Why Stephen Miller and JD Vance Have All the Power, Plus Rand Paul's Favorite Trump Admin Disruptors

Summary

Podcast Title: Next Up with Mark Halperin
Host/Author: MK Media
Episode: Why Stephen Miller and JD Vance Have All the Power, Plus Rand Paul's Favorite Trump Admin Disruptors
Release Date: May 6, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of Next Up with Mark Halperin, host Mark Halperin delves deep into the intricate power dynamics within the Trump administration, highlighting influential figures like Stephen Miller and JD Vance. The conversation also features an insightful interview with Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky, exploring his principled stands against certain administration policies and his views on broader political issues. Additionally, veteran Democratic strategists Steve Elmendorf and Karen Skelton provide their perspective on the current state and future direction of the Democratic Party.

---

Donald Trump’s Power Circle

Mark Halperin begins by introducing the concept of the "King's Ear," an age-old metaphor describing who has the president's influence. He draws parallels between historical rulers and Donald Trump, emphasizing Trump's unique approach to information gathering and decision-making.

"Donald Trump is misunderstood in a lot of ways. He's a very curious guy...he wants to soak up information."
— Mark Halperin [03:15]

Halperin discusses the fluidity of influence within Trump's circle, noting that proximity to Trump often equates to influence. He cites an example where actor John Voight influenced Trump's policy on foreign film tariffs by advocating for it on social media, demonstrating how diverse voices can sway presidential decisions.

"If you do well on television and there's good buzz around you, those are extremely important to Donald Trump in terms of who has influence."
— Mark Halperin [05:50]

He highlights key figures like Stephen Miller, a senior adviser, and JD Vance, the Vice President, underscoring their substantial sway within the administration. Halperin cautions listeners to recognize the extent of their influence, suggesting it might be underestimated.

---

Interview with Senator Rand Paul

Senator Rand Paul joins the show to discuss his perspectives on the Trump administration, particularly focusing on tariffs, free speech, and gain-of-function research.

Impact of Tariffs on Kentucky

Senator Paul addresses the local repercussions of the administration's tariff policies on Kentucky's economy.

"Our biggest industries in Kentucky have come to me and said, please don't put tariffs on... they don't like tariffs."
— Senator Rand Paul [15:07]

He elaborates on how tariffs have adversely affected farmers, the bourbon industry, and automobile manufacturers, leading to increased costs for consumers and businesses alike.

"Tariffs are taxes that are paid for by the people who buy things... they won't love tariffs once they start to see prices rise."
— Senator Rand Paul [17:53]

Paul also critiques the administration's rationale behind trade deficits, labeling it a fundamental fallacy.

"A trade deficit is just a meaningless accounting ledger item."
— Senator Rand Paul [18:03]

Free Speech Concerns

Addressing First Amendment issues, Paul criticizes both the previous and current administrations for overstepping in regulating speech.

"The previous administration sent the FBI and Homeland Security to meet with Twitter, Facebook, Google, and told them to take down constitutionally protected speech."
— Senator Rand Paul [24:36]

He introduces his bill to protect free speech, emphasizing that government interference with private tech companies infringes upon constitutional rights.

"Even speech that we despise has to be protected precisely because that's the nature of the First Amendment."
— Senator Rand Paul [27:56]

Gain-of-Function Research and COVID-19

Paul expresses grave concerns over gain-of-function research, which involves manipulating viruses to increase their transmissibility or lethality.

"Gain-of-function research is research where you take a virus and then you adapt that virus to make it either more transmissible or more lethal in humans."
— Senator Rand Paul [28:08]

He advocates for stringent oversight through his proposed Risky Research Review Act to prevent potential pandemics originating from lab accidents.

"We need to have oversight of this. And so I have a bill called the Risky Research Review Act..."
— Senator Rand Paul [29:59]

Political Philosophy and Principles

Paul underscores his commitment to principled politics over partisan allegiance, highlighting his focus on limited government and fiscal responsibility.

"Government is the servant, not the master."
— Senator Rand Paul [31:43]

He contrasts the MAGA movement with the Tea Party, noting the latter's emphasis on constitutional principles versus the former's focus on Trump's persona.

"The MAGA movement's a little different. It's more centered on the person of Donald Trump."
— Senator Rand Paul [35:08]

Paul also discusses the administration's relationship with wealthy elites and Silicon Valley moguls, cautioning against their disproportionate influence on policy.

"These millionaires and billionaires... have his ear. They're extremely influential..."
— Senator Rand Paul [07:08]

Response to Political Pressure

When questioned about potential pressures from the administration, Paul maintains his stance on integrity and principled opposition, even against party lines.

"I think there's a mutual respect. And I think sometimes strong individuals like the president admire people who actually will resist that."
— Senator Rand Paul [39:47]

---

Democratic Party Strategies and Challenges

Following the interview with Senator Paul, Halperin shifts focus to the Democratic Party with insights from Steve Elmendorf and Karen Skelton, both veteran Democratic strategists.

Current State of the Democratic Party

Karen Skelton assesses the party's condition as somewhat weakened but not catastrophically so. She emphasizes the need for robust grassroots action and strategic state-level initiatives.

"I think the party's in a little weak position... we lack a little muscle."
— Karen Skelton [44:15]

Steve Elmendorf counters by suggesting the party's state isn't as dire as perceived, highlighting ongoing successes and upcoming electoral opportunities.

"I think the state of the party is not as bad as you might say or others might say."
— Steve Elmendorf [46:18]

Communication and Messaging

Both strategists stress the importance of authentic and effective communication. Elmendorf points out the need to adapt to new media landscapes, while Skelton advocates for hyper-local engagement.

"We have to communicate in a different way... perhaps too slow on that, but making progress."
— Steve Elmendorf [48:36]

"Communicating hyper locally with influencer groups... is something the Democrats have to get a lot better at."
— Karen Skelton [50:38]

Future Leadership and Presidential Candidates

Discussion turns to potential Democratic presidential candidates for 2028, with Elmendorf identifying governors like Josh Shapiro and Gavin Newsom as serious contenders due to their executive experience and proven track records.

"Governor Shapiro, Pennsylvania... any governor has got to be taken seriously."
— Steve Elmendorf [61:30]

Skelton adds that the party might benefit from fresh faces outside the traditional political pool, emphasizing practicality and effective governance.

"Somebody that we don't know right now who's not an elected official, who's new and comes in from the side because people want something new."
— Karen Skelton [63:32]

Addressing Internal Challenges

The strategists acknowledge challenges such as a leadership vacuum and the need for cohesive messaging. They advocate for coordinated efforts and strategic outreach to diverse voter bases.

"We need somebody who's practical, has a practical record."
— Karen Skelton [63:08]

"We haven't had a central dominant strategist driving that coordination."
— Steve Elmendorf [50:47]

---

Conclusion

Mark Halperin wraps up the episode by underscoring the importance of understanding who holds influence in the Trump administration and recognizing the strategic challenges facing the Democratic Party. He teases the next episode, which will feature Doug Collins, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and further discussions on polling data and the national electorate.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• "Donald Trump is misunderstood in a lot of ways. He's a very curious guy..." — Mark Halperin [03:15]
• "Our biggest industries in Kentucky have come to me and said, please don't put tariffs on..." — Senator Rand Paul [15:07]
• "A trade deficit is just a meaningless accounting ledger item." — Senator Rand Paul [18:03]
• "Government is the servant, not the master." — Senator Rand Paul [31:43]
• "I think the party's in a little weak position... we lack a little muscle." — Karen Skelton [44:15]
• "I think the state of the party is not as bad as you might say or others might say." — Steve Elmendorf [46:18]
• "Communicating hyper locally with influencer groups... is something the Democrats have to get a lot better at." — Karen Skelton [50:38]
• "Governor Shapiro, Pennsylvania... any governor has got to be taken seriously." — Steve Elmendorf [61:30]

---

Final Thoughts

This episode provides a comprehensive look into the power structures within the Trump administration and offers a critical examination of the Democratic Party's current strategies and future prospects. Through Mark Halperin's engaging discussions and the insightful perspectives of Senator Rand Paul and Democratic strategists, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of the evolving political landscape.

Transcript

[Discover Card Advertiser]

Are you still quoting 30 year old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide and every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now it pays to Discover. Learn [e-mail] credit card Based on the February 2024 Nelson Report, you just realized.

[Indeed Advertiser]

Your business needed to hire someone yesterday. How can you find amazing candidates fast? Easy. Just use Indeed. When it comes to hiring, Indeed is all you need. Stop struggling to get your job posts seen on other job sites. Indeed Sponsored Jobs help you stand out and hire fast. With Sponsored Jobs, your post jumps to the top of the page for your relevant candidates so you can reach the people you want faster. According to Indeed data, Sponsored Jobs posted directly on indeed have 45% more applications than non sponsored jobs. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed and listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit. To get your jobs more visibility@ Indeed.com podcast just go to Indeed.com podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com podcast terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need.

[Mark Halperin]

Welcome in everybody. Mark Halpern here ready to tell you what's next up. Appreciate you joining with this episode. We'll talk to Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. We'll also have a conversation about what the Democratic Party can do and is doing to try to counteract Donald Trump. And of course grateful to you for being part of what is our third episode. I'm going to let you in a little secret here. I'm going to tell you about the King's Ear. Who's got it? Go back to ancient history and anytime there's a king or a leader or ruler or a president, there's a lot of palace intrigue around the question of who has the king's ear, who gets to influence what the top person does. And of course that's a lot about palace intrigue. It's a lot about gossip, but it's also about policy and what happens. And Donald Trump. The court of Donald Trump is an intriguing place. There's been a lot of conversation about who is influential right now for this president at this time. Donald Trump is misunderstood in a lot of ways. He's a very curious guy. People, I think sometimes caricature him as not being curious. He's extremely curious. He's extremely interested in soaking up information. And like Bill Clinton, he wants a range of options. And he stays up late like Bill Clinton, and he wants to talk to people on the phone or in person to get more information. The question of who gets to influence this president is paramount. It's of interest in not just Washington. Lobbyists, members of Congress and the media, but governments around the world want to know who influences this president had a crazy example this past weekend where apparently he's met with in Florida with John Voight, the actor who suggested, well, maybe there should be a tariff on foreign films. And all of a sudden now that president is exploring that as a policy, put it out on Truth Social to influence Donald Trump most directly, regardless of who you are, you want to be proximate to him. You want to be in his presence. So you'll see people fighting to get in the Oval Office. You'll see people fighting to get on the patio at Mar a Lago. That is the best way to influence Donald Trump to be in his person. Over time, people rise and fall. That happens in all courts of all kings. But Donald Trump has shown in this term a fair amount of consistency. The people around him, with few exceptions who have influence have stayed the same. There are some changes and we'll talk about those. As I said, being near him is important. What's also important is if you do well on television and if there's good buzz around you, those are extremely important to Donald Trump in terms of who has influence. I talked on two way with my colleague Sean Spicer about the factor of television. What are the ways to have Trump's ear? Because Besson clearly does now. So whether you're Besson or Stephen Miller, what are the keys to getting Trump's ear?

[Steve Elmendorf]

Well, to win the surrogate war, which he's clearly done. Meaning if you read the comment that Caroline's putting out, when you are hearing, when you know that Trump is hearing from disparate folks, that X person is.

[Sean Spicer]

Doing a great job.

[Steve Elmendorf]

That's number one. Number two is obviously going on Fox News and other high profile type things. And I would say that those are probably the two to have the echo chamber on your side and to have.

[Sean Spicer]

The media on your side, the key media.

[Mark Halperin]

So with Donald Trump, anybody can get through. It doesn't matter who you are. If Donald Trump wants to talk to you, no matter what kind of guardrails are put in place, he is going to get you on the phone, he's going to get you in person. He's going to hear what you think. That is different. That is different than most people who've been president or run for president or have had senior positions in the American government that I have covered here. Also from the morning meeting, Dan Turntine talking about what he saw when he worked for the Clintons and for Nancy Pelosi.

[Steve Elmendorf]

In both instances, they have people who had their cell phones who could reach them. You know, at times there was a pretty formal process and you had to be careful if you went directly to the Clintons or to Nancy Pelosi with a message of like, you know, I've got concerns, or you would hear from staff in some way to basically say, look, there's a chain of command that you need to work the problem up through. Things only get to the principal when they've either like, hey, we've thought of everything. Here's the, you know, it now needs your attention. But if you step, if you were to step over people, you would get your hand slapped.

[Mark Halperin]

So with Donald Trump, things are different. He wants you to be good on tv, particularly on Fox News. He wants there to be good buzz around you. He also wants you to have the support of the MAGA movement. If there's someone who wants influence with Donald Trump, who MAGA doesn't like on social media, on podcasts, it makes it hard for Donald Trump to continue to listen to them. Two people who have risen quite high in this administration already, very influential, Vice President Vance and Stephen Miller, senior adviser to the president. I tell people all the time, if you think they're influential, figure out how influential you think they are, double it, and then be ready to add on more. There's almost no limit to what these guys are being able to do inside the government. The president talked a couple days ago about how influential Stephen Miller is in the context of being considered to be. He says the national security adviser.

[Sean Spicer]

Stephen Miller is at the top of the totem pole. I mean, I think he sort of indirectly already has that job, you understand, because he has a lot to say about a lot of things. He's a very valued person in the administration.

[Mark Halperin]

Another person who's grown in influence over the course of the administration since January is a Treasury secretary, Scott Besant. He has played his politics with the president, with MAGA extremely well. He's now seen as a very effective surrogate on tv, including a lot of appearances on Fox. He's seen as having credibility with people like Steve Bannon, but also with people like Janet Yellen, the former Treasury Secretary under Joe Biden. This is A guy who understands the game. He spends time in Mar A Lago, he spends a lot of time in the Oval Office. He's good on tv, and he has the support of maga. It's got all the circumstances, all the traits. You need to have influence with Donald Trump to be in the king's ear. But some people are saying maybe maybe he's doing a little bit too much. Maybe, maybe the rule for Donald Trump is going to kick in. He doesn't like people who produce bad news, but sometimes he doesn't like people who get too much attention. There's one other group that has the president's ear, and they're used. And they're people who are not used to being in the ear of anyone. They're used to having their own courts, their own posses around them. Those are the millionaires and billionaires who have become a key part of the Trump coalition. Now, some of these people are there on a regular basis. Some are in the presidency every so often. They're first amongst, not equals. Elon Musk, the richest guy in the world, he. He definitely has the President's ear, and he's had it for a while. But there are a lot of other folks from Silicon Valley, including Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, who famously attended the inauguration, people like David Sacks and others who are part of this government, formally or informally, who are very much in the President's ear. Donald Trump is being guided by those folks to a very large degree, not just in terms of policy, but in terms of attitude. Most of them were not Trump supporters before. They are converts. Donald Trump, like many kings, likes converts. He likes people who've come over to his side, and he respects the fact that they're very rich and they've accomplished a lot. They have his ear. They're extremely influential, and not just on specifics, but they serve, as I understand it from talking to people around the White House, as kind of a validator. If these folks believe in Trump politically after being Democrats, if these folks are endorsing what Trump is doing, his policies must make sense. It's part of why he's got confidence in his tariff policy, even though a lot of these folks previously were not big on. On these kinds of trade positions. And Elon Musk, of course, has been critical in that area. This reminds me of what happened during the Kennedy administration, right? You had a bunch of people who were known as, according to the very, very famous book by David Halberstam about the Vietnam War, the best and the brightest people make the mistake in thinking that Halberstam was saying they were the best and the brightest. The title was meant ironically, that while they were very accomplished, a lot of them were from academia. While they were thought to be very smart, they didn't do a good job. They did not whisper in the president's ear the right things. History records about Vietnam, these current best and brightest world class accomplishers in the private sector, in tech and in other fields. Maybe they're right and maybe their influence in this administration will be more successful than what Kennedy dealt with during and Johnson dealt with during Vietnam. But there are some people who believe that as smart as these folks are, and they're mostly men, so I'll say guys as smart as they are, that they're not giving him the right advice, that their whispers in his ear are misguided. I talked to someone yesterday who knows many of these masters of the universe quite well. He said they really believe they know everything. You would be amazed at how little they actually know. Now, again, history is going to record what ends up happening. But these folks whispering the president's ear, policy specifics and the validation which Donald Trump believes in, that if these accomplished people, millionaires and billionaires, believe in him, he must be on the right track. So watch closely and we'll go forward and we'll continue to chronicle who gets to whisper in this president's ear, who is part of the court of Donald John Trump and who has the right influence. Some people are saying that these millionaires and billionaires, as smart as they are, as accomplished as they are, may have a date with destiny, that they're going to go down in history as folks who came in and enabled some of Donald Trump's policies, particularly on tariffs and some of the other things he's done that have, in the view of many, defied the Constitution and that their validation has given him an inflated sense of how right he is about some of these policies. We shall see. All right. Coming up next up, Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky. We'll talk to him about where he agrees and where he disagrees with Donald Trump and his administration. And we'll also hear from two Democrats with a lot of experience in figuring out how to come back from the political dead. See you in a moment. On NEXT up.

[Indeed Advertiser]

FOREIGN.

[Discover Card Advertiser]

Are you still quoting 30 year old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99 of places that take credit cards nationwide and every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now it pays to Discover. Let's learn [e-mail] creditcard Based on the February 2024 Nelson Report, tax day may.

[Mark Halperin]

Have officially passed, but for millions of Americans, the real trouble is just beginning. If you missed the April 15 deadline or you still owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement. Every day you wait, it only makes things worse. With over 5,000 new tax liens filed daily and tools like property seizures, bank levies and wage garnishments, the IRS is now applying pressure on individuals across the country. Look, increased administrative scrutiny means collections are moving fast. But the good news? There's still time for Tax Network USA to give you a helping hand if you're self employed or you're a business owner. Even if your books are just a mess, they've got you covered. Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track in a hurry. Even after the deadline, you can still regain control. Your consultation, it's completely free and acting now, could stop penalties, threatening letters and surprise levies before they escalate. So call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com NextUp. You may have already missed the April 15 deadline, but you've not run out of options. Let Tax Network USA help you before the IRS can make the next move. That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com NextUp welcome back. Next up, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. About 10 years ago, time magazine said he was the most interesting man in politics. He's still pretty interesting. And he's also, if not unique, pretty singular. He's someone who cares less than a lot of other senators do about personality or the press or politics. And he is focused on principle. It's one of the things about him that made him so interesting back then when he did run for president. And it makes him both interesting and important today. And Senator Rand Paul joins us now. Senator, thanks for coming on.

[Sean Spicer]

Yeah, thanks for having me.

[Mark Halperin]

I want to talk about a bunch of issues. One of the things you do that's principled is you support your party and the president of your party when you agree, but when you disagree, you speak out. And you do it not based on politics, as best I can tell, but based on your fidelity to the principles that animate has animated you since you got into elective office. So I want to start with tariffs, which is an area where you've disagreed both on policy and process with the White House. What's the impact so far amongst your constituents, families and businesses in Kentucky from the tariffs that have been implemented so far?

[Sean Spicer]

I have yet to have one Kentucky business come to me and say, please put the tariffs on. But I can tell you a handful right off the bat. Our biggest industries in Kentucky have come to me and said, please don't put tariffs on the farmers sell about 25% of their crops overseas. They don't like tariffs. They don't like the response of other countries to tariffs. They still sell farm goods and crops to China and they want to Bourbon industry gets retaliatory tariffs from Canada, from Europe, from other places, and they also export quite a bit. We have large cargo shippers, ups, dhl. We have the pilots who fly those planes. None of them are interested in the tariffs. We have three automobile manufacturers, Toyota, Ford and General Motors. They're not interested in the tariffs. Even the home builders and realtors come to me and say, know a significant portion of the lumber for a new house comes from Canada and this will add to the price of houses. Combining that with price, house prices already going up and with interest rates going up, it's making it difficult for young people to get into houses. So really no organized business interest. Interest in Kentucky has come to me thinking the tariffs are a good idea. So if I'm getting any pressure, it's from people who think tariffs are a bad idea.

[Mark Halperin]

What about you talked about businesses small, medium, large. What about families? What are you hearing from constituents who aren't business owners but are consumers?

[Sean Spicer]

I think families it there are people who are very, very supportive of President Trump, as I am, but they're so supportive that they blindly say, just do whatever the president tells you to do and don't do too much thinking about it. But they haven't felt the impact yet. But when you do surveys of people, most people will say, if you ask them, should we make China pay a penalty if they're not trading fair, should we make them trade fair? People will say yes. But then if you ask people, are you willing to pay $300 more for a TV, they'll say, Hell no. So we haven't seen the expense yet. And I think as people start to see the increased expenses because tariffs are taxes that are paid for by the people who buy things. And so people often think, well, the United States is trading with. That's actually not true at all. People in the United States, people in Kentucky go to Walmart or Target or shop on Amazon. That's who they're buying from. And then those companies buy maybe from China, maybe from Korea, maybe from Vietnam. But each of those individuals who makes those purchases are actually satisfied with it. And that's when the tariffs come in. Those are the people who will see the prices. Those are the people you're going to feel the pain. And my guess is they won't love tariffs once they start to see prices rise.

[Mark Halperin]

You said the other day that the debate about the tariff policy of the administration is, quote, fundamentally backwards and upside down. It's based on a fallacy. What's the fallacy?

[Sean Spicer]

Well, there are two big fallacies. The number one fallacy is that a trade deficit means something. So we've had a trade deficit with China since, I think, every year since like 1974, 75. And yet we have continued to grow. We've had enormous growth since then, and so have they. So the only time we've ever seen the trade deficit go down is when we buy less stuff during a recession. So really, the trade deficit going up has gone up in times of prosperity and trade deficits go down in times of economic downturn. So it's really the opposite of what people think. And the reason is this. As I was saying previously, the United States doesn't trade with China. Individuals do. So if a million people went and bought TVs at Walmart and they all came from, let's say, Korea, and they get their TV and they've gotten it because it was good quality and lower price and they saved money, all million. Every person, Every one of the million people are satisfied with their trade. But then somebody comes and draws a circle around how much goes to China or how much goes to Korea, how much comes back? And they say, oh, well, we buy all this stuff from other countries and they don't buy it from us, so we have a deficit. But the fallacy is this. Every person who bought a TV was happy or they wouldn't have done it. This is the definition of free trade or voluntary trade is as long as it's voluntary, it's always mutually beneficial or the trade doesn't occur. The only trades that occur in a voluntary free market are done because people want to trade. So the fallacy is each individual of the million people who bought TVs were all happy. But then you draw a circle artificially between two countries and say, oh, we're being ripped off. Well, how can we be ripped off if all million customers were satisfied? It'd be the same way if we drew a circle around Kentucky and Ohio and said, well, we have a trade deficit with Ohio. We've had it since the Civil War. What does that mean? Well, it means nothing. The other thing about trade deficits is think about the United States and Bangladesh. Do you think Bangladesh is ever going to be rich enough to buy as much stuff from us as we can buy from them? Rich people and rich countries have greater trade deficits. So a major league baseball star that makes $25 million a year has a bigger trade deficit than your average teacher with everybody because they buy a lot of stuff, they have so much money. So a trade deficit is just a meaningless accounting ledger domain. The second fallacy is that the middle class is being hollowed out. It's just, frankly not true. If you look at household income for the last 70 years, what you will find is that the lower income below 50 and middle 50 to 100 have gotten slightly smaller over time. But it's because they've all moved to the upper class. Over $100,000 in constant dollars has grown threefold, while 50 to 100,000 is slightly smaller over 70 years. They may. They migrated to the. To the upper class. They didn't go to the lower class.

[Mark Halperin]

Of the 53 Republican senators, how many of the other 52 agree with you?

[Sean Spicer]

A lot more than you would guess. Four voted with me to end the emergencies. And some of that's a constitutional question, whether or not Congress should vote to raise taxes or whether a president can raise taxes. And some of that's on tariffs. But if you went around my caucus, I mean, you'd find probably 15 to 20 who will still tell you, oh, we're free traders, we free traders. They just don't. They. They fear going up against the president of their party. If this were President Biden doing it, probably over 50 would, because a lot of them vote simply on partisanship and not on principle or not on economic, you know, calculation. But there still are a bunch of them from farm states. Look, the Farm Bureau is a very mainstream, solid organization. It's been around probably over 100 years. They're very significant force in my state, and it's part of their manual. They are for trade because 20 to 25% of their crops are sold overseas.

[Mark Halperin]

Do you think the president will change course in time to have this, to have an adverse effect on the economy?

[Sean Spicer]

He already has. I think we're already having an influence. Many in the media come up and say, how does it feel to lose? And since we actually won in the Senate but then lost because it didn't become a law, but what you find is that he's already backed away. So, you know, everybody's china, China, China, let's stop trading with China. But then he exempted iPhones. Well, that's one of the biggest products that comes out of China is iPhones. With the car tax, he put a 25% tax on cars. And then with a lot of our complaints and with the automobile people complaining, he said, well, we'll make it only 10% if you finish the car in the United States. So what will happen is people have to play tricks and games to adhere to, to the whims of whoever's in power. So really the way I imagine it is your car may be made other places, but the lug nuts are going to be put on in America. So it's finished up in America to avoid this tax. But this is true and really makes the idea of tariffs more galling is the fact that it depends on how good a lobbyist you have and how loud you are and how big you are. But if you sell the lug nuts and that's all you sell, or you sell toasters and you get them from China, you know what? You don't have a big enough voice to get an exemption. IPhone's going to get an exemption because they're big toasters, probably not so much. And so this is why this kind of industrial kind of policy conservatives traditionally opposed because we always said this is picking winners and losers. This is government deciding who gets an exemption from these tax and who has to pay these taxes. But I would say we have won in the sense that he's backed off. He did a 90 day pause. That's not just me, but that's the marketplace sent him a $6.6 trillion signal when that much money was lost in two days when he announced the tariffs. And so now that he's backed off, the markets recovered a little bit, But I think they're waiting somewhat anxiously to see what happens when, when the 90 days expires.

[Mark Halperin]

I could ask you more tariff questions, but I'm going to move on for sake of time. Free speech, you've said, quite rightly, if you're not for free speech for people you disagree with, then you're not really for free speech. What's the most egregious thing the administration's done on first amendment issues that you'd like to point out your, your principal difference with them on?

[Sean Spicer]

I'd probably start with the previous administration. I mean, what the Biden administration did is they sent the FBI and Homeland security to meet with Twitter Facebook, Google, and told them to take down constitutionally protected speech. So I actually have a. A bill that I've introduced to protect free speech. And it says to government doesn't tell Twitter anything, doesn't tell Facebook anything. Because I think privately owned tech companies really have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Government. The First Amendment has to do with government, but I don't think government should be allowed. Like, can you imagine what you would think if after this interview, before you aired it, the government came to you and you had a meeting with the FBI after the interview to see what they thought was misinformation and disinformation? I mean, how repulsive that would be to you. It's the same, though, if they do it to Twitter or Facebook, and they did for years. And so that's been the, probably the biggest affront to the First Amendment since, you know, the beginning of the country. Now, this administration is also putting forward things that I think abridged the First Amendment. One is going after speech on college campuses. So they attempted to pass a bill that I've had trouble with for a long time, an anti Semitism bill. Well, I think anti Semitism should be, as a thought or a theory or speech should be condemned universally by people in polite society. But the First Amendment, the most formative case on the First Amendment is Brandenburg versus Ohio. And Brandenburg was a admittedly despicable person, a Nazi Ku Klux Klan guy who said terrible things about African Americans and Jews. But the great irony is that the ACLU defended his right to say these. And the two lawyers that won the case, one was Jewish and the other was Eleanor Norton Holmes, who's a longtime African American representative from D.C. and they defended language that was not only despicable, but repulsive and offensive to them personally. But they thought that speech was so important that it needed to be defended. With the new bill, they're saying that if you make stereotypical comments about Jews, it would be regulated and possibly banned on campus. Well, this is exactly why some Jewish comedians don't go to college campus. Jerry Seinfeld famously said he won't go there. So during the hearing recently on this, I introduced a list of 479 Jewish American comedians who had all made stereotypical jokes about Jewish people. And I said, well, what are we going to do? Are you going to send the police after them, the college campus police, if any of them were to appear on campus? So, no, it's just a terrible idea. And so. But it comes out of people, rah, rah, rah. Look at me. I support, you know, and I'm against these other people and. But without being very thoughtful about the First Amendment. And my fear is we become like Europe, where if you say anything about the Holocaust or if you say Johnny, who thinks he's Susie is still Johnny, they'll put you in jail for all of that stuff. So they are doing that in Canada, they're doing that in Europe. And I don't. That's not the kind of country I want to live in. So I think really, even speech that we despise has to be protected precisely because that's the nature of the First Amendment, is to protect all speech.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah, we all learned the phrase gain of function research in the aftermath of COVID and the president signed an executive order trying to deal with it. Explain to people why it's a great concern of yours and what you think needs to be done about it.

[Sean Spicer]

I wrote a book, Deception, the Great Covid Cover up, about this gain of function research is research where you take a virus and then you adapt that virus to make it either more transmissible or more lethal in humans. And we have been funding this. Anthony Fauci approved the funding in Wuhan, China, but also around the world. There are dozens of labs across the United States, there are dozens of labs doing this type of research. It's very, very dangerous. As dangerous or as bad as Covid was. And you saw how we reacted to Covid point. 3% of Americans die, that's about a million. So I'm not downplaying it. I'm just saying 0.3%. There are viruses in the lab that can kill 50%, but they're not very transmittable from human to human. So, for example, avian flu, which you've heard a lot about, is dangerous, but you mostly get it directly from the birds. So people handle chickens or handle birds, have gotten this in the United States, a handful. But they don't transmit it to another human because it's an animal virus and doesn't transmit very well. I think to take avian flu, though, and work on it in the lab and pass it through animals over and over again to adapt it so it attacks, attaches, and infects humans is a death wish. I think it's a. You know, because accidents happen even as safest labs have accidents. Alison Young wrote a book a few years ago, and she documented like 1500 different accidents just in our country, and we're probably the safest on the planet, and still these inadvertent accidents happen. So, no, I think particularly if it's taxpayer money. We need to have oversight of this. And so I have a bill called the Risky Research Review act, which would create a presidential commission of scientists that would oversee and determine what should be funded and what should not be funded.

[Mark Halperin]

The President support your bill?

[Sean Spicer]

You know, I can't speak directly for him. Many of his administration do, and they'll have to speak for themselves. But I can tell you, I've discussed it with Robert Kennedy, Jay Bhattacharya at nih, as well as Marty Makary at fda. I've discussed it with a lot of scientists. The debate over this issue is interesting. Didn't start with COVID started with the avian flu in 2010, but even went back another decade and started with the. They resurrected the Spanish flu. And so the Spanish flu killed 50 to 100 million people back in 1918. And the idea of having the Spanish flu, you know, being manipulated in lab and made to be either more dangerous, infectious is a. Is worrisome. But this debate's been going on about 20 years. We've shown our build of many scientists, and our bill is heavy on not an absolute ban, but letting scientists who are experts in this field look at it and make a judgment. The problem with Anthony Fauci is he had scientists looking at this, but he was buttering their bread. I mean, they were all receiving grants. And so one of the biggest supporters of Anthony Fauci, after he signed off on saying, this couldn't have come from lab. These people are crazy, got an $8 million grant. And so there's a conflict of interest. We want the council to be comprised of people that aren't getting money directly from somebody that they would want to be pleasing them with their opinion.

[Mark Halperin]

Senator, I've covered very few people during my career who can have said to lead movements based on ideas. Your dad did, you did. President Trump has and still does. I want to show you an ad from your first Senate campaign and get your reaction to the agenda that you laid out.

[Sean Spicer]

How do we defeat the Washington machine? First, send career politicians home by enacting term limits. Next, require Congress to read the bills they vote on. Then stop wasteful spending by requiring a balanced budget by law. Stop lobbyists from taking our tax dollars and then using that money to lobby for more. Most importantly, expand our liberty by downsizing big government. I'm Rand Paul and I approve this message because government is the servant, not the master.

[Mark Halperin]

Senator, what would Rand Paul today say about that young man's ambitions?

[Sean Spicer]

He would say, what a good looking young man that was.

[Mark Halperin]

There's no doubt about that. There's no doubt about that.

[Sean Spicer]

But, you know, substance.

[Mark Halperin]

We.

[Sean Spicer]

We don't think we age until we look back at ourselves 10 or 12 years ago. You know, I still believe all of those things. And one of the things I talk to a lot of student audiences that I tried to convey is some of the words of the founding fathers that at first, when you hear them, are startling from someone in government. Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense talked about government being a necessary evil. And it was read, I think it was purchased by 500,000 people when there were only 2.5 million people. That's a good selling book. We can all try to emulate that as authors. But my point is, is that government being a necessary evil means that we have to have some government, but it's a necessary evil because you have to give up liberty. So I give up some freedom by paying taxes. If I had 100% tax rate, I think I would have no freedom of using the fruits of my labor. So the argument from a libertarian point of view is always, we want the least amount of government that we can possibly have because we want to maximize our freedom. And it's not an argument for no government, but it's always an argument for minimizing government. So whenever somebody proposes something, whether from the right or the left, we're looking, is there a possibility, is there something we could do to allow this to be done in the private sector as opposed to having government take over it? And the second point that I make is what Milton Friedman used to always say. He said that nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as their own. That's a profound statement, because politicians never are very good, and they tend to fail at what they spend money at because they don't have the feedback loop of profit and loss. So you don't want them to be involved with most things. It's also not their money, so they spend it much more freely. And where I had to ask the young people in an audience if they would give me $1,000 for an enterprise or for a business, they would often think very carefully about how many hours it took to earn that money. And they will spend it and make their choices at least much more heartfelt than a politician does. But these are all arguments for smaller government. You can also make all these arguments for having a state government versus a federal government or a local government versus a state government, because government, the smaller and closer to the people, the more efficient and the better able they are to make wise decisions, mainly because they have to balance their budget. Your county government, your city government, for the most part, they balance their budget every year. Most states have limitations. The only government without limitations is the federal government. There are some limitations, but they're enormous. $36 trillion. But because of that, the federal government makes unwise decisions at a much greater rate than any other form of government.

[Mark Halperin]

Where did the MAGA movement come from?

[Sean Spicer]

I think Donald Trump. You know, there was a movement that I think my father was at the be at the head of probably 2007, 2008, 2009, which became the Tea Party movement. And the Tea Party movement wasn't all Ron Paul, but Ron Paul was a part of this new wave, talking about the Constitution, talking about limited government, balanced budgets. The Tea Party movement got even, I think, bigger than my father at some point became this bigger movement, but it was still talking about Constitution and balanced budgets. We elected a lot of people in 2010, and unfortunately, we didn't get the things accomplished because we either didn't have enough votes, or some of the people turned out to not be as faithful to the Constitution as we would have hoped. The MAGA movement's a little different. It's more centered on the person of Donald Trump. It has many conservative aspects. It has libertarian aspects, but it also has some populous aspects, such as raising taxes on imports. You know, during COVID the response was to shut the economy down and give checks to everyone. There's nothing very libertarian about shutting the economy or giving writing checks to people, particularly because it has to be borrowed. It's why, when the subject of, like, Doge checks has come up, I've said, well, why don't we talk about that after we balance the $2 trillion, we're in the hole this year. And then maybe after we pay back the $36 trillion, then we can talk about rebates, but absolutely, we shouldn't be talking about anything about that until we actually can balance an annual budget.

[Mark Halperin]

You have an overlap in your. In your perspective with. With MAGA and with the president, but some differences as well. Who in the administration best. Best mirrors your philosophy, would you say?

[Sean Spicer]

You know, as far as the people that I think are incredible and the best, I would probably say, and they're. They're both physicians, too, so I'm kind of biased. You know, Marty Makary at FDA and Jay Bhattacharya at NIH are, I think, incredible disruptors, but also just, you know, very, very talented people. Both of them have, I think, about 200 peer review peer reviewed articles in scientific journals. Very smart. But also want to reform and fix some of the problems in government. Some of the problems they see. It's interesting could, if, if the left were more open, they might find common ground is that I think a lot of those folks, including myself, see too much corporate influence and corporations have influenced the regulations for their profit. And that a lot of the science that comes out of government, people want to say, oh this is objective science, but it's actually corporate science because it's done at the behest of large corporations making billions and billions of dollars. So those two I'm quite fond of. On the foreign policy side, Tulsi Gabbard is somebody who believes, I hate to characterize other people's beliefs, but I think agrees with me that the intelligence agencies have gotten too much power, too much secrecy, and that some of that has been directed inwards towards American citizens instead of outward towards our enemies.

[Mark Halperin]

Last question. When, when it's known that you're going to disagree with the administration on a vote where it's going to be close, do they try to persuade you or do they know that if you're a no, you're a no?

[Sean Spicer]

In the first administration, often the president would call me and he would usually say to me, well they told me to call you. I don't think you're going to change your mind. Do what you ever think is best. But you know, the thing is we had a good relationship. So when it came to political questions like impeachment, and if it comes to that, again, I'll be his strongest defender. The second impeachment I think I largely derailed on day one by pointing out that it's not constitutional or not expected to impeach someone not in office. It's a special kind of trial for an office holder. It isn't, you know, I can't impeach you. I can't in impeach people that are outside of government. And so I will again and I think they understand that and we agree when we can. But I think it would be wrong to be elected by an entire state and to be a lap dog and not to voice an opinion, particularly like on the question of tariffs, because all the feedback I get home from business is they don't want the tariffs. I actually wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't mention to the public and to the President also the inconsistency with conservative positions that we usually don't want more taxes, we want less. And it's, it boggles the mind that conservatives who traditionally want less taxes are actually for more taxes here. It's a bit inconsistent with where we've been historically. But I think I have a decent relationship with the president.

[Mark Halperin]

Just to Clarify, in Trump 2.0, do they try to persuade you or they've given up?

[Sean Spicer]

Not really, not so much. I've had some communication with the president, usually with groups and some individual messages, usually in all caps, telling me why I should be supporting the tariffs. But I think there's a mutual respect. And I think sometimes strong individuals like the president admire people who actually will. He may go after us, but I think he admires people who don't wilt, like, you know, you know, a five day old flower and just sort of, you know, let him run roughshod over him. He wants his way. But I think some people who have great strength of character also admire people who will resist that. And I try to resist it in a pleasant fashion because, you know, there are things about Donald Trump I like. And both of us were elected wide by wide margins in my state. And so I do try to be both respectful and when I disagree, be do it in an agreeable fashion.

[Mark Halperin]

Senator Paul, grateful to you for making time and again you are, you are like your colleague Bernie Sanders on the other side, eager always to stand up for principal and for your constituents and not just bend with the wind and all too rare. So grateful to you for, for being with us today. Our thanks to Senator Paul and when we come back, two veteran Democratic strategists who I've known for years are going to tell us where the Democratic Party stands now, where it's going and where it needs to go. That's next up.

[Discover Card Advertiser]

Are you still quoting 30 year old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? Accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99 of places that take credit cards nationwide. And every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now it pays to Discover. Learn [e-mail] credit card based on the February 2024 Nelson Report.

[Mark Halperin]

Now let me tell you a story about a fella named Leo Grillo. Leo was on a road trip and he came across a Doberman. This dog was severely underweight, clearly in a lot of trouble. Leo rescued that Doberman and he named him Delta. Sadly, Delta was just one of many animals that needed help, which inspired Leo to start an organization called Delta Rescue. It's the world's largest no kill Careful ICE Animal Sanctuary. They've rescued thousands of dogs and cats and horses from the wilderness and they provide their animals with everything they shelter, love, safety and a great home. This dedication and everlasting love for animals is Leo's mission and it's Leo's 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 today because there are ways to save in tax savings estate planning with a lot of benefits to you so 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 right now, so please visit Deltarescue.org today to learn more. That's Deltarescue.org Next up, our conversation about the Democratic Party with two what I like to call veteran political strategists, both Democrats who work together on the Mondale campaign. You might think of that as ancient history. I think of it as modern in the extreme. Steve Elmendorf and Karen Skelton both join us. They're both veteran Democrats who understand the party and watch things closely and aren't afraid to acknowledge where the party has some problems. Both of you welcome and thank you. I try to not go overboard and say either everything's either super good or super horrible. I try to stay in the even keel. And Steve in particular is good at keeping me from being too positive or too negative. Haley Barber says nothing in politics is ever as good or bad as it seems. But there are a lot of signs that the party is struggling right now with a leadership vacuum, something of a message vacuuming, and I believe increasingly infrastructure disparity, asymmetrical advantage for the Republicans. So, Karen, you first. What's the state of the Democratic Party right now writ large across the board, from interest groups to grassroots to the DNC to political leadership. How would you characterize where the party is now?

[Karen Skelton]

Thanks, Mark. I think the party's in a little weak position. I don't, I don't think it's devastating where we are right now, but I think we're, we lack a little muscle. I kind of come at this, I think the party needs to be show that it's alive, that there's breath in the body. But I wouldn't expect our party to really know what to say right now. I sort of agree with my friend Doug Sosnik that, you know, the party can, can wait a little bit to know where to, you know, hit hardest. And we're going to see that with tariffs, I think. So I agree with you that the infrastructure isn't there. I don't really know what's happening at the dnc. Elmendorf might know a lot more than I do about that. I see a lot of action in the states, much more than I do on the federal level. I think that, you know, in the 13 or so states where we have trifectas, governors are active, there are philanthropies, and the major national philanthropies are active. And I'm seeing them putting a lot of money in to states to push certain programs forward and messaging and communication, which is what we need. And some Democrats have lit themselves on fire, fire and traveled around the country. And I think that that's generally okay to do just to, again to show that the body has some breath. But whether we're gonna, you know, you know, our, our left punch is going to hit and knock anybody down, it's just too early for that. I'd say in the next couple weeks, we might be able to see some, some effects of the tariffs as the ports start, you know, slowing down and all of that. So, yeah, I mean, we're not in a great place, but I don't see it as being devastating. I think we're going to have some push, some opportunities to push back hard on real policies and real things affecting real people soon.

[Mark Halperin]

Steve, what's your state of the party?

[Steve Elmendorf]

I think the state of the party is not as bad as you might say or others might say. I think, you know, it's always hard when you're in the. When you do not control the presidency, it is always hard to have. I know a lot of people would like us to have one uber messenger who tells everybody what to do, but that's not the way politics works, and it's not the way with either party that politics works. When you don't control the White House and you have a Congress, House, Senate, different voices, you have governors, different voices, you have people who are thinking about running for president who aren't in any of those bodies, who are voices. And I think the most important thing, though, is that we will.

[Sean Spicer]

We are.

[Steve Elmendorf]

We haven't had. We've had some elections that we've done well in, and we're about to have more elections. And I suspect the narrative will change when we win the governorship in New Jersey. When we win the governorship in Virginia when we win the house in 2026, when we do better than expected in the Senate in 2026. And I think that's all gonna happen. And the reason it's gonna happen is, as you know, beginning of the year, I told you I thought Donald Trump was doing pretty well. I don't think he's doing very well right now. And I think in six months, in nine months, he could be doing worse because ultimately he was elected because people wanted him to make the economy better. And the economy is not better today than it was when he was elected. And I don't think it's going to be better. I'm not wishing for this, but I don't think it's going to be better in six months.

[Karen Skelton]

Yeah, I think it's actually going to be sooner than six months that we see. You know, maybe that's hopeful thinking, but I do think that the, that the effect of the tariffs are going to start hitting people sooner rather. I mean, in California, where we have so many ports facing, you know, China, they're slowing down and those, those prices are going to start to flip to increased prices to consumers, and already we're going to lose jobs in these ports in Washington, Oregon, California. So I think it's going to start sooner than six months. But I generally agree with Steve on that.

[Mark Halperin]

Who's doing stuff that you look at and say that's good, that shows there's breath in the body? Is it Cory Booker's long Senate filibuster? Is it Governor Pritzker going to New Hampshire? Who's doing stuff that you think on message and momentum is good?

[Steve Elmendorf]

I think there's a number of people, I think, as I've said to you before, Mark, I think it's really important that we command attention and that we be authentic and that we create some action. And I think that Cory Booker's overnight event did all of that. I think that the Hakeem Jeffries, Cory Booker, you know, sit on the steps of the Capitol, did that. I think many, I think Pete Buttigieg appearing on that three hour podcast the other day, did that. I think we have a bunch of people out there who are beginning to figure out that we have to communicate in a different way and that one of Trump's secret powers and his group's secret powers is they have have gotten out of the mainstream media and gone into different ways and different venues and different avenues of communication. And we're, you know, maybe we're too slow on that, but I think we're making progress and we're going to make a lot more progress before we get to the next votes being counted.

[Karen Skelton]

Yeah, I think, I think that's exactly right. I think we get confused by action versus, you know, coherency. I don't think the Democrats actually have to be coherent right now. I think they have to be alive and active. So people criticized AOC and Bernie for doing their little trip. I, I think it's just fine to do that. Anything that shows that we're alive is good at the moment. But I, and I agree with Steve completely on that. I, I do think that we're not doing a good job on this micro communications I think, you know, communicating hyper locally with, you know, influencer groups that are, you know, defined as the, you know, the people who shop at, you know, Walmart or get their hair done at the mall or are part of affinity groups for soccer teams. You know, small groups that can be heard in a, in a hyperlocal level, I think is something that the Democrats have to get a lot better at.

[Mark Halperin]

Who should be doing that? Is that up to every individual organization and person or is, would it be, is there some way in which someone could be convening and sharing best practices?

[Steve Elmendorf]

I wish that Rahm Emanuel were like king of the world and we're convening a war room every morning with all the best professionals and the representatives of all the elected groups and telling them what to do. But he's not and nobody really is in my experience at the moment. I don't know if it would work. But I do think, I think there's a fair amount of coordination. It's just that there is not a central dominant strategist driving that coordination. I don't know if that would work. But again, everybody like one of Trump's secret powers, everybody wants this authoritative figure telling them what to do. And Democrats at the moment, we don't have that person and I don't think.

[Karen Skelton]

We'Re going to have that person. Yeah, I mean I don't think that exists.

[Mark Halperin]

You all worked for, for, we talked about Mondale, for the Clintons, for Gore, get part others. Back when you, when you two were doing this full time, there was always talk about the groups, right? The Democratic groups, labor and, and women's rights groups, environmental groups, etc. What's the status of the influence for good or for ill of the groups in your party's politics now? And headed towards 28.

[Karen Skelton]

Karen, first of all, I also worked in modern presidential campaigns, but I am, I mean the.

[Mark Halperin]

Which ones did you Work on that I missed.

[Karen Skelton]

Well, I just worked in the Biden administration and I worked on every presidential campaign really in the last almost 40 years.

[Mark Halperin]

Okay.

[Karen Skelton]

Yeah.

[Mark Halperin]

All right. That's a lot.

[Karen Skelton]

So, so what I would say about the groups is that just like American politics, they're changing and they're reshuffling. I mean we used to have these silos that you named, you know, women, blacks, Latinos, labor, you know, and you'd have a director for each one of those in a campaign. But now they're, now people are cross cutting. You know, the definition of an influential Latino in America is completely different than it was in the Mondale campaign. So where are the groups? I mean, I think some of them are, some groups are very strong labor. The parts of labor that are, that care about, you know, good labor jobs have been active in the last couple presidential campaigns. I think, you know, women's groups are exhausted by the losses of the, of Hillary and Kamala, but they were active of I think pretty much. But I do think there's been a re. I, I think they're less important nationally than they are within states and how they can push certain levers in states. That's, that's where I'm. But that's what I think.

[Mark Halperin]

Steve, what, what do you think of, of the groups currently in their influence?

[Steve Elmendorf]

I wouldn't overstate it. I think the, you know, I worked on the John Kerry for president campaign, another losing effort in 2004 and I remember us having a big discussion about we couldn't let these groups dictate the debate schedule for us in the primaries. And look, I think we've been all in both parties been wrestling with the. Particularly when you get into the micro nominating process or the not general election is trying to figure out how do you talk to voters and not have people be gatekeepers to, to like define what you say to voters. And I just think we have to like this is part of our, our problem and our, our challenge is we've got to figure out different channels to communicate to people and not rely on, on other people to do it for us. I think our, our elected officials have to get out there and be, as I've said, more authentic and more in the, in the, in the room with these, not with a group but with the individuals and make their message right.

[Mark Halperin]

Karen, I'm going to break my rule. I normally say only ask one part question, so I'm going to ask you a four part question. What? What?

[Karen Skelton]

Wait, I got to get my pen.

[Mark Halperin]

Out to write These down, you'll be good. This, the matrix will fit right in your head. What will Gavin Newsom do after this office and what should he do? And what will Kamala Harris run for next? And what should she run for next?

[Karen Skelton]

Well, Gavin's obviously, you know, thinking about running for president. He's made these, you know, attempted pivots to the center with transgender sports and homelessness. And I, I think that, you know, he's gonna, he's gonna run, you know, pretty sure he's gonna run. Should he run? I don't know. I mean, I think everybody should run and we should let the poppies grow and let's like, you know, have the big debate that we didn't have this, this time last time around, and let's let the people decide who's the best. I mean, he's done his work in California and, and he's young enough and ambitious enough and thoughtful enough and itchy enough to get out there and run. Kamala, I think it's more complicated. It's the first time in my lifetime, I'm a fifth generation Californian. I have watched a lot about California. This electorate is the most likely to vote for a Republican in my lifetime for gov. You know, I mean, it elected Schwarzenegger, but that was a, but that was an anomaly. You know, we were, you know, it's very unlikely that a Republican would get elected, but it's, it's possible. There's huge problems and I'm happy to talk more about that. The registration numbers, the, the, and, you know, the Trump factor and all of that. Kamala is. When I, when I left the Biden administration, Kamala was, you know, this was hers to lose. But the electorate has had, there's been a nuanced shift in California politics that doesn't. That against Kamala. And I'm not sure what that really is. I've frankly, I've never really understood why people are so hesitant towards her and her candidacy. I can talk about all the, the weaknesses that she, she's had. But, but in California right now, there will be a race whether she gets where the people are not going to just walk away if she gets in.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah. Have either of you seen focus groups lately of California Democrats about Kamala Harris?

[Karen Skelton]

No.

[Mark Halperin]

No. Okay, stay tuned. There have been some ones that have been done. I don't know whether they're going to be publicized or not, but as you suggested, her image with some California Democrats is not, is not as glowing as it might be.

[Karen Skelton]

Yeah, I mean, and I think people don't you know, what people need in California is a governor who really, really wants to roll up their sleeves and be governor. And for whatever reasons, people just don't believe that yet. Now, she did this speech last week at Emerge in San Francisco and went after Trump and made some news around that. But there's going to be, have to be a lot, a lot more of that.

[Mark Halperin]

Steve, if you were, if you were advising someone who's thinking of running for president in 28 and they said, Steve, what are the three things I need to accomplish by the end of this year, what would you tell them, which should be on the list?

[Steve Elmendorf]

I think you have to figure out a theory of the case on Trump. I think you have to figure out a communication strategy that is completely different than the traditional communication strategy that all the smart consultants have told you to do in all your previous campaigns. And I think you better figure out what is your relationship with the African American community, because it is, as we saw in the last presidential election, it is critical in the Democratic nominating process. And if you don't start out with a, a good relationship and a, if you're not working that relationship, you have a problem.

[Mark Halperin]

Karen, can you add to or annotate that list?

[Karen Skelton]

I mean, I go back to what I said about local, local, local, and it kind of goes to your question about the groups. You know, we don't see, we don't see these hard pillar groups anymore being as influential as they once were, in part because Americans aren't beholden anymore to any kind of structured, established political regime. They are their own thinkers. They are in communities living their own troubled lives or struggling or challenging lives, and they want people to be communicating with them on their level. And if I'm advising a president, I'm saying, you know, get local.

[Mark Halperin]

Karen, stay with you for a second about another California question. I don't know exactly how to quantify how much Silicon Valley has shifted towards the Republicans, but some of the most prominent people in Silicon Valley have, and, and there's indications based on contributions that others have. If you could turn the clock back to the first day of the Biden administration, was there a way to head this off? No, I don't think there was because why?

[Karen Skelton]

I think that the, the, the, the issue that is galvanizing Silicon Valley right now has to do with AI and at the beginning of the, and Trump himself, who they are enamored by and see themselves in the, the anything is possible, nothing is daunting. You know, the world's going to have some, some ups and downs. And we're just going to get right through it because we have a brilliant business plan and we understand what consumers want. And that's not the Biden administration. That wasn't the Bide because Biden's not Trump. And also because what's driving business right now, the possibilities of enormous wealth are coming from how do you use AI And I saw this, you know, in the Clinton Gore administration when the John Doors of the world were. Were tan. Were mesmerizing in the possibilities around app, you know, around, you know, digital communication and the Internet and all of that. So I, I don't think we could have headed off. You know, maybe we could have paid more attention to it. But the, the op. The pitch hadn't been thrown yet.

[Mark Halperin]

I ask you both not to predict who the nominee would be or even tell me who you think the most likely people are. But Steve, who are people who might run in 28 who you're taking seriously now?

[Steve Elmendorf]

Governor Shapiro, Pennsylvania. I basically every governor that's talking about this, whether it's Josh Shapiro, Gavin Newsom, J.B. pritzker, Gretchen Whitmere. I think any governor has got to be taken seriously because I think there is a feeling in the party that they have gotten, you know, as Josh Spiro says, gsd, I get shit done. And I think that the governors are sort of first in line.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah. Would you. The governor, former governor of Rhode island, would you include on the list too?

[Steve Elmendorf]

I think she's a she. I love the former governor of Rhode Island. I think she's got to make this to my previous question about, you know, what's the constituency from Rhode island that she has relationships with. That translates into the national arena. I also think people to judge is a real candidate who's out there every day showing that he has a theory about how to communicate in a way that's different than other Democrats that should be taken seriously.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah. And so people like Ramonda, you like because they're governors, they have executive experience. Are you not taking senators seriously or House members because you think it'd be a bad idea or you think the electorate is and the donors are not going to gravitate towards them or both.

[Steve Elmendorf]

I worked for a House member who ran for president. It didn't go very well. I think it's highly unlikely we will ever see a House member of either party get.

[Mark Halperin]

But how about. But how about senators? Are you not.

[Steve Elmendorf]

I think in this environment and I live in Washington and do a lot of work with senators, so. But I will say I think our candidate is likely to not come from Washington because I think part of our, our message is going to be Donald Trump and the Republicans run Washington and we need to run against that.

[Mark Halperin]

Right. Karen, who did Steve not include that you take seriously?

[Karen Skelton]

I think it's not going to be a woman. I think we need to have somebody who's practical, has a practical record. And I think that there's going to be somebody that we don't know right now who's not an elected official, who's new and, and comes in from the side because people want something new and not, not, not political or government related.

[Mark Halperin]

All right. Very grateful to you both and look forward to having you both back. Grateful to Karen Skelton and Steve Elmendorf. Thank you both. Thank you all for watching. Next up on our next episode, coming on Thursday, is Doug Collins, the secretary of Veterans Affairs. And we'll also have another discussion about polling data and where things stand with the country and the electorate. Very grateful to you for watching. You can watch this program on YouTube and you can listen to it wherever you get your podcast. Please do all the things you need to do, download, subscribe, like tell your friends, tell your enemies, and I'll see you Thursday for another next stop.