← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
Ten Biggest Stories After the Summer, Dems' Dreary Political Forecast, Trump’s SCOTUS “Weak Links”
01:06:39
Mark Halperin opens today’s show with his reported monologue on the ten biggest stories of the summer and what they signal for a busy fall news cycle. From Trump’s crime push and the Democratic response, to the Capitol Hill fight over the Epstein files, Mark lays out the stakes ahead. He also explains how the Ukraine stalemate and Gaza escalation shape Trump’s foreign policy, and how the New York mayor’s race, Kamala Harris’s book tour, and Wes Moore’s national scrutiny frame the Democrats’ future. Plus, Mark (admitted Swiftie) reacts to the Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce engagement news! Then, Mark is joined by his 2WAY co-host and longtime Democratic strategist Dan Turrentine, for a deep dive into why Trump keeps winning daily fights while Democrats stumble. They unpack the Left’s struggles on crime, messaging, and fundraising – and what they can fix now in order to effectively compete with the GOP campaign machine in 2026 and 2028. Finally, Politico’s senior legal affairs repo...
Loading summary
Transcript88 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey there, Nexters. Mark Halpern here. Thank you for tuning in. I've got a question for you. Have you ever listened to the Smerconish Podcast? I am a regular guest on a show and I know you will love it. On the Smerconish Podcast, Michael Smerconish brings you a balanced news presentation on the biggest issues of the day, every day. Oh, and by the way, balance, it doesn't mean boring. Michael offers you interviews and conversations with newsmakers, policy experts and listeners from all corners of the nation. The Smerconish Podcast. It's a forum for curious people who want more than talking points. Listen please to the Smerconish Podcast wherever you listen to podcasts. Welcome back. This is NextUp. I'm Mark Halpern. Happy to have you Nexters back. We were off for a week, much needed summer break, but happy to be back with you. Here I am, your host, your humble host, your editor in chief of the live interactive video platform two Way, and here your guide to everything that's next up in politics, media, everything else across the board. Joining us today, Dan Turntine, longtime Democratic strategist, my co host on Two Ways, the morning meeting weekdays at 9am Eastern and the co host of another program on Two Way, the group chat that airs Thursdays at 4. Dan will be here and we'll kick around how his party is doing right now and countering Donald Trump for the present in the midterms in the presidential. And then another longtime friend of mine, Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, straight down the middle reporter, hard charger who understands the intersection between politics and the law as well as anyone literally I've ever met. And Josh will be here for that. Before we get to that, though, grateful, as I said, for you coming back. Missed you. I hope you missed me. And lots happened while we were gone. This has been a weird summer. It's been a summer of lots of big news stories and some stories, Russia, Ukraine, California, immigration, the present crime. I could list 20 more. Epstein, Maxwell, so many stories that were so big and seemed like they would dominate the entire August. Typically in August, one, maybe two stories dominate. But what I see is a bunch of stories dominate and most of those are going to continue into the fall. So what I did while I was off, I did what reporters call saving string. I collected little notes about things that I thought, huh, if I weren't off, I'd be talking about this. And chances are I'll be talking about it when we get back. So here I'M going to unfurl again, another journalistic phrase, my Reporter's notebook. The 10 stories that I am interested in now, and I think we're all going to be interested in come the fall, the rest of the summer. This is a going to be a busy summer and it's a busy fall, rather busy new September. So again, here it is, Letterman style. My top 10 news stories for all of us to watch. Number one is crime. President Trump is a master at using the issue of crime a la Richard Nixon. But it's not a phony issue. People say it's a wedge issue. It's a divisive issue. No, crime is a big problem in America. And crime statistics, I don't disregard them completely, but they do matter to people. But what matters more, what happens on the street. And I wrote a column while I was off about this. You put tanks and armed National Guard or active military or federal forces of any sort, put them on the streets, whether it's in a tourist area, in front of an Apple store, in the most dangerous neighborhood of a city like Washington, you're going to help deter crime. And D.C. has seen that. So, so I say the politics will matter. The president's now talking to Congress about Republicans in Congress about some sort of anti crime bill. But what matters most is affecting the real lives of real people. And what you're seeing now is the challenge Democrats have because they're on the wrong side of an issue. You can do polls and say, do a poll and say, do you like Donald Trump's attempts to fight crime in blue cities? And of course, Democrats and a lot of independents are going to say no, but people want crime to go down. Gavin Newsom has been as defiant as any governor, Democratic governor or mayor in saying he doesn't like what Donald Trump is doing. But he also understands that defiance in the face of a public demand for public safety is not a great idea. Here is Gavin Newsom. Defiant role S1 please. Fact is Mississippi, I didn't mention, I mentioned Arkansas. How about Tennessee, Alabama? Alabama's top three murder states in America. Where's the president of the United States? I thought he cared. These are the folks that, these are his states that voted for him. His state of mind doesn't seem to be focused on the issue of crime and violence. It's about an expression of authoritarianism. He reflects and waxes, I think two.
- [04:58]
B
Of the last three days talking about being a dictator.
- [05:03]
A
I hope people pay attention. Now, just this morning, a district court judge said that President, what President Trump did in California maybe didn't call him a dictator, but he said it was not within the law, that he overstepped his bounds. And so that fight will continue. We'll see. I'm sure the case will be appealed. But the point is the president is going to go around the country and threaten stuff like he's doing in Chicago, do stuff like he's doing in D.C. yes, he faces a deadline about dealing with overtaking, over managing the D.C. police separate from the National Guard and active military in the District. But Democrats continue to struggle on this issue. They continue to be on the wrong side. Rather than offering solutions, in most cases, they're simply objecting to Donald Trump. We had a guy on two way on Tuesday morning from Atlanta, a Democrat who said we don't like Trump and we don't like the way he's doing it, but what and those things are true. And as I said all along, we have to be vigilant about how this is done so it doesn't violate civil liberties, that it doesn't break the law. But at the same time, we have to recognize that there's a fight in the public realm over ideas. And Donald Trump is doing something that based on what's happened to D.C. so far and based on just logic and human nature, seems to be having a positive effect. So we'll keep watching it. But this is going to be a big issue because President Trump is not going to drop it. And Democrats are going to continue to try to explain to their constituents why they're just as good on these issues or better. All right, number two story that I'm watching that had big developments over our break is what's going on with the case of Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell who remains in custody in a low security facility in Texas. We're going to see a lot of activity this this week in Congress. You're going to have some alleged victims who will claim, I'm told, not just that they were victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell, but of others speak out, some for the first time, some in public, some to congressional committee bipartisan investigation of this situation. The question is what's the there there's. Over our break, we had the release of the interview that Maxwell did with the deputy attorney general. My friend Jessica Reed Krause listened to the whole thing and read the whole thing and smartly pointed out this is was not the best interview of all time. The deputy attorney general seemed to shy away from some obvious follow up questions. So I think that's going to be continued to be pursuit Sued Maxwell, is looking to get out of prison or have her sentence commuted or get a pardon. We'll watch there. And then let's see what happens this week when Ro Khanna, the democrat from California, Mr. Massey, gentleman from Kentucky, bipartisan group speak out. Here is with these alleged victims. Here is Ro Khanna previewing that press conference that's coming up. What will be explosive is the September 3rd press conference that both of us are having with 10 Epstein victims, many who have never spoken out before. They're going to be on the steps of the Capitol. They will be telling their story and they will be saying clearly to the American public that they want the release of the Epstein files for full closure on this matter. Now, as I keep saying, we need to hear out people who have accusations for sure. But so far, as far as I know, and I follow the case closely, the only women alleging wrongdoing by other men involving underage girls have been discredited. Their versions of events have been undermined, sometimes by their own admission. So let's continue to follow the facts, where they lead. But the big question is regarding whatever government documents there are, some of which are being handed over already to this House committee, whatever accusations there are, let's follow the evidence wherever it leads. But let's not jump to conclusions. When I hear constant reports about a massive child sex ring, I want to know who was involved. I want accountability for those who committed crimes. But some people who are familiar with the documents say there is no there there, that this, this story of Maxwell and Epstein involved a lot of bad stuff. But in terms of law breaking or a massive child sex ring, the facts remain to be seen. But it's going to be a big deal. This week on Capitol Hill. There's an effort to demand more public disclosure. We'll have to see where the White House goes on this as well. But that's another one to watch. Number three, big story, Russia, Ukraine. Okay, there's no doubt that President Trump's momentum coming out of his meeting in Anchorage with Putin, coming out of his meeting in Washington with European leaders and Mr. Zelensky, there's no doubt that the momentum has stalled. And so the question now is, where is the momentum? Where is the possibility of a deal? And is it up to Putin now to make the next move? Or it's up to Trump? Over the weekend, again, while we were off, as we were coming back, extraordinary meeting in China, Putin attending, Mr. Modi of India, other world leaders attending. And the coverage of it suggested that not only is Donald Trump not Got momentum out of his Alaska summit, but his needed leverage over Putin to try to end the war is at a minimum. Here is coverage of the meeting from the BBC. His S3, please. The Chinese government would say that under Donald Trump, the US Is going it alone with its America first policies, with its chaotic tariffs. And the contrast, he would say, is with this body and with China saying that they can offer stability, a more certain world and bring about development in a calm and constructive way. At least that's the messaging and certainly the symbolism. Yeah, the symbolism of Putin there with the Chinese, with the Indian leader. It's horrible. Now, you could argue that President Trump helped to rehab Putin by meeting with him, made it easier for these world leaders to meet with them. But this has been a long running story, not just in the context of the US of the Ukrainian Russia conflict, but in general since Putin took power. The challenge for American presidents is how do you get leverage over the guy? How do you get leverage over the guy? And I don't see it right now. So what's it going to take? And this is a lot of what September will be about. Will the Europeans, who have been pretty hawkish and pretty aggressive at saying Putin needs to be repelled, the war needs to end on favorable terms for Ukraine. Will the Europeans couple with this American president with whom they've been at odds, and form a Biden like, dare I say it, coalition to say more sanctions, including against maybe the Chinese and the Indians, secondary sanctions and some sort of further arming of the Ukrainians. I had thought before the break that the ball was in Putin's court, but it's clear now he's not in any hurry to meet with Zelensky. Doesn't look like he will. He's not in any hurry to make any concessions. And so this story, some ways the biggest in the world, because until this war ends, there's so much disruption, so much debt, so much carnage. What does Donald Trump do? It's a massive decision. He created some deadlines, some of which have already passed, one of which is coming up. But he faces a choice now. He cannot, as Putin continues to kill civilians and others in Ukraine, he cannot wait, I believe, into the fall, he's going to have to make a decision again. Pair of decisions on economic sanctions and on military. All right, number four also involves an international conflict and one the president has been hoping to solve. That is, what is Israel doing about Gaza? While we were off, lots of announcements from the Israeli government about plans to go into Gaza, go into Gaza City to move Civilians as much as possible out of Gaza City through checkpoints. This escalation of the conflict causing even more international scrutiny on Israel. President Trump has so far been relatively quiet. He doesn't want people to be starved in Gaza, but Israel is moving with a relatively free hand. And the continued issue in Israel of those Israelis who still have not been freed, either their remains or those few hostages who are still alive, is front and center in Israel. Here is recent remarks from Prime Minister Netanyahu on the topic. S4, please. Both were kidnapped and their bodies were taken to Gaza. This operation reflects our unwavering commitment to returning all of our abducted. The Cabinet has resolved to defeat Hamas and release every one of our abducted. The considerable effort to implement that decision is already underway. Nothing I like more than the voice of an AI translator. But the point is Israel's being very aggressive now, and they've got to find some sort of way to thread the needle, get their hostages back, not cause further famine and hunger in Gaza, but also deal with the situation. And of course, for the president, report while we were gone from the Washington Post that the president's still looking at some sort of plan for governing Gaza, where Hamas is not in the picture, for rebuilding Gaza, for bringing people back, for creating economic opportunity. But I would say that this decision, along with the one about Ukraine and Russia, are monstrous, monstrous international choices, national security choices for the president, who's got a base that doesn't want a forever war, but the President, well aware that he's got a singular, unique responsibility on this. All right, number five is the Fed. Lots going on there. It's a great political story as President Trump tries to force at the head of the Fed and a Fed governor, Ms. Cook, who is being questioned about her mortgage situation. This is a complicated story that involves, you know, housing prices and interest rates and the ability of the President to try to manage the Fed this month. The Fed is meeting the 23rd, I think, to potentially lower rates, and people widely expect them to do it, which is what the President's wanted. But nonetheless, the pressure on the Fed remains, including on Cook. And she's got some trouble. What they're saying is the president fired her. While we were off, the president fired her and he said, I can fire her for cause. And the cause he's citing is that she, the allegations not. Not adjudicated by a court, not still very well understood, that she had multiple mortgages on which she claimed at least two homes were her primary residence. Now, this has gotten caught up in the partisanship of it.
- [15:39]
C
All.
- [15:39]
A
But here is a relatively straightforward explanation from an independent analyst, legal analyst at cnn. He believes that Cook does in fact have a problem and that the courts could well say it's sufficient cause for the president to remove her and to replace her on the Fed with someone who he thinks would go in line with his desire to raise interest rates. This is CNN analyst on S4, please. No explanation of how this happened and the claim that this might be clerical error or just a mistake, that's not going to fly.
- [16:14]
C
I think that the allegations on their.
- [16:15]
B
Face could be enough for a judge.
- [16:17]
C
To say, look, I'm going to defer.
- [16:19]
A
To the president on cause. Incredibly important, interesting story related to the Fed, related to the president's use of power and of course does affect the real economy. So we'll keep watching. But I think that this story of trying to drive her out the courts while we were off ruled that her hearing at a hearing, a bad Cook situation remains unresolved. But it's going to be an interesting one. And that goes to number six on my list, which is the question of tariffs. Okay, President Trump is not president. Terrorists President and the courts, which, which relates to terrorists, terrorists was a big decision that came down while we were off. But there's so many decisions headed to the Supreme Court and I've said this along with others since the beginning of President Trump's aggressive use of power in this administration that there's going to be lots of cases to get to the Supreme Court and he's not going to win them on. He's not going to lose them all. But what his scorecard is there and how these decisions come down will speak a great deal to the question of how successful he is because he's trying to do on tariffs on the Fed, on immigration, on policing. He's trying to do so many things that have never been done before. He's testing the the limits of presidential power. Donald Trump's view is that only suckers as president act restrained. He felt that way in the first term. He feels it even more now. And what he's trying to do is to use maximum power and try his luck in the courts on tariffs. This decision that came down said he's exceeded his authority, saying he's allowed to impose all these country by country tariffs based on an emergency. Here's the way FOX Business reported the story. S5 please tariffs.
- [18:02]
B
Although we're seeing courts affirming pretty decisively here that they are not legal, politicians are going to want this money. And to your point about Besant's estimate. It's in line with the Congressional Budget office. They're saying 4 trillion over 10 years or more total tariff revenue under the new Trump stuff. Well, this basically entirely offsets his income tax restraint in the one big, beautiful bill. So if you're looking for economic growth, this is, this is, I think, great news.
- [18:42]
A
This is big casino, this question of whether the tariffs stay in place, not just the revenue and the attempt to bring production back home, but to get better deals. I continue to believe that the main purpose of these tariffs is to open markets and to get leverage over China for an eventual deal with China. So this is big stuff. Lots of pressure on the courts. But in the meantime, until we see how the Supreme Court resolves this, this is a big deal. As the President tries to continue, along with his aides, to strike deals for trade, so continue to watch his relationship with the courts on a range of issues. The District Court, court of Appeals. The very few of these decisions are enforced. They could be, but they're choosing mostly not to, or sometimes they choose to. And then the Supreme Court stays it. So it takes a while. The wheels of justice grind so slowly. I wish the Supreme Court would fast track some of this stuff. I know that's not their normal way of behaving, but these issues are affecting not just the politics of it, not just the President's power, but the real lives of Americans. I wish these things were occurring faster across the board. The uncertainty on the tariffs is not great for business, but we've seen people adapt, Covid. It's allowed businesses to be a lot more flexible than before. All right, number seven. Something coming up in November, but hot right now. The New York City mayor's race, where I live, Mr. Mondame, an avowed socialist, is right now, he's going to win. If nothing changes, he's going to win. What would have to change? First of all, these outside groups who have been talking at their Hamptons cocktail parties all summer about getting involved in the race are going to have to make a decision. How much are they willing to spend? Who are they going to hire? What are they going to spend it on? And they can't just go negative on Mondami, although his negatives are quite high and can be driven higher. That has to happen for him to lose. But they need a candidate. The guy's going to win unless someone else wins. And the only other person. Every poll that came out while we were off suggests what we saw before. The only other person who could win is Andrew Cuomo. Now he's got problems as a candidate, but he's the only one we've got other two other candidates, the current mayor, Mayor Adams, the Republican, Curtis Lewis. They don't have to get out of the race for Cuomo to win, but they have to get very little of the vote. They have to effectively be neutered in the race. Cuomo is campaigning more actively than he did when he lost to Mondami in the primary. This matters a lot if there's a socialist mayor in New York City. I hope he does well. I've said that before. But Republicans will point to him all 2026 in the midterms as the face of the Democratic Party. And a lot of people, including Donald Trump and his friends who have business interests in New York, don't believe that the city will thrive or even survive if this guy's elected mayor. Now, lots resting on Andrew Cuomo. He is trying to be more Mondami, like in how he campaigns. He's trying to match him. Very similar to what Gavin Newsom is doing with President Trump, which is if you can't beat him playing your own game, try to beat him by joining him. Here's a Cuomo video with him on this, talking about the subway and buses. Acting very much like Mandami, trying to mix in, mix it up in a casual way. This is Cuomo video. S6. Please try to explain it to you, but it is the mother of all bureaucracy seats. Somebody has to say, I'm in charge. Let's take back our subway system.
- [22:04]
C
Let's manage our subway system.
- [22:05]
A
Let's make it safe. All right, if you're listening on the podcast version, you heard that? Oh, my God. At the top, that was Andrew Cuomo at a subway booth clerk booth where the subway clerk was all excited to see him. All right, coming up later in the month, Kamala Harris book tour. This is going to be a big deal. It's going to test whether people are interested in what she has to say. She's passed on running for governor of California, but she's still listed as a potential presidential candidate. And there's no hiding in the book business. I can tell you, having been in the book business, how many books you sell as a matter of public record, what the ratings are like for your appearances. And she started the slow tease out of the book that comes out later in the month. Here is a little bit of her latest. This is Kamala Harris faux packing for her book tour. S7, please. Okay. I most forgot these. They make some room. Actually, I think I have everything I need. So again, she had in her luggage just a bunch of her copies of her book. The tour is going to take her all over the US it's going to take her overseas. While she was, while we were on break, Donald Trump took away her Secret Service protection. Normally vice presidents only get six months when they leave office. That's what she had. Joe Biden has extended it. Donald Trump reversed it. Let's see what happens on that book tour. Super interested to see how she presents herself and what she says about the campaign. That's new. I don't think she would have gotten a book deal unless she had something new to say. So looking forward to that later in the month. Westmore I want to make a point about Wes Moore, but it's a more general point about all these people running for president. While we were away, Wes Moore continued to be step up his opposition to President Trump on some of these crime issues. President Trump has criticized Baltimore, where Westmore grew up, the Baltimore area and of course is the biggest city in his state. Wes Moore has had questions raised in the past about his military service and whether he was rightfully awarded and, and and was awarded certain military honors at the time he said he was awarded them. Here he is in an interview on Fox News where he was pressed on this question which he's been asked before, but now it's happening in a different context. Here's essay please. The Pentagon said in 2006 Wes Moore listed a Bronze Star on his resume. He didn't have until two decades later. Westmore is a perfect example of a politician who inflicted his resume and hopes no one notices your response. Governor MYERS BRONZES I'm very proud of my service and I'm thankful that the United States military has recognized my service in Afghanistan with both the Bronze Star and the Combat Action Badge. I'm thankful for the service that I did overseas. I'm thankful for the soldiers that I led with. I'm thankful for all of our veterans who understand the sacrifice that we were able to make. And I'm grateful for the opportunity now to be able to continue to do good work on behalf of the people of the state of Maryland. Yeah, well, I don't think many people question your service, Governor. I appreciate your service and I respect and honor that service as well. Thank you. The question is whether or not you're telling the truth as a politician. And I think that's important to the American people. As we talk about crime or any other issues addressing the state of Maryland, we got to know that the man we're talking to is also one that's willing to tell us the truth. And this does not look like good evidence of your willingness to tell the truth. I think if you look at my military records, you can see that I'm not just very proud of the fact that I'm a decorated combat veteran. And I, unlike many people in this country, were willing to put on the uniform and sacrifice myself on behalf of this country. I'm proud of the, of the work that I did with also, also my other soldiers. Handsome guy, great smile, articulate. Those answers are non responsive. And I'm just telling you, every one of these people, with the possible exception of Gavin Newsom, including Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, who've run before every one of these folks, if they have success in the presidential field, they are going to be questioned in ways they never have before. Even questions they've been asked before, asked and answered in the past does not cut it in the context of someone trying to have a successful presidential campaign. So I'm going to be watching closely here as Wes Moore, because any interviewer, anyone interviewing him who's seen that response is, is almost certainly going to at least think about going back and asking him to clarify yet again, this is a difficult thing to do. It's more difficult than running for governor. It's more difficult than running for Senate. It's even more difficult than running for vice president. We'll see how he does. All right, lastly, number 10, big story. The biggest of the 10, Taylor and Travis, while we were gone. Big engagement announced after she appeared just a little while ago, while we were still around on Travis and his brother's New Heights podcast. Here is a little bit of the most lovey dovey moment, foreshadowing the engagement announcements that occurred while we were gone. S9, please the room.
- [27:07]
B
And it's like I've known you forever. It's like it was just the easiest conversation I ever had.
- [27:13]
A
And it was just so much fun.
- [27:15]
B
That it just, it knocked my socks.
- [27:18]
A
Off from what they say. Knocked your socks off?
- [27:20]
C
Yeah.
- [27:21]
A
Thank you. That's. I felt she blew me away.
- [27:23]
C
And I, I had never, I had.
- [27:24]
B
Never experienced something so mesmerizing on stage and then so real and so beautiful in person.
- [27:32]
A
Hey, that's. Should I, should I leave? Yeah, I think so, honestly. All right. They went to like a party, they went to a college football game. Lots going on between the two of them. Still no wedding date set, but we'll be watching closely. And one thing I got to do while I was off. I missed you, but I got to watch that whole podcast. I recommend it to you. The lady is a genius. And what she's done here is a culmination of a life's work, a life's work of writing about not getting the guy or getting the guy and losing the guy. Now she's got the guy on the podcast. She announced her new album, which is coming up in October. We look forward to that. All right, those are my big ten. Tell me what you think about today's report. You can email me at Next up alperin@gmail.com. always find the program on X, Instagram and TikTok. Our handles on those, our handle on those platforms at NextUp Halpern. And of course, you can always watch the program on YouTube to get the full audio video experience. YouTube.com Next up Halpern. All right, next up here, my colleague at two Way, Dan Turn. We're going to talk about some politics. That's next. Up Next. Back in 2020, people on the American left pushed very hard to get children's books into schools, getting all sorts of titles onto the bookshelves, things like Activist Baby, Woke Baby, Anti Racist Baby, and Non Binary Baby. Well, our new sponsor thought if we're doing the whole political kids books thing, we shouldn't leave out a book called Capitalist Baby. So here you go. Capitalist Baby, a Fun Illustrated A to Z Kids Book, is now on sale at Amazon.com Capitalist Baby is a beautifully illustrated. It's a little tongue in cheek and a clever A to Z book for kids and parents who love business and capitalism. Best part is this Capitalist Baby is optimistic. It celebrates the ideas of an American entrepreneurship in business. It is instructive without any preaching. Real business concepts are woven into the charming text and into the illustrations. You Capitalist Baby is your alternative to the leftist kids book so popular after 2020. Buy capitalist baby now for yourself, your kids and as a gift. It's a delightful read that deserves a spot on your bookshelf. For the first time in human history, there's an A to Z Alphabet book for people who believe in free enterprise, entrepreneurship and commerce. So right now, go buy a copy or buy three. Search Capitalist Baby on Amazon.com today at 1-800-flowers.com we know that connections are at.
- [30:03]
C
The heart of being human.
- [30:04]
A
Whether celebrating life's joys or comforting during.
- [30:07]
C
Tough times, 1-800-Flowers helps you express what words can't.
- [30:11]
A
For nearly 50 years, millions have trusted 1-800-Flowers to deliver thoughtful gifts that help create lasting bonds because it's more than just a gift. It's your way of showing you care. Visit 1-800-flowers.com pandora and connect today. That's 1-800-flowers.Com/pandora. Joining me now, longtime Democratic strategist, fundraiser and commentator, my colleague at two Way, Dan Turnheim. He joins me and Sean Spicer every weekday, 9am Eastern Time on the morning meeting and 4pm on Thursdays. Dan is part of the Group Chat, an ensemble program with a conversation like no other. As with the morning meeting, you can be part of the conversation to join Dan and his colleagues. Dan, welcome in.
- [30:57]
C
Thanks, Mark. It's always wonderful to join you.
- [30:59]
A
How long have you been doing this media stuff with two Way and other media appearances that you make?
- [31:04]
C
I'm coming up on my first anniversary here, the end of the end of September. It's been a remarkable year and I've loved every minute of it. Love working with you and the two Way team and all these opportunities and we don't like for content these days.
- [31:19]
A
Yeah, you were not a very high profile person. You had a podcast, you had a substack, but you were relatively new to that. You were kind of a behind the scenes staffer. So now you make regular appearances, not just on two way and not just here on NextUp, but on Fox News, on Newsmax, on News Nation. So what's it like now to be more forward facing? What have you learned about the media and about being a public facing person?
- [31:43]
C
Well, it is, it's very different, as you say. When we moved to New York City, I was trying to figure out what to do. And I just have always loved politics, always love talking about it. I mean, look, the difference, one is I hear from people before, if I was in a bar or with friends and I'd say something, the tree would fall and it wouldn't really be heard. Now when I say something, I get phone calls and texts both saying good for you, or here's where I disagree or here's some information that you might find useful. And the media landscape itself is changing. Whereas people used to consume their news from just the New York Times or CNN or Fox News, now there are platforms like this, Megyn Kelly's podcast, others. And I am astonished and have been over the last year how many people I will be stopped by on the street who say I get my news from your podcast. I get my I learned of you from hearing you on Megyn Kelly. It's just a different beast than I saw your name in the New York Times, which is what Would have been the case 20 years ago.
- [32:44]
A
Yeah. So a couple things I'm interested in you. You're my friend, and I'm just. I'm so tickled by. By what's happened to you in the last year. But I think there's some broader lessons here. One is you're very good at this. And you were behind the scenes guy for so long. Did you ever think over the last couple decades as you were behind the scenes guy in politics, well, you saw your colleagues go on tv. Well, I could do that too. And you thought, well, it doesn't look so hard. Or did you never think of it before the last year?
- [33:11]
C
I thought I would be terrible at this. I mean, full disclosure, I hate the sound of my voice. And I look at people like yourself who make it look easy. And thank you for your feedback. When I first started, there were just so many things that you think even when I first put my toe in the pool, you just don't realize when the camera's live and it's coming to you. And I would rewatch episodes and be like, oh, my gosh, I was terrible. And thanks to you and others who kind of held my hand and gave me feedback, I still don't see myself as very good at it because I look at people like you that are so smooth and succinct and just think, oh, God, I got a long way to go.
- [33:52]
A
Yeah, hilarious. But the bosses I had early in my career who blocked me from being on air would take issue with your view of me as smooth. The other thing is you, and I hear it all the time, you're my favorite Democrat. They say to you, you're the only Democrat I like. Part of that is testament to the fact that you are a very nice guy and you come across that way. But part of it is, I think, your willingness to speak honestly about the Democratic Party. So I. What are the things that you think you say about politics, including about the Democrats, that make so many Republicans say, you're the only Democrat I like or you're my favorite Democrat?
- [34:26]
C
Well, I think first off, one is I'm not in the business anymore. I'm not a lobbyist anymore. I'm not a consultant anymore. Therefore, I have a little more liberty to speak my mind. Because if I was being paid to lobby the government or advise candidates, I would have to be careful that if I walked into their office and had said something not too nice, the staff may say, before we get to what you want to talk about, what are you doing to my boss? Or why did you say that? So I think I do have a little bit of liberty to kind of speak my mind. And therefore I'm willing to kind of call the ball in the strike. I am willing to say where I think the Democratic Party is making a mistake, whether strategically or just obviously. Whereas a lot of other people, they just can't go there, even though they'll say in private, hey, I totally agree with you. I just have that liberty to be a little more candid. And therefore Republicans like it when you kind of can state the obvious. And a lot of Democrats, given the fact we've lost elections, will say, okay, after this past election, I heard from a lot of Democrats who had been very blunt that we hated your criticism, say, maybe you're right and obviously the results spoke for themselves.
- [35:44]
A
This may be a brilliant insight or the most obvious thing I could say, but I think about your party's grappling with Donald Trump and the Republicans, that's kind of like a three act play. There's now in dealing with him on policy and the politics of the moment, they're the midterms. And then there's the 2028 presidential. So let's walk through those three for now, legislative battles, PR battles, the redistricting battles, the policing battles all over the country. What's working well for Democrats in that battle? And then I'll ask you, what's what we think they need to do better on? But right now, what's working well for Democrats in that battle? Not the midterms, not 2028, but now.
- [36:23]
C
I think right now, Mark, not much is working well. I think I don't know where we've successfully stopped Trump on any major initiative that he has tried, whether it's the small stuff, you know, renaming something or taking over the Kennedy center or the big stuff, the big beautiful bill, his immigration crackdown, his push on dei. Nowhere can I point to and say, aha, we got him, we stopped him, or frankly we even materially slowed him down. Anywhere he stumbled, it's been his own fault. He got out a little bit over his fees. And I think he's a much smarter politician now than he was just because of experience. And he's got the advantage of having kind of been rested for four years and studying, as you've documented on here, what he did wrong and what if he could do this again, he would do better. So I think our party still focuses on the personal and focuses on the process and does not focus often on what it is. And I think crime is just the Perfect example of this most Democrats still don't want to talk about. Okay, what is our solution to crime? Why did crime get so bad? Let's say between 2015, kind of the mid to 2010s and now a lot of these blue cities in the 90s and 2000 Democrats moved back into. People love living in them. So I just think right now our party still struggles mightily to understand Trump. They don't ask the question why he's successful and they don't under. They don't understand that it's substance over style that often gets is the secret to his sauce.
- [38:02]
A
You sort of answered the question of what you think folks need to do better. But is this different if you think about Barack Obama's president or George Bush or Joe Biden? Is the Democratic Party, is the opposition party in the minority in both chambers of Congress? Are Democrats doing worse combating a second term president than previously, or is this the way it usually is?
- [38:25]
C
I think they're doing worse because Trump is a different animal. He's about maximum power, lack maximum leverage, push the envelope to try to achieve what it is he wants to achieve. Whereas previous presidents felt more boundaries, they just felt there were certain things that they couldn't do. And when the walls went up of opposition in the U.S. senate, in Congress or if the media howled, they felt some sense of, okay, I can't go there. Whereas Trump has such a firm support of his base that he doesn't feel, feel that it's a 48, 48 country. And he successfully kind of cleaved off that 3% to hover around 50% in elections that I think no one, I mean even a Democrat has never been able to experience such rock solid support. I don't know of another president that 10 years into his movement is stronger today than when he started. Obama started losing oxygen within a year.
- [39:22]
A
Leave Gavin Newsom act, because we've talked about that so much here and on two ways. What other Democrats, and maybe you wouldn't include Newsom, but leave him at anyway. What other Democrats would you look to and say they at least sort of get it? They seem to understand Trump. They seem to understand the kind of either symmetrical or asymmetrical efforts required to try to slow him down. Is there anybody you put on that list?
- [39:45]
C
I don't know. I mean, certainly not in Congress. You know, I think Bernie Sanders and AOC are unafraid to challenge him. And so they're having some success within the party of rallying it and getting attention, raising money, getting volunteers to support their causes. But I don't see them understanding Donald Trump and having a plan to strategically take him on. I think people like Josh Shapiro and others are laying in the weeds. They're basically heads down. Let me be governor, let me govern my state where I think I can try to speak up like Shapiro on Israel. Calling out what Netanyahu did was a little bit of a bold move for him. But otherwise their heads are down. Nobody to me. Rahm Emanuel may be the one who I think understands it, who's road testing some ideas, who's going around the country. But Rahm, by his own self deprecation, jokes about worrying about the base, knows there's certain things he can do and he obviously has no power and parts of the base doesn't want to listen to him. So is Rahm building a movement to successfully take him on? I don't see signs of it yet. I think he's onto something, but I don't see any people lining up behind him to say, here's our leader.
- [41:01]
A
Yeah. And Rahm is not running a war room or involved in the day to day. Right. He's just trying to position to maybe run for president, which we'll get to in a second. Let's talk about the midterms. Conventional politics in the olden days at this point in the cycle, a little over a year away, we'd be looking at candidate recruitment, fundraising, the generic ballot question on polls, you know, who would you vote for in the next congressional election? Are those the right standards to use to judge whether Democrats are being well positioned for the midterms? Or are we in a different era now and it's more about social media or something else?
- [41:35]
C
No, I think that stuff still matters at this point in the game. I think this is where there is some good news. And Democrats may be successful in the midterms not because of anything we did, but just because I think the idea of a check on Trump. But my understanding in both parties that polls pretty well now, they may lose everything. But look, candidate recruitment has been pretty good in the U.S. senate. I was surprised they got Roy Cooper to jump in. It's good they got Sherrod Brown to jump in. We'll see about Maine. I think in the House, the fact that Jerry Nadler now is stepping down after Jan Schakowski stepped down, there is movement afoot that these older members need to go, younger members have more energy. We'll see whether or not this is gonna translate in swing districts. Can we get good candidates? But there does seem to be momentum on Recruitment, where I think the party has a problem is while on the hard dollars, meaning the money that they can spend directly on these races, kind of say vote for, vote against. We're holding our own on the outside stuff. We're getting crushed. And the DNC with the RNC is getting crushed, literally 7 to 1. So money is a concern. You can only get outspent so much. There is clearly energy in our base, so I don't think we're lack for volunteers coming up. There's a question of whether the Republicans will be equally energized. So I think the mechanics aren't bad, but there are warning signs because Trump and Vance are a machine. And the alignment between the outside groups, the Charlie Kirks, the, the, the, some of the other organizing groups is rock solid. There's been no break. They continue afoot and they're raising all this money. Trump's going to have, I think, over a billion dollars kind of at his disposal, let alone the candidates. That's real.
- [43:26]
A
Yeah. Just double back on one point. And then I want to talk more about money. You mentioned, you know, Nadler, Jerry Nadler, my congressman, your former congressman in New York, retiring, giving way almost certainly to a younger candidate. And yet the two big recruits on the Senate side you mentioned, Sherrod Brown and Rory Cooper, they're older, they're not new blood. So is that an issue for Democrats or is it all case by case, just whoever the strongest candidate is available for a particular seat?
- [43:54]
C
I think it's case by case. Look, our party has less of a history of younger candidates in the Senate. I mean, I think Ruben Gallego would be your only one that you've really seen recently where a truly young person kind of stepped forward and got a seat. So, you know, we'll see. They are older, they've got histories of running statewide, they've got, you know, histories of success. Our benches in North Carolina and Ohio are fairly thin, although my colleague Nina Turner would disagree about Ohio. So, I mean, I think they're good recruits. But you're right. In terms of the Senate and governor's races, we still tend to go to the old safe shoe.
- [44:30]
A
Yeah. All right, one more in the midterms and we'll talk about the presidential after the midterm, after the 24 election, obviously a lot of disappointment in the party over losing the White House. I think still, silver lining. Multiple silver linings. Your party won almost every contested battleground state Senate race. Even though you don't have the majority in the Senate, you won a lot of races, it could have been much worse for the party. And now you hear that the fat cat donors, the big bundlers, the big check writers are discouraged despite winning all those Senate races. Is your sense that the big money, the people who fund super PACs, the people who fund these shadowy outside groups on both sides that Democrats are engaged over the midterms, or are they still sitting on their wallets?
- [45:16]
C
You know what? Both. They're engaged in trying to figure out what the party needs to do, like what went wrong and what are a set of solutions to solve these long term systemic problems. But they don't see it. So they're sitting on their wallets right now. Some of it is. Some people are afraid, right? If I write a big check and it's in Politico or I'm putting myself, my business, my family on the radar, this is a White House that pays attention to that stuff and has been known to potentially make life a little bit uncomfortable for people. So some of it is nervousness, but people don't see what the long term plan is. And look, a lot of them are not dumb. They don't want to flush their money down the toilet. They want to know that the voter registration plan is going to actually work, that the get out the vote plan, the that the media plan. Where are you spending your money? What are you saying? They're asking the right questions. Their advisors are saying to them, I don't quite see the plan yet. And it speaks to the lack of confidence in Chuck Schumer, which is shocking because donors for years, kind of in Chuck We Trust, and with Hakeem Jeffries, they trusted Nancy Pelosi. They don't quite trust that Hakeem knows what he's doing to get them to victory. And until they see that, they're sitting on the sidelines right now.
- [46:30]
A
Yeah, and of course not the only reason, but part of the reason you choose New Yorkers to be your leaders is because presumably they can raise a lot of money. And, and as you said, they're both struggling. The other thing is technology. I don't think either of us knows enough about this or as much about this as we'd like. I used to have great fingertip feel for which party had technological supremacy. And in the age of not just social media, but AI and voter registration, voter turnout aided more than ever by technology. It's a huge question. Do you have, what sense do you have of where your party stands on the technological fight with Republicans to win elections?
- [47:07]
C
Mark, it's a great question because if you Talk to the Biden and then Harris people. They thought they had a good analytics department. You know, they thought they had a pretty good pulse on what was happening. It is amazing how social media now is used to kind of try to even to some level, has replaced polling in certain instances of trying to kind of day to day, hour to hour, district by district, understand kind of what's trending emotionally, how engaged people are. Like all of this is now tracked by presidential campaigns, Big sophisticated campaigns. They thought they had a very good operation. And to some extent what they saw leading up to the election played out. Where Republicans seem to have the advantage is they are finding and registering new voters. And whether we're suffering because people don't want to be a Democrat, we're just not finding these needles in the haystack out in these states. It makes me nervous that Republicans continue even after November to methodically plow ahead and register new voters. And we're struggling on that. And I find it hard to believe it's simply because our brand is so bad.
- [48:19]
A
Yeah. Lastly, just a couple minutes to go. I want to talk about 2028. You and I agree that Gavin Newsom and some of the public polling reflects this has been aggressive to a positive end. He's more front of mind now for as a 2028 candidate than anyone else. Who else would you say? One, two or three names? Whichever you want. Who else is having a good, who had a good summer? Who position themselves? Well.
- [48:43]
C
I would say Wes Moore up until kind of this past weekend, a little bit in that behind the scenes, Wes Moore is a name that you hear people talk about. He's fresh, he's new, he's young, he's had some good kind of below the radar travel around states. He struggled in his gubernatorial race to answer the question about claiming to have, have received a bronze star. He struggled in a CBS interview about it. That, to me, the fact that you're still struggling on a public stage, we.
- [49:16]
A
Showed that earlier in the show. And I think that's cautionary, not just for West Moore, but for all these other candidates who, as you and I have discussed before, they think, oh, I've been elected governor, I've been elected Senate, you know, I've been on the national stage. The level of scrutiny is so much higher and the, and the inability to get away with dodging questions is, is. Is higher too.
- [49:35]
C
And I think the other candidate, I would say, and you and I have talked about this, we may have a little disagreement. AOC and Bernie Sanders continue to draw massive crowds and while I think that Gavin Newsom strategically, tactically and stylistically has had a great summer, I still think right now, if she said announce I'm running for president in 2028, she would have one of the best fundraising lists, one of the best volunteer list. And she is where substantively it's not my politics per se. The party is now, I think, as you say, once the bright lights of a national media get on her, it's not just the New York Post. She's going to face a lot of questions. She has struggled at times when it's been put to her face in interviews. She's hamadahamada a few times. But she has had a good start to the year. If you want to just think about the politics of winning a primary so far.
- [50:30]
A
Yeah, I'll be, I'll be curious to see if she does her on what happens in turn Tide. If I were a newspaper reporter and my job was to profile people in political media, I would write a profile of you, my friend, because you are one of the great success stories in political media of the last 12 months and grateful to you for being part of Two Way and for coming on next up today.
- [50:49]
C
Thank you, Mark. I owe pretty much everything to you. So thank you.
- [50:53]
A
All right, Dan's of self made man. That's Dan Turntide. Next up, Josh Gerstein, another friend of mine, a senior legal affairs reporter for Politico. Josh is next up. All right, let me tell you a story now about a guy named Leo Grillo. He was on a road trip and he came across a Doberman. This dog was severely underweight and clearly in trouble. Leo rescued that Doberman and he gave him the name Delta. Sadly, though, Delta was just one of many animals that needed help, which inspired Leo to start something called Delta Rescue. It's the largest no kill, care for life animal sanctuary in the world. They've rescued thousands of dogs, cats and horses from the wilderness and they provide their animals with shelter, love, safety and a good home. This dedication and everlasting love to animals is Leo's mission and it's his legacy. Delta Rescue relies solely on contributions from people like all of us. So if you want caring for these animals to be part of your legacy, speak with your estate planner. Because there are tax savings and estate planning benefits as well. You can grow your estate while letting your love for animals live well into the future. Check out the estate planning tab on their website to learn more and speak with an advisor. We call dogs man's best friends for a reason. You can help those who need it most. So please, right now, visit deltarescue.org today to learn more. Again, that's deltarescue.org hey there, Nexters. Mark Halpern here. Thank you for tuning in. I've got a question for you. Have you ever listened to the Smerconish podcast? I am a regular guest on his show and I know you will love it. On the Smarkonish podcast, Michael Smarkanish brings you a balanced news presentation on the biggest issues of the day, every day. Oh, and by the way, balance, it doesn't mean boring. Michael offers you interviews and conversations with newsmakers, policy experts and listeners from all corners of the nation. This Marconish podcast, it's a forum for curious people who want more than talking points. Listen please to the smercondish podcast, wherever you listen to podcasts. All right, next up, joining me now under the big top, Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, someone who I've known throughout his journalism career and delighted to welcome him to NextUp. Josh, welcome.
- [53:10]
B
Hey, Mark, Good to be with you. Nice to see you.
- [53:12]
A
You're also one of the few reporters. I could count him on one hand. Who's I read every story you write. I never miss one. Explain what your beat is at Politico.
- [53:22]
B
Well, you know, we've expanded our legal team a little bit, but basically I began at Politico after doing some White House work by starting to zero in on things in the legal realm that have a strong political valence to them. I guess that would mean things in the legal realm that are of keen interest to people on Capitol Hill or at the White House. And so I feel like in the time I've been doing it, it went from being a pretty narrow beat with a few discrete issues to on certain days, you feel like it's consuming the entire news operation. You know, the question of whether a Trump policy is going to be allowed to go forward or knock down. So it's now a pretty broad beat, given how much stuff gets litigated that I think used to get fought out in the political realm.
- [54:13]
A
Right. So every president has major policies litigated. Right. People sue various things. This is the most litigious president ever in terms of his personal life. Are there in fact either in terms of quantity and quality? Is this different? How would you describe how is it different? Because he's taking so many more risks and pushing so many more envelopes. What makes it different?
- [54:36]
B
I mean, I think that the whole culture has changed. I think it has something to do with Trump at this point, but there's just been, like, a permanent sea change. I really do think that 20, 25 years ago, people that were trying to advance a particular policy agenda in Washington typically got some lobbyists together and went to talk to some people on the Hill and tried to figure out how they might be able to pass a rider that would be attached to this bill or. Or that bill. And instead, I think what we see now is those groups will hire a bunch of lawyers. And oftentimes, if you have a controversial administration policy, file not just one suit, but maybe half a dozen or as many as 10 or 20 pieces of litigation within the first few days that a policy comes online. So I do think part of it is Trump's policies are particularly provocative. He's pushing the executive power envelope. What I talked about with Congress is part of the equation, right? Because people, presidents are having less success often in getting their agenda through Congress. They move to the executive power, things which are, by their nature, I think, more prone to litigation. And God knows Trump has done a lot of that. And we've seen this sort of crazy number of Supreme Court emergency appeals in the first eight or so months of this year. I think we're in the vicinity of 24 or 25 emergency appeals by the administration since Trump came into office.
- [56:12]
A
I listed in my report of monologue like a half a dozen areas that get the most attention of the law, and there are more. There's so many, and as you said, lots subject to emergency appeals. The. I read all your stories, but I don't pay much attention to the district court or even court of appeals decisions, because they're all going to the Supreme Court. And either the district court of the court of appeals have been staying most of their rulings, or an emergency appeal in the Supreme Court stays. So is. Is it the case that people should pay much attention to the district court and this court of appeals, or are we all just waiting around for the Supreme Court?
- [56:49]
B
I mean, I think it does matter. If it's one judge in one place, it may not matter that much. Some of them have interesting personal dynamics. One of the ones that we've just gotten comes from Justice Breyer's brother or whatever. So you have sort of on the ground dynamics. I think sometimes in some of these states, you do also have this phenomenon that has cropped up that in the eyes of, at least we think, a couple justices, some of the district court judges are getting a little big for their britches, basically, and are issuing Rulings that they view as clearly contradicted by the Supreme Court. There's a lot of discussion about that. And you know, those rulings when they're first issued can have a pretty significant impact in terms of people who are about to be deported, aren't being deported. Groups that were supposed to get funding or were denied funding will sometimes get it for a while. And so I think that the interim result can be important in some of these cases. But you're quite right that almost all of them end up at the Supreme Court on some basis. I do think that where you have multiple rulings from multiple judges that that starts to impact the likelihood that the Supreme Court will go one way or another in some types of cases, maybe not in all types of cases.
- [58:09]
A
Not every case that's going to get to the Supreme Court is, has its issue deference the executive, the so called unitary executive. But a lot of them, that's part of the, part of the question, right? So what do we know about this Supreme Court with a big conservative 63 majority? What do we know about their inclination in general to be deferential to at least this President?
- [58:33]
B
So in my view, Mark, this is one of the big questions and arguably contradictions with the Supreme Court because you do have this theory of the unitary executive, which in theory, if you step back and take it as an academic exercise and don't apply a particular president's name to it, it should be a restraint on the power of the executive branch. And if the President's running the executive branch, it should be a restraint on him. I think in practice it doesn't always play out that way. You've got a Supreme Court where the conservatives are very hostile to what they call agency power. And so they don't like it when the Consumer Financial Protection Board takes some action that might not be allowed under their law, under the governing law for that agency, and the Supreme Court will step in and try to block that. Where this sort of gets more complicated is the justices don't seem, the conservative justices don't seem as allergic to, to presidential exercises of power, especially if they can be claimed to be in the national security or foreign policy realm. And so there is something of attention there. I don't see how you can completely slash back in a swashbuckling fashion the administrative state and let the President do whatever he wants at the same time. And you do see some of the liberals saying, gee, you know, when Joe Biden took an expansive view of his policy, say to issue student loan relief, the Supreme Court stepped in immediately and we'll see if this Supreme Court is willing to bring the same kind of power to bear against President Trump. We really have not seen much of that yet in the second term, although we did see a few, I think a few instances of it in the first term.
- [60:22]
A
So I won't say cynical, I'd say realistic about judges and justices. Not always. We saw this with the trade decision last week. But in general, I find them to be result oriented. I tend to think if they're Republican nominated, they vote mostly for Republicans. Not always, but when the chips are down, they do. That means that for President Trump to lose any of the big decisions before the Supreme Court, three of the, of the Republican nominated justices would have to flip and vote against him. Right. He's got to lose three.
- [60:53]
B
Two. I think you would have to lose.
- [60:54]
A
Two, but I'm sorry, two, not three on any given case. So it's, it's six. So it go from six to three to five to four against him. Correct. Bad at math. Which two are the weak links, if you just believe my theory? Which two of the Republican nominated justices are the most likely to abandon him?
- [61:11]
B
Well, I mean, I think it depends on the issue, but so far Chief Justice John Roberts has shown that in a number of cases he is willing to step away.
- [61:19]
A
And who's the, and who's the other one?
- [61:23]
B
So I think the other one becomes a toss up and it depends on the issue. If we were just rolling dice, I would say probably Amy Coni Barrett would be maybe the next most likely person. If you remember, back on the Trump immunity decision, she didn't fully go along with the majority's opinion. I don't think it mattered in that particular case.
- [61:44]
A
Right.
- [61:45]
B
But she, she broke off there and there've been a few other areas, decisions where she has frustrated, has frustrated conservatives. The other ones, I think you get to a lower probability. I still think the fact that Neil Gorsuch decided to rule that, you know, transgender rights and gay rights have been enforceable as a matter of federal law for the last 50 years, it's a pretty remarkable decision coming from a Trump appointed conservative justice, which he did write. But you can't point to a lot of other outlier opinions like that where you get a really unexpected result.
- [62:24]
A
I have been waiting for about five months for the New York Times to write a story about the White House counsel. Do you know the White House counsel is.
- [62:32]
B
Well, the White House counsel was, we wrote a bunch of stories at the very beginning.
- [62:37]
A
Yeah, well, they switched. It's now A guy named David Warrington. And I've been waiting for the New York Times to write a story because the conventional wisdom in the media is there's no one telling the president no as compared to the first term when he had a chief of staff. So, David. So literally 10 minutes before we started this interview, they ran their story after.
- [62:55]
B
I've been waiting for five months. Former law partner of Harmeet Dylan, who runs.
- [63:01]
A
Exactly. So here's, here's the headline in the subhead. White House Counsel Eases Trump's Path on Aggressive Agenda. David Warrington, the top lawyer inside the West Wing, focuses on, quote, the art of the possible. As one Trump advisor said, what do you know about this guy? Because typically, the president who wants to push the envelope on legal stuff like executive orders and some of the other things he's done would have a White House counsel who occasionally would at least tap the brakes. So what do you know about the role of this David Warrington figure?
- [63:32]
B
Well, I mean, I know that he was an extreme when he was litigating, was an extremely conservative attorney, as was that entire Harmeet Dillon firm that fought a lot of the stuff in California around the pandemic. You know, I have not heard of stories coming out of the White House, as we heard Legion in the first term, where Trump was routinely clashing with his White House lawyers about what he could and couldn't do, and then he would replace them or ignore them or seemingly lock them in a closet somewhere so that he could bring in an outside attorney who is more to his liking. We've heard less of that this time. I haven't heard much word of dissent along that front at all. And so I have to assume that he is somehow navigating this without causing the degree of internal tension that erupted. And at the moment, you can't really argue with the performance. I mean, I don't know if it's Warrington or Sauer who gets to take responsibility. But we Talked about those 25 or so emergency appeals, Mark. The Trump administration preserve has prevailed maybe in completely prevailed in maybe 20 of them and partially prevailed in a few more. So the record in those cases has been almost impeccable on their part, which does suggest that they're doing a pretty good job of vetting things, especially when you look back at that first term. We had very sloppily done legal work on things like the travel ban. You know, seven days into the first administration, where there were clearly lawyers in the administration that knew there were problems with this and it had to be rewritten. I think three different times before the Supreme Court eventually blessed it at a point where everybody kind of forgotten it even existed anymore.
- [65:23]
A
It's just some combination of they're less sloppy and they're doing good work and the court is sympathetic to them. I mean, you don't have that kind of one lost record if, if you're not appealing to at least a pretty sympathetic audience, Right?
- [65:36]
B
Yeah, I think that's part of it. Although we're not seeing, like a lot of the conservative justices break off, it doesn't seem like it's, they view a lot of these decisions as close calls, and some of them, you even see some of the liberal justices go along. So you're right. It is a combination of a, perhaps a friendlier playing ground than they had the first time around, although they still had the court leaning in their direction from the very beginning.
- [66:02]
A
Right. Look forward. What are the two cases pending, District Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, that you're most watching for in the next month or so? What's, what's, what are the hot cases for you right now?
- [66:14]
B
Well, the two biggest ones, I think the sort of, the enormous one that's looming over this part of Trump's presidency has to be the tariff case that you alluded to earlier, that was just decided last week by the appeals court. It's going to have to go to the Supreme Court. And I think it's a real test of this tension that we talked about earlier in terms of how much latitude do you give Trump, for example, when he's doing things that are assertive uses of executive power. He's claiming this is all a foreign policy and national security undertaking. But tariffs are taxes, and taxes have customarily come from Congress. I also think it's an interesting test of originalism because we get a lot of things at the Supreme Court about issues like biotechnology or social media, where it's pretty hard to say, you know, what would the founders have thought about biotechnology? Like, I don't know. It's kind of a ridiculous question to entertain. But the founders thought things about tariffs because that's how they funded the government at the outset. And so I think that's going to be an interesting debate. And then on the personnel front, this fight over Lisa Cook, the Fed governor, I think is a pretty, pretty huge and potentially economically disruptive fight. I mean, is she going to be the only member of that board that the president tries to remove if the Supreme Court says it's fine, that just about anything constitutes cause, or they're not going to second guess her decision, his decision to fire her. Does that cause Jay Powell to get the message on interest rates, or does it cause Jay Powell to disappear from the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve? These seem like pretty momentous issues for this second Trump administration.
- [67:54]
A
Yeah, it's a pretty. That case is pretty interesting. Lots of interesting legal issues, but the political implications, as you said, will be massive. Josh Gerstein of Politico. Josh, thank you. Great to have you. Hope to have you back as these cases marinate. Grateful to you.
- [68:07]
B
Happy to do it. Good to see you again.
- [68:09]
A
All right, that's it for today's show. We'll be back on Thursday with an all brand new episode. Make sure you subscribe and download nextup. We need to bulk up our YouTube subscribers as well. So wherever you get your podcast, listen, but also go on YouTube and please subscribe. We want you here so you always know what's coming. Next up. Sometimes an identity threat is a ring of professional hackers. And sometimes it's an overworked accountant who forgot to encrypt their connection while sending bank details.
- [68:39]
C
I need a coffee.
- [68:40]
A
And you need Lifelock. Because your info is in endless places. It only takes one mistake to expose you to identity theft. Lifelock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year@lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply.