. I think he's absolutely right. There's something going on in Minnesota. I was just talking to a friend who worked at CBS yesterday, and we were going through the things that have happened in Minnesota over the last five years, starting with George. Floyd. Floyd. To the major protests and the burning of the city, to the political assassinations. The governor always becomes vp. Then he had to end up driving out of the race to run for reelection. Then ICE and then the death. So there's so much happening right now in Minnesota, and I think in some ways, both culturally and politically, it's become sort of ground zero for one, sort of testing out, you know, these messaging just from a political perspective, but from an actual governing perspective. There's something going on there that we've got to figure out. Something's gone wrong there over the last few years, and it seems as if, if we don't get it taken care of very soon, it can get a lot worse. We know that things can get bad in Minnesota. We know that there's a high level of. Of advocacy and anxiety around protesting. But I. In some ways, Mark and I. And I feel very nervous by saying this. I'm not quite sure things are going to subside anytime soon.
- [25:05]
A
Who has performed well so far in your mind? If anybody in or out of government? Who has performed well?
- [25:11]
C
Look, I mean, I've been. I've been impressed with Tim Walls in the past. I have not been as impressed with him over the last few weeks. And I think that's probably, you know, probably the sentiment around the Democratic Party, which is sad. But I think the mayor of Minneapolis, Justin Fry, who I know fairly well, is really impressive. I don't think he's going to. He's sitting for reelection, but he's been fairly impressive over the last few days. What I want to see, you know, going forward now is the federal government, the president started. Tamp this rhetoric down, tamp down the protests, tamp down the need for the protests and show some.
- [25:53]
A
Some leadership before Jeff jumps in. I got to take issue with, regarding the mayor's performance, because ICE is not going to leave. And it seems to me it's tone deaf to say ice, you get the F out of here when they're not going to leave and better serves his. I would posit and ask you your thoughts. Ima, Wouldn't it better serve his constituents to say, given that ICE is here, given that there's a role for ICE in our system, a federal role in the state, let's figure out how to work with them. Wouldn't that, wouldn't that have been better?
- [26:24]
C
Well, I said, you know, and I've said this to you before, you know, when I was exploring going to these cities, when the National Guard was exploring going to these cities, you know, I thought if I were a mayor, I would try to figure out ways to welcome them and I would give them a list of things that I need their help with. But look, we're in a different, in a different ball game now, Mark. We're talking about. And when I say this, this is pure politics. Justin Fry, who used to be a, a premier star, young star of the Democratic Party, who has lost some of his luster over the last few years, I think he's seeing this as a moment to re. Establish himself in some sort of political reframing. And so I think if I were just looking at strictly politics, I would say that he is doing a good job of getting his name back out there and a good job in performing. But I think you're right. I think mayors and governors, Democrat or Republican, know, we've got to figure out a way to, if the National Guard's coming to your town, you know, how do we work together? I, I completely agree with you on that.
- [27:19]
B
Yeah.
- [27:20]
A
Jeff, is there anybody you'd single out so far who's done a good job in public life on this?
- [27:25]
B
No, but, no, I don't see it. But the, the mayor, those remarks, first of all, and this goes for Republicans and Democrats, nobody, you know, loves it when, when they come to town. But there's a way that you work with law enforcement and what mayor that's from a governor standpoint, it's hard to prepare for. How do you assimilate? How do you get agencies that aren't used to talking to each other to actually communicate? How do you set up the barrier of where they're going to be? I mean, there's a lot to work through, but those remarks should have been reserved for a liberal podcaster or YouTube influencer or something like that. That was a remarkable statement. What mayor who has crime and a lot going on in their, and their city, as we've just discussed, doesn't welcome that, but of course allows their uniformed officers to work with them and establish territories and where the crime actually is and where the illegal population is mostly present. That was amazing. That was one of the incredibly disappointing moments I think I've seen from a politician of any stripe for quite some time.
- [28:35]
A
Yeah.
- [28:36]
B
And I think actually what you said is probably true. He's trying to reestablish himself as a, as an anti Trump, you know, movement leader, but that's not the time for that. There might be a time down the road for that, or there might be a time that you say, now the problem's fixed, leave town, please. But not yesterday. This, we're talking about somebody's mother dying.
- [28:58]
D
And he's.
- [28:59]
B
I, it was a remarkably poor judgment in my estimation. And I don't believe the political upside will be as profound as he would have hoped that would be.
- [29:06]
A
Yeah, I didn't love, I didn't love what he said. I didn't love the Secretary of Homeland Security without much information in declaring the. The victim a domestic terrorist.
- [29:16]
B
Yeah. She either has a lot more information than all of us have, which could be the case.
- [29:20]
A
Yeah.
- [29:21]
B
Or it was, you know, rush to judgment.
- [29:24]
C
And I've heard from a lot. And look, you got. And I'm. This is not my personal opinion necessarily, but I've heard from a lot of Democrats, both liberal and, and progressive Dems over the last 24 hours, and several of them were highly supportive of the mayor's comments. You know, and so I think, I think it's going to be a divisive statement. And he went down, Andrew Cooper, last night and doubled down on that. But there are, there are some people in the Democratic Party who tend to support that type of rhetoric right now, particularly because it's anti Trump, particularly because, you know, at the end of the day, this was a death that was. We can sort of talk about the facts later. But this, this person, this lady was killed by an ICE officer.
- [30:07]
A
Yeah, she was. And as I mentioned earlier in the program, Hillary Clinton has called it murder and emotions are high. But I just, I just don't believe I agree with Jeff's view that not, not maybe nobody, no one's yet acquitted themselves particularly well. Let's switch topics to talk about Greenland. There's another area, not just Greenland and Denmark, but all of Europe seems as upset at Donald Trump as many people in Minnesota are. Not everybody in Minnesota or everybody in Europe, but some of the leaders are the elected leaders. I find it kind of mystifying that the Europeans are falling for Donald Trump's rhetoric. He's not going to invade Greenland. He just wants to strike the best deal possible and thinks he'll get the best deal if they're there on edge. So, Jeff, how would you explain if the, if the Danish prime minister or ambassador called you and said, what's really going on? What are Rubio and Trump up to? How would you explain it?
- [31:03]
B
Well, you probably ought to read the art of the deal. It lays out a pretty clear case about what he's trying to accomplish. And it's not unusual. I mean, Harry Truman tried to buy Greenland, what, 75 years ago for $100 million in gold. So it's a very strategic place in the world. I think they are trying to cut a deal and they're trying to put major pressure to get something done. We have a base there. It's a strategic importance to the United States. It's what we've, we've had a lot of combat theater over Cuba because of its proximity. And, and so Greenland is really no different. There's 56,000 people there. They have some rare earth minerals. There's probably a deal to be done, I guess, digging in and making sure that you're at the goal line and push Trump back to his goal line. Maybe you can meet it to 50. And maybe that's their theory. But I bet, I think they get a lot, a lot better deal if they came together and gave them a section or did some sort of negotiation. This is a pretty poor way to start. I believe that Rubio will do a good job. He's done an amazing job so far in the first year of his service, wearing many hats. But I think there's a deal to be done here, and I'm sure that probably that's a political opportunity for both sides to be strong and, and let the negotiations happen in quiet. I think that Trump has talked about this since he's been elected, and I don't think that's going to go away. There is an offset to this, though, which every day that we're talking about this, we're not talking about the economy, which is kind of the, you know, something that's lost in this, unfortunately for Republicans. But, but I bet there's going to be a deal done here. And I think it's just Trump and, and Denmark laying out the parameters and finding where the goalposts are.
- [32:51]
A
Yeah, there's going to be more talk about the economy as we head towards State of the Union. You, too, have a lot of clients who pay you a good wage to help them strategize. And I know you both have enough business, but let's get you a little more by showing people how impressive you are. I think the key to this deal is winning over the hearts and minds of the people of Greenland because the people in Denmark are never going to be for this. But if they could get political public opinion in Greenland to be very much in favor of a stronger alliance with the U.S. i think that will, that will smooth the deal. So just play act here. You guys are forming a bipartisan alliance. You're being hired by whoever Howard Lutnick's son or somebody who funnels you. That's Let's. I always like the retainers to be bigger than Hunter got at Burisma. So let's give you each 75amonth. I know that wouldn't be your biggest clients, but let's, you know, it's not. Not nothing. Strategize how, how could the Trump allies win over the people of Greenland? What would that be? Direct mail? Digital TV ads of rallies? What, what would you do? I'm a kick off our brainstorm session. How could the, the people of Greenland be persuaded to be for a stronger.
- [33:57]
C
Alliance with the very astute question, that's why you get paid the big bucks. And just so you know, I agree with everything Jeff said a second ago and I've evolved on and I think a deal is going to be made. But I think to your point, look, Donald Trump, and we talked about this this week, he already has just sort of on the ground in Europe. There's a base of people who really like him, who really support him. And so unlike other political candidates, unlike other presidents, Donald Trump is his own walking billboard. And so I would take President Trump to Greenland with the delegation and I would just start doing those very low level meetings, appearances, doing a little media, have him go to a coffee shop or whatever and just spend some time there, go golfing, spend some time there and just letting the people of Greenland know that he enjoys being there. I think they love their country and they want people to see how beautiful it is. And if the president can express that he really enjoys being there, really knows how beautiful this country is and how beautiful the people are. I think that's sort of step one. Step two is following up with, and this is old school, I would, I would go on TV a little bit. I would do a couple ads. America stands for strong Greenland or just having the America Greenland hands shaking or something like that. And then just follow up with some more meetings. The online stuff is really more important than anything I think here. Online ads and I think the President himself speaking on behalf of America and, and saying why he Thinks this is important for Greenland and America would be the most helpful.
- [35:32]
A
All right, so, Jeff, Jaime has laid down a pretty good set of things. A Trump visit, TV ads and digital. I know you'd probably want to go negative on the Danish, but. Except for. Except for that, what would you add to Jaime's plan to try to get the people of Greenland enthused about this?
- [35:47]
B
Yeah, I think he got the 75 for sure. I'll go for 100 here. I think it's money and it's the rare earth minerals and the. They clearly have undeveloped opportunities to get more resources out of the ground and produce them. And a guaranteed basic income for 56,000 people would be very affordable for that, particularly for the strategic position. So something along what we've done with the. With the Eskimo tribes in Alaska, with the oil reserves that they have and the payments that they receive for those. But maybe 5x that you can't win an annexation race without winning the annexation area.
- [36:34]
A
So I don't know if. I don't know if Greenland. Was Greenland ever thriving economically? I have no idea. I don't know if you can say, make Greenland great again. But you're saying the message to them is the status quo. You're not an economically thriving world. Here's some free money, and here's an economic plan that the US can execute. That's for you.
- [36:52]
B
Yeah.
- [36:52]
D
You're a.
- [36:53]
B
You're a stepchild to the motherland, and for us, you have so much resources that we need that you should benefit from. Let's come together and build that together. Create jobs for your economy. Create jobs for your people and give you a percentage of that directly to you and for your citizens for benefiting alongside of us. Put them in. Put them in the sidecar with you. That's pretty simple. And it's not. We're not talking about 2 million people here.
- [37:19]
A
Right. So I think the Lutnicks. The Lutnicks could probably pay for it.
- [37:23]
C
I'm so. Just.
- [37:26]
A
Just one. One more on this. And again, you guys are the experts, so I'm throwing this out there for your consideration. I've not seen any. Like, I read all the coverage of this. I don't. I don't see any champions. Popular Greenlanders. I don't know if they got soccer or rugby or whatever, but we see some popular Greenlanders who are pro Trump and pro American. To be kind of the face of this, rather than just having Americans advocate for it. Is that something that you think if you could find the people and I don't know if you buy them off or just ask them, but is that something you think would be helpful?
- [37:59]
B
No, I don't think so. No, I, well, first of all, I don't know any, but I think nothing speaks better than a better, a better way forward and a better way of life. And what I suggested is going a little bit negative on Denmark.
- [38:09]
A
Yeah.
- [38:10]
B
They're not taking care of you like we will.
- [38:12]
A
Yeah.
- [38:13]
B
And here's a concrete plan of how we're going to bring these minerals to market and you're going to benefit and they won't do it. They've had a, they've had since the beginning of time to do it. You're simply an outpost for them. With us. We're partners.
- [38:28]
A
Right.
- [38:29]
C
There got to be a couple. A couple. I don't know any, any, any personality celebrities in Greenland, but there got to be a couple, one or two people that the president administration will want to bring along. So I think you're right. I mean, stakeholder engagement and stakeholder building is always important, but I think to Jeff's point is a little less important in this engagement than normally. But it wouldn't hurt to have one or two people alongside you.
- [38:50]
A
I would love to. I'd love the research project. You guys probably have massive research divisions. I'd love to know who are the five most popular non politicians in Greenland. I just wonder who they are. Maybe a guy who makes really good herring.
- [39:04]
B
Well, you know, the elections are routinely very close and obviously with the parliament they always have to have a coalition government and I believe you could probably pick a couple of those off with this deal.
- [39:13]
A
Right.
- [39:14]
B
And build a coalition there with the politicians. Yep.
- [39:17]
A
Well, but I don't want politicians. I want like the guy who makes the herring or like the best hacky sack player. I'm, I'm going in chat GPT right now. While we talk, who are the five most famous current celebrities in Greenland? Let's see what it says. All right, that's a terrible, That's a.
- [39:35]
B
Terrible, That's a terrible prompt.
- [39:37]
A
Terrible, terrible prompt. What's wrong with it?
- [39:39]
B
No, I mean as an MSNBC host.
- [39:42]
A
Yeah.
- [39:42]
B
Find me five popular people to be against the Trump plan to take over.
- [39:47]
A
That's not what I want. I want people. All right, so listen, Listen to who I got and you'll. I'll be butchering the names. Nukaka Costa, Wildau Greenlandic, singer, actress and former Miss Greenland. She's also known as the wife of Danish actor Nicola Coster. Waldo. She seems good. Neve Nielsen singer, songwriter and actress Julie Berthelson popular Danish Greenlandic pop singer a biathlete a young elite Greenlandic biathlete competed internationally and then there's a politician even though said no politicians is green is.
- [40:22]
C
Ms. Greenland under Donald Trump's old Ms.
- [40:25]
A
That's a good question. I don't know how I don't know. Let's, let's take a look. How long ago did he do that?
- [40:29]
C
That could help. It's been a while. It's been since he been a while.
- [40:31]
A
But yeah but let's see.
- [40:32]
D
Let's.
- [40:33]
A
I'll, I'll, I'll go to the old reliable Google. Oh no, no. She might have been 2012. I think she's vintage. She was born in 1971.
- [40:41]
C
Oh yeah.
- [40:42]
A
So maybe, maybe there's photos of her Trump and Jeffrey Epstein which would make.
- [40:46]
C
Her less our spokesperson.
- [40:48]
A
Yeah. All right, switch topics. We have much time left we we wasted on my bad prompt. And Jeff, I will challenge you for prompt ability someday. We'll do a contest see who can do it right now tell me the the if you were called in by the chair of your party, Ken Martin and what's the guy's name? Gruder.
- [41:09]
B
Grooters.
- [41:09]
A
Grooters.
- [41:10]
B
Joe Gruder.
- [41:10]
A
If you were called in by Joe Grutters for, for Jeff and Jaime for by Ken Martin and they said what's the single biggest challenge the party faces this year in the midterms? It's the single biggest challenge you think we need to be more on top of than you worry that we are. Jeff, what would it be for your party for the midterms?
- [41:29]
B
Turning out the largest percentage of the the 24 Republican coalition. The on your voters.
- [41:37]
A
Meaning. Meaning, meaning how to reach them and motivate them and get them to vote.
- [41:41]
B
Yep.
- [41:42]
A
Yeah. And. And mechanically, do you think the apparatus of your party, including the outside groups is well positioned to do that? Like they would obviously know they need to do that. Where's the, where's the challenge there? Simply executing on the mechanics and.
- [41:56]
B
Well, the real challenge is because of the presidential you have the ability to get to velocity and scale with communication in an off year election when people aren't paying attention to the races the same way they do in a presidential race. It's very hard. This fractured media. We're in the middle of primaries in three states right now which were 60 some days out in Texas and, and North Carolina and Illinois, which are in March. This fragmented media is, is silly. I mean we have streaming which overtaken linear and cable and so the fragmentation plus social platforms and the new, the new podcast world, which there's, you know, 100 million people now, 100 million Americans now on X. It's not, it's no longer just some sort of, you know, outskirts of, of main society. And you have 240 million people have listened to a podcast, but that's even so fragmented and so disjointed and so. And you have to be careful what you're going to go on because you don't know what they're going to talk about later in life. Yeah. And so that fragmentation gets really hard to get to people that are, that are occasional consumers of political information. And so that's the challenge. And money helps. Yeah, and money helps. And we've got a bucket full of it. And typically, if you're only outspent two to one, as a Republican, you think you have a fighting chance? I think there's a chance. Total money spent with the, with the MAGA Inc. Super PAC and the money that they're raising, I think there's a chance if that's deployed that word heads up on money. And that gives us, you know, a fighter's chance.
- [43:25]
A
Jaime, what would your comparable answer be for Chairman Martin in terms of what the challenge is?
- [43:29]
C
Well, I think one, it's pretty similar, but I think the biggest issue right now is re engaging donors. I mean, there was so much disappointment last year and there was so much money spent on that 2024 election, both pre Kamala and post Kamala. And so I think getting the donors reengaged in order to be able to afford these elections, what happened last year, over the last 12 months, these candidates that were announcing early for, for the midterms, they just haven't raised as much money as they normally would in an off year leading up to the midterm year. And so we got a lot of ground to make up this year. And then second part, I think, just like Jeff said, Democrats lost some positioning with their base voters. How do we bring the base voters back and make sure that they're turning out in Philly, Atlanta, Detroit and Milwaukee in these cities that have a high contingency of Democratic voters, particularly black voters that are going to carry these cities? How do we reengage and get those numbers up a little bit? And then how do you rebuild the Obama style coalition? Democrats will not win again on the national level in 2028 until they rebuild the coalition. And they've got to start doing that in 2026. And so it's making sure that they're supporting the right candidates in these midterms, making sure those candidates are well funded and then making sure that people like Gavin and Shapiro and Kamala and people like that are going out into these, these, these districts and galvanizing voters and raising money for them.
- [44:55]
A
All right, I'm a mentioned Josh Shapiro, our last topic. He's announcing today as we talk here on Thursday that he's running for reelection in Pennsylvania. Here's a bit of his announcement video. A truly stunning site. Officials are saying it'll be months before the road can be rebuilt.
- [45:11]
D
When disaster struck, others underestimated us, but I never did real things. And ready for travelers. Just 12 days after a devastating collapse, we cut through the red tape to get i95 rebuilt in record time. We did it using materials from a Pennsylvania business and with the muscle and know how of Pennsylvania union workers. But it wasn't just there. We've gotten shit done all across our commonwealth.
- [45:37]
A
Okay, so he's a little bit like Mike Dukakis 1980s about competence not ideology. Wants to talks more, thinks more about Trump voters than most Democrats. As you guys know, I always try to get discipline people. There's a difference between chances of the nomination versus chances is a general election. So let's start here where my people I talk to are so divided. Jaime, is, is he a strong general nominee, potential nominee is to win the nomination or weak in your view?
- [46:04]
C
Well, I think, I think he's getting stronger every day. And I think this reelection and this announcement and the way he's going to handle the next few months are going to be emblematic on of how he's going to think about running for president. And so I think as it stands, he should be a very strong candidate. Pennsylvania is really important and he understands that state more than most people really, really well. He has a great control over that state politically. And obviously with this he's proven that he can get things done very quickly and very efficiently. I think he, unlike other governors in the party right now, have something to really hang his hat on.
- [46:38]
A
Yeah. Jeff, you're one of the few Republicans who actually understands the Democratic Party. So how would you rate his chances of being the nominee? Leave the general aside.
- [46:47]
B
Pretty low. He I don't think they, I don't think he fits their brand that they're looking for. And I'm alluded to this a little bit from even from Mayor Fry and all the way through the popular strain. I frankly think that the, that the Democrats would have a really hard time with a white guy and let alone A Jewish white guy. And I think that getting things done is really not the brand of politics that they're looking for right now. They're looking for somebody to fight back. I mean, they almost kicked out Chuck Schumer for, you know, agreeing to a deal with, with Republicans on the budget. And so I think that he's. He's our worst nightmare.
- [47:22]
A
Yeah.
- [47:22]
B
And the least likely of the top contenders, I think, to make it through.
- [47:26]
A
So you're. You think he's the strongest general election candidate?
- [47:29]
B
No doubt.
- [47:30]
A
Would you make him one of the top eight Republican Democrats to be the nominee? Yeah. Yes. But not top four, it sounds like.
- [47:39]
B
No, no.
- [47:40]
C
And I slightly disagree with Jeff. I think the party, yes, there is an Internet base that is yearning for this fight in this populace. But like I said, mark this all the time. My mom, black woman from the south, she's never voted Republican in her entire life. She has no idea who AOC is. She has no idea. She's not a part of a populist fight. She just wants things to get done. And so I think when it goes down to the true base, the true base of the Democratic Party are people who just want to get. They're very pragmatic, particularly black voters are very pragmatic. And they're not overly populous or liberal. And so I think someone like a Josh Shapiro or even a white moderate candidate like a Joe Biden was. Those are going to really appeal to that electorate. Even more than some of the potential super liberal, super populist candidates. I think I'm more concerned about the populism that's going to be on the Republican side that's going to drive the narrative.
- [48:32]
B
A primary, though, is so much about momentum, and it would be really hard for a candidate like him to really get momentum, to really raise money. He's obviously a thoughtful, more of a mainline Democrat. And I just don't see how he would handle the liberal wing of his. And it's not a wing anymore, the liberal base of his party. And that base is 70%. I mean, talk about.
- [48:59]
C
You go back and look at his numbers for when he was, when he was elected governor in 2022. And he did a great job and in all aspects of the Democratic Party. And then he pulled in voters from, from, from, from the other side as well. So I look, I'm not a primary for sure. I'm bullish on Shapiro. I'm bullish on what this, this Democratic primary is going to look like. I think when you have people like Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris from California, who are going to be out there, you know, sort of representing the liberal, quote, unquote base. Someone like a Josh Shapiro can, I think, overcome an Andy Beshear because he has so much practical experience to talk about that that's going to supersede some of this liberal talk. I think that's just what I'm saying.
- [49:40]
B
Oh, no, for sure. Well, I would beat Andy Beshear in a Democrat primary, to be clear. But I mean, at some point, you know, they. A little pizzazz would probably not, but he would have to. The only way he would make it through. And by the way, if all that was true, that was all true, he didn't have a primary to make those stats. Yeah, but if all that was true, he should have been the nominee when Biden stepped down and said comma.
- [49:59]
A
Yeah.
- [50:00]
B
So.
- [50:02]
C
I don't agree. I don't agree there. I mean, you think you guys, you know your party politics. I know my party politics. When you think about, like, the committee, people who vote, you know, and the donors, there was no way that Kamala Harris is not going to be the nominee, full stop. That's just. We gotta stop. We gotta stop debating that.
- [50:16]
A
History, history, history will record. I believe that that was emphatically true. Gentlemen, couldn't be more grateful to you for making time. Love having you on and look forward to having you both back and. And again, happy New Year to you.
- [50:26]
C
It's great. Good to see you. Good to see you, Jeff.
- [50:28]
A
You too. All right, next up, the EPA administer, Mr. Lee Zeldin of New York will be here. That's next up. You ever notice those creepy ads that pop up on your phone and seem to know exactly where you've been, what you've bought, even maybe who you've been talking about? You've probably asked yourself, is my phone monitoring me? The truth is, your smartphone is constantly collecting and leaking data without your knowledge or your consent. Every day, it builds a detailed profile of your whole life. Your location, your habits, your interests, even the people you communicate with. That information then gets funneled into an invisible marketplace. It's tracked, it's analyzed, it's sold to the highest bidder. And it's not just something that's annoying. It's invasive. And again, it's happening nonstop. But the upphone by Unplugged is different. It's designed to protect your privacy from the ground up. No hidden trackers, no data mining. Just a secure, streamlined smartphone experience that puts you back in control, whether you're texting, browsing, using apps Whatever it is, the up phone ensures your personal information stays focused on personal. It's the phone for everybody who's done being watched by others for their profit. Are you ready to take back your Digital privacy? Visit unplug.com/get $25 off a phone case with the purchase of a new phone. Learn more and order your up phone today. Again, that's unplugged.com mark because your life should be yours, not theirs. All right. Joining me now, next up, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin. He was a congressman from this state here in New York and now runs an agency with a mission that, like many parts of the Trump 2.0, has been redirected not just from the Biden years, but from the legacy of administrations of both parties and administrators. Ellen, grateful to you for making time. Happy New Year to you.
- [52:29]
D
Yeah, Happy New Year. It's great to be with you.
- [52:32]
A
Just talk broadly. What's the mission of, of this Trump epa? What is, what are you charged with doing?
- [52:38]
D
The core mission of EPA is protecting human health and the environment. We are working to power the great American comeback, understanding what that Trump mandate is that the American public voted for November of 2024. First and foremost, it's about clean air, land and water for all Americans. There are other priorities that the American public spoke out about when electing President Trump, priorities like unleashing energy dominance, advancing cooperative federalism, permitting reform, making America the AI capital of the world, protecting, bringing back American auto jobs. It's also important to note that EPA has a lot of core statutory obligations under landmark laws that are on the books, like Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, State Drinking Water act, and a number of other federal statutes that give EPA responsibilities to fulfill regardless of who's in charge.
- [53:36]
A
So if people ask what's different about how your EPA is operating compared to Joe Biden's epa, what would you say the major differences are?
- [53:44]
D
Well, the difference would be on the operational side and the policy side. On the operational side, we're doing more with less. We came in with over 16,000 employees. We ended last year with about 12 and a half. We are going to, we are prioritizing our core statutory obligations rather than sending bandwidth and resources towards partisan pet projects. We, as a result, inherited a lot of backlogs. We're talking about 14,000 in the pesticide review, hundreds of state implementation plans, small refinery exemption requests, blown deadlines on setting renewable volume obligations, new chemical review. The list goes on of all different kinds of backlogs that we inherited. When we came in in January of 2025, and we're working to get through all of it. We've done an agency wide reorganization, and maybe most importantly, or the highest profile item on the operational side is to implement a zero tolerance policy for any waste and abuse. Our annual operating budget is about $10 billion a year. I've saved about $30 billion in my first year. And that savings was found with regards to canceled grants, real estate consolidations, staff efficiencies, canceled media subscriptions. We closed an EPA museum that just about nobody knew about or even visited. So we're saving the taxpayers a lot of money on the policy side. But we inherited a big mess as it relates to rules that were finalized, especially in 2023 and 2024, seeking to strangulate out of existence entire sectors of our economy, the Biden EPA believed that in order to protect the environment, we had to suffocate a lot of our economy. We believe that we could protect the environment and grow the economy. So we are going through a process that would amount to more deregulation in one year than entire presidential administrations have done in the past, across all agencies of past presidencies. And that's just one agency here in the Trump administration, in just one year alone, one proposal singularly, the proposed rescission of the 2009 Obama endangerment finding would be one of the largest, if not the largest, acts of deregulation in the history of the United States. And lastly, I would point out on the policy side is that we have set a pace of one big environmental accomplishment that we've announced publicly for every calendar day that President Trump has been in office, which means on the 100th day of President Trump's term, we released a list of our top 100 environmental accomplishments. We did the same thing with the next 100 on the 200th day of President Trump's presidency. We did it again on the 300th day of President Trump's presidency. So, yes, we are both protecting the environment and growing the economy. We choose both. We believe that we can do both. And that is what we have committed to going forward.
- [56:54]
A
Is there any country in the world that you think gets the balance that you're talking about between economic growth, the environment, really well done, that has things to learn from.
- [57:03]
D
I mean, I think that there's, there's stuff to, to learn from good and bad across the world. I don't, I'm very biased. I'm very partial and strongly believing that the United States is the greatest country in the history of the world. I think that one of the best lessons that we can pick up on is how much further Europe has gotten in their implementation of setting very strict restraints on their own economy in order to accomplish environmental goals. And they're really dealing with a very big issue at the moment because of that economic impact, where they're now looking to revisit some of those goals on certain scales through federal policy here in the US and at other scales, when you look at state policy inside the United States, especially when you look at states like New York and California, we have policies that have been put into place, like electric vehicle mandates that we inherited and have since eliminated that impact consumer choice in a very negative way, that increase prices in a very negative way, that end up crushing jobs, that end up resulting in higher energy costs. And those lessons that we are experiencing right here in the US in real time, we can look at other countries that are even further along in setting some of those emissions goals and what it did to their own economy where we can learn a valuable lesson. And, and lastly, I would just say it's very important for us to have eyes wide open as it relates to China. China has, you know, they use more coal than the rest of the world combined. It's actually 40% more. They are increasing capacity with coal more than the rest of the world combined. And when we're setting our own policies here in the United States and we're heeding any lessons of what's happening abroad, we should not do it based off of propaganda that comes from spokespeople for those foreign countries. We should do it based on the actual policies, the realities overseas. And if we're going to learn a lesson, learn that lesson based on facts, not spin.
- [59:19]
A
You mentioned California. We're a year away from the fires that were so devastating in Southern California. And you've jousted a little bit with Governor Newsom and been critical of the, the state policies and the local policies that, that contributed apparently to the fires. What's the right relationship on that issue as a template for just in general, for dealing with state and local government, for the epa? Are you supposed to tell them what to do if they're doing it wrong? How, how should that be done going forward? So fires like that are less likely to be so devastating?
- [59:51]
D
I strongly believe. And the Trump EPA strongly believes in advancing cooperative federalism. We want to work with, with states, we want to have strong partnerships wherever we can overlap, work together, partner, to get more investment in the United States to create more jobs, to help our economy, to Protect our environment. I have signed off on a lot of primacy requests that states have given sent into the to the US EPA that we've approved over the course of the last year. We are open for business in approving state implementation plans granting these different primacy requests for states to take over certain aspects of regulating their environment from the federal government. We believe that states know best on many of these environmental challenges that are faced within states rather than bureaucrats who sit inside of agencies in Washington, D.C. and actually, with the California example, the best evidence of how to work together is to just look at what Governor Newsom was saying right after the wildfires. I mean, I've posted a couple of the clips in recent days. There's more clips where you have President Trump and the Trump administration receiving enormous praise by Governor Newsom for all of our response efforts. And Governor Newsom was praising how historic it was, it was done in record time, how robust of a response effort we were up to that we were busy with. It was a partnership. I mean, I remember having a phone call. President Trump called me. Governor Newsom was in the Oval Office. And it was a long, productive, substantive conversation of how to work together. And at some point, Governor Newsom decided, instead of communicating publicly about that great effort behind the scenes to partner. Instead, he started talking about how President Trump and the Trump administration haven't done anything at all. And the claims that he was starting to lob were just so disgustingly not true that I had to speak up and just talk about the facts. EPA, when President Trump came in, was given 30 days to complete our hazardous material phase one mission so that the Army Corps could come in with their phase two debris removal. EPA completed our work in just under 30 days. We ramped up the amount of bandwidth that we had, the workers that are on the ground. We had over 13,000 buildings that we had to get through in surveying and green lighting and removing hazardous material and lithium ion batteries. And then the Army Corps came in and they completed all their phase two debris removal. The Small Business Administration came in and approved billions of dollars worth of disaster aid for Californians, who in so many respects are still waiting to rebuild. And it's just, you know, insulting and not accurate. If the governor of California wants to take the public position that President Trump and the federal government just all of a sudden, you know, hasn't done anything. As if Governor Newsom's own repeated statements don't directly contradict that.
- [63:10]
A
What has happened in the last year that would make a comparable situation either prevent on the preventive side or the reaction side, the response side, make it better. What have you done to position the federal rule to be better than it was in that circumstance?
- [63:25]
D
Well, a few things. One is as it relates to water. President Trump has often brought the topic up in meetings that I've had with him inside the Oval Office. The Army Corps of Engineers controls dams and reservoirs inside of California. The Bureau of Reclamation under the Department of Interior controls dams. We have the ability to help with regards to water flow inside of California. And that's something that President Trump is focused on wanting to know how full these reservoirs are, how do we get them fuller, what can we be doing from the federal government? And we've been working that issue as it relates to the fire prevention, the prescribed fire burns. There's a lot of work that EPA specifically has been focused on as it relates to exceptional events, rulemaking, particular matter 2.5 under the clean Air act and more to give. Not just this isn't just an issue in California, but for the western governors. They're looking for more tools largely. I mean it's not all equal out with the western governors and the western states. There's some states that are role models where others are dragging their feet and further behind, we want at the EPA to give them the maximum tools through those rulemakings I mentioned, through state implementation plans so they could do prescribed fires without a fear that they're going to be putting an area into non attainment and losing out on federal funding and resources and being penalized for it. These prescribed fires are very, the burns are important and we want to partner with these states in order to be able to get it done. And that's the first few points that are most important. Top of mind on the fire prevention side as it relates to EPA tools.
- [65:24]
A
One of the phenomenons of this administration that the skeptics don't see, although it's pretty much on display in public, is many members of the Cabinet. I won't say everybody, but many members of the Cabinet genuinely get along. And on some projects there's cross disciplinary need to address things from different points of view. And it seems like it works. Maybe again, not in every case, but in the case of maha, Secretary Kennedy is often seen as the leading face. But you and other members of the Cabinet work that. Explain EPA's role in make America Healthy and how you coordinate that with the other members of the cabinet who have a hand in that.
- [66:03]
D
Well, Secretary Kennedy has definitely been our leader inside of the cabinet on the MAHA Commission. We have a number of Other cabinet members, as you just referenced, active with the MAHA Commission. Secretary Rollins at the Department of Agriculture, USDA has a very important role as it relates to maha. EPA does as well. There were a couple of reports that were put out by the MAHA Commission initial report last spring, a follow up report with, with proposals that came out a few months later, and now we're implementing it. A lot of the equities in the MAHA space overlap agencies. We right now at EPA have been advancing our feeded Onward proposal to combat food waste across the entire country. It's led by epa. There's important opportunities for other agencies and to assist with that, we just put out an announcement as it relates to phthalate chemicals and moving forward with regulating them to protect workers and the environment against known risks that were part of our gold standard science review and the radical transparency that we provided publicly. And so many other actions that we are advancing, including finalizing and rolling out our own EPA focused MAHA agenda over the course of the coming weeks. But what's very different in a very positive way about President Trump is that he has gotten agencies to collaborate more on many different topics than we've seen in the past. I'm on the National Energy Dominance Council created by President Trump that has created a historic amount of collaboration between epa, Department of Energy, Department of Interior and others on issues to unleash energy, unleash energy dominance here in the United States and to make America the AI capital world. And to create jobs and pursue, whether it's semiconductors, chips, magnets and more, a collaboration that is very important. And we're certainly seeing that with maha. I'm sure that there are so many more MAHA wins to come because of that work together between these agencies. And as you pointed out, led by.
- [68:30]
A
Secretary Kennedy, just objectively, who's a nicer person, you or Doug Burgum?
- [68:35]
D
Well, you know, it's funny that you're just pointing out about how the Cabinet gets along. I mean, I get along with all of them. There's great chemistry. I'm happy to say that, you know, whether it's Doug Burgum or so many, many others, these are really great cabinet members who check so many different boxes. They work hard, they have their attitude, they're in it for the right reasons. They're not doing these jobs because they need a job. They're doing it because they love this country. And also they put together really good teams. So it's not just at the Cabinet level, but all of the thousands of people who stepped up to serve in this administration. Many who could be doing other jobs outside of government and making more money, but they want to do their part to fulfill the Trump mandate. And I'm grateful for all of them.
- [69:24]
A
Yeah, you dodged the question. Just so you know, when I asked Secretary Burgum, he said he was nicer than you.
- [69:28]
D
So give it to him. Yes. Doug Bergam. Yes, for sure.
- [69:31]
A
You know, it's, it's, it's a little bit cynicism in our society to doubt that the members of the Cabinet really get along. But you don't have to be a genius or have the highest human intelligence the world to see it's manifestly true. Every Cabinet is going to say, oh, we all get along. We all like each other, we all respect each other. But every time I'm around any members of the Cabinet in a cluster, whether it's two of you or five of you, it's clear people really get along. They like each other, they respect each other. Some of them have known each other for a long time, some of you are brand new to each other. And yet there does seem to be. Again, there's a few exceptions. I won't be so impolite as to mention them in this episode, but with few exceptions, you all seem to really do get along. And that obviously makes a difference.
- [70:09]
D
Yeah, we do. I served in Congress with many of them. I knew every single member of the Cabinet before this year.
- [70:21]
A
That's cuz you're a bigger networker than some because, as you know, some people are brand new to each other.
- [70:26]
D
Well, I mean, you know, one example would be Laurie Chavez Darimer, who's the Secretary of Labor. She's doing a fantastic job. She didn't serve in Congress long and she'd be the first to admit that there are a number of cabinet members who she was just really getting to know for the first time. But the chemistry is real. And the best part of it is not only our relationship with each other and how we work together. We root for each other. There isn't competition and friction. We actually want to see our colleagues succeed. But we also have a great relationship with the President. And I've seen this time and again where whether it's one on one, and I've experienced this with, you know, with the president, if it's a meeting or a phone call, but you know, if there's a bunch of us in the meeting with him, sitting around a Resolute desk in the Oval Office, and any of us have anything on our mind that may be a difference, a different direction, a proposed, you know, idea direction that might be any different than, you know, the way that the President might be thinking or heading. The President welcomes us to be able to share our thoughtful idea on what would be a better path forward. Like if I disagree with something, I feel comfortable. I've done it many times. I feel very comfortable being able to share my recommendation. I know that he's listening and if listen, the only thing that I'm self reflecting on is just make sure it's a good idea. If it's a silly idea or terrible idea, then I should keep it to myself. But if I think it's a good idea, I'll share it.
- [72:08]
A
Let's try to get three rapid round questions in before we got to quit. Number one, if the only source of information someone had about Donald Trump was reading the New York Times, what would their biggest misapprehension be about what he's like?
- [72:21]
D
Well, I mean, I don't know if the New York Times can, you know, has been able to say about anything that's good. If that was your only source of news, I would say that when you're done reading this story, ask yourself, okay, now what is the rest of the story?
- [72:38]
A
What's something about him that people don't really know unless they've had a chance to spend time with him?
- [72:43]
D
An amazing listener, a extraordinarily hard worker, and he's very locked in this term. I mean he had the experience of four years in office, four years to reflect on it, some assassination attempts. He won all the battlegrounds and the popular vote. He, he wants to make the most of every single day that he's in this position. He wants to do an exceptional job. He loves what he's doing, he's working hard.
- [73:10]
A
I haven't read any of that in the New York Times. So those are good examples. What's the most personally satisfying use of AI you've used, you've done so far?
- [73:19]
D
My own health decisions as far as what to eat. You know, I'd say over the course of 2025, I've asked a lot of questions to AI where I'm analyzing different meals and aspects of my diet. I made a lot of decisions. I came back from one of the EPA trips. I visited all 50 states after confirmation. It was a very busy 2025. And one of the trips, I come home and I step on the scale and I'm like, oh crap, I've been gaining some weight and my exercise picked up. But I started to more closely analyze dietary decisions and I did a lot of research that involved use of AI and beyond. And I feel like those decisions are very good for my own personal health.
- [74:07]
B
Yeah.
- [74:08]
A
Like can I eat cookies? You put that in there. All you need to know. Lastly, what would you say to the American people about your personal pledge, your personal guarantee that America's air and water will be as cleaner, cleaner than you inherited it by the time you leave the job?
- [74:24]
D
Yeah. I would encourage Americans to look at the announcements that we put out our three best press releases of 2025 on the 100th, 200th and 300th day of President Trump's term in office, the 100 environmental actions for each of those 100 day periods of those wins to advance clean air, land and water. That pace we are motivated to keep up, to continue to deliver these big wins. So there will continue to be a lot of those really big announcements to come.
- [74:53]
A
All right, find all those on the website of the epa. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, one of the most popular members of Donald Trump's cabinet, which isn't easy to do because there's a lot of back slapping Pauls amongst your colleagues. Grateful to you for making time and again happy New Year to you and hope you'll come back and maybe every hundred days he'll update us.
- [75:11]
D
Sounds great. Thank you.
- [75:12]
A
All right, thanks to him. Thanks to Jaime Moore as well, Jeff Rowe as well for joining us earlier and Administrator Zeldin. That's all we have for you today. Hope you have a great couple days while we wait for our next Tuesday. We'll have another episode coming up. As always, please subscribe to this program on YouTube. Wherever you get your podcast, you can always subscribe and share it and let other people know. We want to grow the rank of nexters here as we head deeper into 2026. Grateful to you for being part of it. Join us all the time so you always know what's coming next up.