Jon Favreau (2:05)

On today's show, we'll talk about the White House's big post State of the Union messaging push starring JD Vance and a hysterical Stephen Miller. We've also got new details about the administration's strategy to use Americans as bait to sell their war with Iran. We'll also talk about the huge news that the Justice Department made a few Epstein files disappear. That included allegations of sexual abuse against Donald Trump. And we'll get into why Pete Hegseth is threatening an AI company unless they let the government use their products for unmanned weapons and mass surveillance. Then, as Democrats get some good midterm news, Tommy talks to Shelly Jackson, an organizer with Instituto, one of the organizations that Vote Save America is partnering with to recruit people just like you to run in down ballot races in Arizona. Not just like you, Dan, because you don't live in Arizona.

Dan Pfeiffer (2:54)

Yeah, I would be a bad Arizona. I'd be a bad candidate generally, but particularly at a state which I don't have eligibility.

Jon Favreau (2:59)

It's not what Chris Coons thinks. He's worried. Reminder before we start, if you want even more Pod Save America, more politics, more laughs with all your favorite crooked hosts, please consider becoming a friend of the POD subscriber. You'll get our new extra episode of Pod Save America called Pod Save America. Only Friends. I believe Lovett and Tommy Helmed Only Friends this week. You'll also get other subscriber only shows like Polar Coaster with this guy right here, Dan Pfeiffer. Yes, and access to all of our excellent substack newsletters like Pod Save America, open tabs and ad free episodes of all your favorite crooked pods. And you also get to feel good about supporting an independent pro democracy media outlet that isn't under control of the Ellisons.

Dan Pfeiffer (3:44)

That's which. They're few and far between these days. But more on that later. Yes.

Jon Favreau (3:49)

Yeah, right. As we started recording, we found out the news that Netflix has given up because Paramount made a bigger offer. And so now Warner Brothers Discovery is going to be owned by Paramount. Theodore, the Ellison's got another one.

Dan Pfeiffer (4:02)

Which means. Which means Bari Weiss is in the Situation Room.

Jon Favreau (4:07)

But it also means that you should subscribe to Be a friend of the pod Subscriber cricket.com friends to our pro democracy independent media company not owned by David Ellison and not run by Bari Weiss and not under the thumb of Donald Trump. All right, let's get to the news. We're all still tired from Trump's nearly two hour State of the Union address. And the President must be too, since the White House sent out their newly minted fraud czar, J.D. vance to amplify the speech instead of Trump. The VP announced on Wednesday that the federal government would unilaterally cut off $259 million in Medicaid funding for the people of Minnesota as collective punishment for some individuals supposedly committing fraud. Vance then traveled to Wisconsin on Thursday to keep pushing the fraud message while charming voters with his signature charisma. Let's take a listen when you go to the polls in November, I don't want you to just think about all the great things that we've accomplished, all the great things that we' talked about. I don't want you just to think about no taxes on tips and lower gas prices. I want you to think, who is going to protect my money from fraudsters? The job of your government is not to open your borders and allow fraudsters to come in and take advantage of you. The job of your government is to shut the border and shut off the fraud. Kelly said that I'm the coolest vice president in American history. And I said, kelly, that is a low state standard. That is a very low bar. But I do think that I clear that bar. But I, I, I think that. No, no, you did not. Not even close. Did not clear the bar.

Dan Pfeiffer (5:45)

I have a lot to say. I don't have to say it today, but at some point about why J.D. vance is an absolutely miserable presidential candidate and that the Democrats should spend the next two years making sure that everyone understands what a fucking goober he is.

Jon Favreau (6:01)

I mean, I don't think we have to work too hard at that. I don't think anyone needs a message memo or anything like that. I think we just need to make sure everyone sees him. Right.

Dan Pfeiffer (6:10)

But we have.

Jon Favreau (6:10)

Or J.D. vance.

Dan Pfeiffer (6:11)

That's right. We have to show people J.D. vance. We have to like, you don't even really have to memify him because he is a walking meme. Like, the JD Vance meme is actually cooler than the JD Vance himself. But it's just he makes Ron DeSantis look smooth.

Jon Favreau (6:31)

Also leading with his chin a bit there on. You want to think about who let the fraudsters in. I don't know. There's a couple in the White House.

Dan Pfeiffer (6:39)

One or two.

Jon Favreau (6:41)

The president has actually been convicted of

Dan Pfeiffer (6:44)

fraud many, many times. Yes, he's been convicted of fraud. He has been accused of fraud. Many fraudsters in the administration.

Jon Favreau (6:51)

Yeah, he's part of J.D.

Dan Pfeiffer (6:53)

some would say that J.D. vance himself is a fraud.

Jon Favreau (6:55)

J.D. vance is also a fraud. Donald Trump is actually just stealing taxpayer money himself. Just suing his own government and then deciding in favor of himself both in the. He's gonna try this with the irs. He's trying this with the doj. So he's stealing some money. He's pardoning some fraudsters. Lots of people who bilked a lot of Americans out of a lot of money now will not have to pay restitution because they got a pardon from Donald Trump because they paid for it. Fraudsters, Fraudsters. It does seem like they are gearing up to make this whole election about fraud. What do you make of that? What do you make of that? Are we just, are we taking this too lightly?

Dan Pfeiffer (7:32)

I don't really know, John. I would say in preparation for this pod, which I was to take deadly seriously, I went back and read the State of the Union because I couldn't watch it again. It is less coherent in written form by far. And the fraud section is particularly incoherent. It starts with Somalia goes to Minnesota. Quick pivot to a tragic story about a car accident, then a new policy proposal on commercial licenses for undocumented people. And that's the whole thing, that's the narrative, that's the message.

Jon Favreau (8:03)

Well, it does show that they are, they're really trying hard to combine the anti immigrant agenda with or conflate, not combine with fraud. Right. And so they know that people don't like their tax dollars being wasted, particularly on government programs that aren't going to people who actually deserve them. And who deserves them less than murderous immigrants who are here illegally.

Dan Pfeiffer (8:29)

Yeah, I mean, I guess I kind of sort of understand what might possibly resemble a strategy here, which is to basically take Ronald Reagan's welfare queen strategy of the 80s and then marry it with immigration. But it's not to be done a particularly coherent way. And it's not. Most people don't really know what they're talking about. Those are things that are not necessarily connected to each other. It's more sort of like. And you can really see this when you read the speech. It is just a series of comments on viral stories in the right wing media stitched into a speech masquerading as something of a message. And this is, this is one of them. Right. They're fascinated by it. Nick Shirley was at the State of the Union, I believe, the guy who originally had the report, the reporting and I'm doing air quotes for the audio listeners about this. And so I don't. It, this is, I get they don't have a particularly strong hand to play this. I don't think this is a better than the other things they're doing, but I think this is probably something that J.D. vance wants. I think that's why Trump gave it to him. I think that's why he's here. I don't think he, maybe he thinks it's good for the Republicans, but I think he thinks it's probably good for himself because the Minnesota fraud, immigrant fraud bullshit narrative they spin is a thing that Excites the right wing media people and the far right, podcasters and MAGA types that JD Vance is trying to persuade to be on his side in a presidential race. So I think that's kind of how we got here.

Jon Favreau (9:56)

Yeah, because I was going to say, I think the fatal flaw in their plan is they're forgetting that they're the ones in power that control the White House and Congress. And so if there are people who are worried that their tax dollars are being wasted and that's why they can't afford anything, instead of just making speeches about it, ostensibly they would have the power to make sure that people's tax dollars are actually being used properly and that people can afford things.

Dan Pfeiffer (10:25)

I mean, theoretically, I guess

Jon Favreau (10:29)

it's not Joe Biden in the White House anymore, them running against him, it's that they are the ones who are there. They've had a year now later, JD Vance said to the pool, like, I think he said something like some of this stuff, some of these economic policies just takes a while to work through the system.

Dan Pfeiffer (10:42)

I heard him say somewhat. Was it someone said the other day, some Republican, that like, once the manufacture, once the plants are built and the people start working, then we'll see the golden age.

Jon Favreau (10:52)

Once the plants are built, what are they building?

Dan Pfeiffer (10:55)

I don't know.

Jon Favreau (10:56)

JD Van said to the pool, some of this is that the policies we've already put in place take a little bit of time to work their way through the system.

Dan Pfeiffer (11:02)

Is the car in the ditch?

Jon Favreau (11:03)

John, don't start with the car in the ditch. That was our midterm message in 2010. Did not work.

Dan Pfeiffer (11:11)

We lost 63 seats.

Jon Favreau (11:12)

Did not work. You know, I never liked a car in the ditch. And I didn't know that Obama didn't know that I didn't like it. But then he wrote in his book that I looked at him like I hated it. And I was like, I guess I did not have a good poker face on that one.

Dan Pfeiffer (11:31)

Well, and also it was terrible. And it got longer with every speech because it was a very elaborate metaphor, which with every speech there'd be a new element of how the car got in the ditch, how the car was getting in the ditch, how dirty the ditch was.

Jon Favreau (11:44)

By the way, in case you guys missed this part back in 2010, the Republicans are the ones who drove the car into the ditch. And now, and we're trying to get the car out of the ditch.

Dan Pfeiffer (11:54)

It's not out yet. Because it's not out yet.

Jon Favreau (11:56)

It's going to take time, right but we want to put the car in drive to get out of the ditch and the Republicans want to put it in R to go back into the ditch.

Dan Pfeiffer (12:04)

That was like. I could see that was where he lost me because that was a. That was a Tom Daschle Evan by classic too. The DNR. That's a. That's been said by 1 million Democratic politicians at Jefferson, Jackson and Dinners for 50 years.

Jon Favreau (12:19)

Not our greatest moment.

Dan Pfeiffer (12:19)

We should probably edit this part out of the podcast. Honestly.

Jon Favreau (12:21)

No, no, I think we should keep it in. I think. Well, J.D. vance has something similar today, which is he's like Democrats talking about affordability is like, you know, the arsonist talk. The arsonist complaining, burn down the house or something like some dumb shit like that. So anyway, bad cliches, bipartisan. Why do you think they're having Vance out there doing this instead of Trump?

Dan Pfeiffer (12:40)

This is really a great question. Because normally the president goes out the day after the State of the Union, does a bunch of events, you know, will often travel for the whole week of the State of the Union back in, you know, a different media age, they travel for two weeks.

Shelly Jackson (12:54)

Just.

Dan Pfeiffer (12:55)

Donald Trump loves attention. Like, I'm sort of mystified by this. He loves attention. You are guaranteed to get attention the day after the State of the Union. My only guess is he's tired.

Jon Favreau (13:05)

Tired and busy planning a war.

Dan Pfeiffer (13:07)

Maybe we are undertaking at least one and maybe two wars in the coming days.

Jon Favreau (13:13)

Yeah, could be that, but I don't think it could be some of the more. Some of the bigger warmongers in the administration are like, happy to get J.D. vance out of there because J.D. vance in some instances isn't as quick to go to war.

Dan Pfeiffer (13:24)

So you think they sent him to Milwaukee so that they can bomb Iran faster? That's a good thing.

Jon Favreau (13:29)

Who knows? Crazier things have happened.

Dan Pfeiffer (13:31)

No, no, I'm not saying you're wrong, but, you know, he's in a signal chat so he could respond.

Jon Favreau (13:34)

That's true. That's true. Well, it's not like he's making the decision in those signal chats.

Dan Pfeiffer (13:39)

He speaks until Steven Miller tells him to stop speaking.

Jon Favreau (13:45)

Yeah, I don't know. Maybe he's tired. Maybe he just doesn't give a shit.

Dan Pfeiffer (13:48)

Or maybe that speech was so long, even Donald Trump is sick of hearing Donald Trump talk.

Jon Favreau (13:52)

I mean, that would be something. That would be something. As for the State of the Union itself, we don't have final numbers yet, but it looks like ratings were down from last year about 12%. Regardless, the white House and some Republicans are excitedly telling reporters the speech was a home run that will reverberate through November. Here's two representative headlines. One from Politico, the so too moment that Republicans hope saves the midterms. Wow. And here's this is one from the Washington Post. Republicans think they laid an immigration trap ahead of the midterms. These headlines are referring, of course, to this moment now captured in a Republican super PAC ad.

Dan Pfeiffer (14:31)

If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government

Jon Favreau (14:38)

is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.

Dan Pfeiffer (14:53)

These people are crazy.

Jon Favreau (14:59)

You got us. End with the old Republicans are for you, Democrats are for them. They're reprising the 2024 message that, you know. So we were, I know I was rather cavalier about this moment when we did our post State of the Union response pod. Were we too cavalier? Is this the magic bullet that's going to save the midterms for the Republicans?

Dan Pfeiffer (15:23)

I'm actually more cavalier today than I was on Tuesday night.

Jon Favreau (15:26)

More cavalier.

Dan Pfeiffer (15:26)

More cavalier. After having seen that ad, it shows why the idea that this is some moment that is going to shape the midterms is idiotic. It is pure stenography from reporters talking to Republican operatives. It doesn't translate into an ad. That ad sucks. It's not really clear what's happening. No one knows the context for it. Even if they did, it would not matter that much because this is not Donald Trump of 2024. This is Donald Trump of 2026 when his immigration approval rating is 12 to 15 points underwater. He is not. The efficacy of, of a message is intrinsically tied to the credibility of the messenger. And Trump and the Republicans no longer have credibility on immigration. Democrats don't either. Like now we're almost basically tied between with Trump on who you trust in immigration. But that's a gigantic win for us compared to previous years. And so this is not going to matter in any way, shape or form. I don't care. It is a dumb person's idea of a clever idea and it is just like, it's not, it's really not a thing.

Jon Favreau (16:29)

Yeah, I was trying to think about it just to sort of.

Dan Pfeiffer (16:31)

I really tried for your.

Jon Favreau (16:33)

I did too well. And a few people, a few people are like, oh, was it smart? Ask me. Genuinely like, was it smart that he did that or was it weird that the Democrats didn't stand up? And again, it's like, like you said, maybe it makes people, some people, I guess, think, what are Democrats up to? I don't know about that. It does not help Donald Trump at all. It does not. Because that's not what people, people are angry about ice Again, he did not say ICE once during the whole speech. Wasn't a, it wasn't a stand up and show your support for ice. That's for sure. I also think that most people see, I think you can see through the obvious setup here. I mean even the if you agree with this statement, stand up and show your support. Like, yeah, so you know, Democratic president could have been like, if you agree with this statement, stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens. Not Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump. Oh, Republicans didn't stand.

Dan Pfeiffer (17:30)

I mean, actually that would have been a good idea.

Jon Favreau (17:34)

You know, Republicans wouldn't stand for. They wouldn't be able to stand. Right? No, I mean, and then what would we be led to believe that they want to protect pedophiles?

Dan Pfeiffer (17:43)

I mean, wait till you put it in a mediocre ad.

Jon Favreau (17:47)

Also, it's like, of course the Democrats didn't stand. Of course they weren't going to stand for a bunch of shit. He tried to arrest several of them in the audience. What are we doing? This is not a normal State of the Union. You're not gonna stand for this shit.

Dan Pfeiffer (17:59)

Yeah, it's the whole thing, the conversation around it is stupid. It really is. Republicans desperately trying to spin something, spin a finite win in this really incoherent speech. That was terrible politics in every other way, shape or form. And some credulous reporters kind of like giving them a place to air their last hopes and dreams for the midterms.

Jon Favreau (18:22)

Of course, the government's first priority is to protect American citizens. Obviously it's the highest priority of the American government. Obviously we know that this government hasn't even done that. It killed two American citizens.

Dan Pfeiffer (18:32)

Exactly. In the service of trying to go after undocumented people. It killed. They sort of quasi the service of trying to do that. It shot and killed two Americans in the street and then lied about, has

Jon Favreau (18:44)

illegally detained the government has illegally detained at least 170American citizens. Those are just the ones we know about. And that was as of October of 2025. And that was, that was before. Minnesota is probably a lot more now. So they have locked up American citizens in jail illegally for weeks at a time in horrifying conditions. Killed to American citizens. Yeah, I don't think their priority is protecting American citizens and I don't think

Dan Pfeiffer (19:10)

people believe it either.

Jon Favreau (19:12)

Here's another related headline that I want to ask you about Dan from the Daily Beast. Stephen Miller melts down in eight hour Twitter beef with Jon Favreau. My question to you is, do you feel pride, shame or pity?

Dan Pfeiffer (19:29)

I want to talk to you about this. I want to talk about this. I think. I don't want this to come across as an intervention, because it's not yet. I don't want it to come across as me being critical of you, because I'm not. I'm genuinely inquisitive.

Jon Favreau (19:45)

I just want to say that the photo of me in the piece, the caption is, jon Favreau got embroiled in an eight hour social media spat with Stephen Miller. Not a great look for the host of Offline. No.

Dan Pfeiffer (19:58)

As I try to tell you, you need to start telling people that Offline's title is ironic at this point.

Jon Favreau (20:03)

Always has been. Always has been.

Dan Pfeiffer (20:05)

Yeah. It didn't start that way. You were genuinely concerned about people being online. And the product of doing that podcast for years was be more online. Um, but here's the thing. We were in the White House. I once told Barack Obama that you had the most common sense of anyone on his team, and that if we brought an idea to you, because sometimes, like, an idea would form in meetings and the end execution of that is always a speech.

Jon Favreau (20:30)

And then always.

Dan Pfeiffer (20:31)

And then, like me or Axelrod or David Plouffe, we'd go to your office and we would say, john, here's the idea. And you would always be mad that someone that signed a speech without talking about it, which was a very fair point on your part. But if you thought the idea was crazy, I would really question whether, like, I was like, oh, that's a. That's a good. That's like a good check. And I generally think you have excellent judgment. So what is going on here?

Jon Favreau (20:58)

I. I feel great about this one. I'm not.

Dan Pfeiffer (21:00)

Just in general. Let's. Let's. Like, you are. You wake up in the morning and you're on a mission for Twitter fights with certain people. And I know you are because you're tagging them. Like, you don't have to tag them.

Jon Favreau (21:11)

No. Okay. Sometimes I do. I did not tag him at all on this.

Dan Pfeiffer (21:14)

You, quote, tweeted him in this case.

Jon Favreau (21:16)

Yeah, quote, tweeted him. It was about the topic that we're discussing now.

Dan Pfeiffer (21:20)

Yeah, yeah.

Jon Favreau (21:20)

And specifically because he tweeted. And this was. He tweeted the night of the State of the Union, an insane tweet that the seated Democrats. And the operative line here is, it was a moment that chills to the bone, which will live for a thousand years.

Dan Pfeiffer (21:37)

Yeah. I mean, that's an incident. Yes.

Jon Favreau (21:40)

So it's like, okay, if you're. So I, as we all heard that night, thought that the whole thing is a little bit ridiculous. And so I, quote, tweeted that and said, I think it's genuinely funny how hard they're all trying to make this a thing. And, like, I just used Miller because he was the most ridiculous one. Um, and then, you know, then he replied to me Wednesday in the. In the afternoon and said, you know, Democrats leapt, clapped, hollered, and cheered for raising taxes, but their legs, hands, and voices froze in icy contempt as they glowered at the parents of slain children. So that's. That's what he said back to me. Then it just. You know, like, when he. When he tweets back, what do you think? I'm just gonna leave it there, Stephen?

Dan Pfeiffer (22:20)

No, no.

Jon Favreau (22:21)

The most powerful government official, more powerful than any of the cabinet members, tweets at me. What, am I supposed to just sit there? And he's also the most repulsive. If he was out there running, if he was the face of the midterms, I think we would all be quite happy.

Dan Pfeiffer (22:37)

Is that your strategy, to make him the face of the midterms, to use your Twitter account to do it?

Jon Favreau (22:41)

Have I not said on this podcast that if Donald Trump loses the midterms, that it's going to be the fault of Stephen Miller?

Dan Pfeiffer (22:46)

No, no, no, I.

Jon Favreau (22:46)

Which was such a. Which was such a great point that you then made it a message box.

Jon Favreau (22:49)

Yes.

Dan Pfeiffer (22:49)

I credit you for it.

Jon Favreau (22:51)

You know you did. I know you did, but. So, yeah, that was. That is my strategy. And look, I think when. I think when I told. I told him I found him, he thought that I found the whole thing funny, and I told him I found him hilarious. And then he told me that I was a. A textbook sociopath, which is, you know, again, leading with the chin. And then he asked if I have. If I. If I have any. If I ever. If I grieve, that's it.

Dan Pfeiffer (23:17)

You agree? He asked, if you agree for the families, and you say grief for your

Jon Favreau (23:20)

family, John, one more time, do you grieve for these families? And I told him I certainly have sympathy for his.

Dan Pfeiffer (23:26)

Yeah, I just. How did you feel at the. Like, in general, at the end of these Twitter battles? Do you feel fulfilled, happy? Do you feel like you accomplished a goal? Like, because I think you have a goal here.

Jon Favreau (23:39)

Yeah, my goal was to. Well, he didn't he has not responded because I asked him. I said, I grieve for anyone who's lost anyone. Of course I do. Because I'm not a fucking textbook sociopath. And why hasn't the president called the families of Alex?

Dan Pfeiffer (23:55)

It was a great tweet.

Jon Favreau (23:56)

Or Renee Gillette.

Dan Pfeiffer (23:57)

We were in a meeting together. I was sitting in the meeting. You were on your phone typing a tweet. I was on my phone looking at Twitter and I saw your tweet. Sorry, Proud state American production team. But let me ask this other question because many people have asked me this, because people bring up your Twitter fights to me a lot.

Jon Favreau (24:14)

Sure, sure.

Dan Pfeiffer (24:16)

How does your wife feel about this?

Jon Favreau (24:18)

Not as great.

Dan Pfeiffer (24:19)

Yeah, that was the question. That was the question. Because my wife is not married to you, but likes you a lot. She does not feel great about it either.

Jon Favreau (24:27)

No, Emily thought it was. I got home, I sent her the whole exchange ahead of time before I got in the car to go home. And then when I got home, she's like, first of all, a little nervous again. Another fight with Stephen Miller. I don't know if I like this that much. She's like. But I did laugh pretty hard at the sympathy for his family. She's like, so good.

Dan Pfeiffer (24:47)

Okay.

Jon Favreau (24:47)

There are some that I like. Whatever. I forget what we were fighting over. I fought with Megyn Kelly about something a couple months ago.

Dan Pfeiffer (24:53)

Several times. Megyn Kelly.

Jon Favreau (24:55)

And I left that one. I'm just like, ugh, what was the use of that? Because it's like, who cares? It's Megyn Kelly. So that kind of shit. I'm like, eh. Any fight that I've ever gotten in with JD Vance or Stephen Miller, feel great afterwards.

Dan Pfeiffer (25:05)

Okay, look, if you were finding personal fulfillment here and you end this happy because like time is not a renewable.

Jon Favreau (25:12)

Other right wing influencers, you should stop me. Not so much. Not great. High ranking White House officials.

Dan Pfeiffer (25:19)

As long as you feel fulfilled, then I am okay with this. Because everyone needs a hobby. And if this is your hobby, I

Jon Favreau (25:25)

wouldn't say it was as fulfilling as like then going home and hanging out with my family. Of course not finally going to bed early for one night. You know, those things were much more fulfilling.

Dan Pfeiffer (25:36)

Generally. Generally you do these Twitter fights on work hours. I don't like you're not doing it from the zoo with your children. So I think that's, that's a positive. If that starts, we should have another. We'll have another on camera intervention here.

Jon Favreau (25:47)

Anyway, still waiting for Steven's response. When is the president going to call because I thought he grieves for American citizens and I thought that the government's first role is to protect American citizens. But apparently it is not.

Tommy Vietor (26:09)

Positive. America is brought to you by Nutrafol. Real change doesn't come from some big flashy moment. It comes from your routines you commit to. It's the small things you do every day that quietly add up over time. That's the idea behind Nutrafol. It's built around a simple, consistent approach to hair health that works from within and delivers visible results over time, not overnight. Nutrafol is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand and it's the number one hair growth supplement brand personally used by dermatologists. Neutrful's hair growth supplements are peer reviewed, NSF certified for sport and clinically tested to measure improvements in hair growth, quality and strength. It's not a one size fits all approach. Neutrful offers multiple formulas for men and women tailored to different life stages like postpartum or menopause and lifestyle factors such as a plant based diet. So you get support that's actually right for you.

Jon Favreau (26:54)

I'm taking it. It's great.

Tommy Vietor (26:56)

Nice.

Jon Favreau (26:56)

Basically. Look, I've obviously done everything possible to to maintain having hair at the stage where the doctors are about to hold my hand and say, be with your family.

Tommy Vietor (27:05)

We've done everything there is.

Jon Favreau (27:06)

From now on, it's just between you and God. But the neutrophil is helping.

Dan Pfeiffer (27:09)

I done.

Jon Favreau (27:09)

I do. I am noticing a difference.

Jon Favreau (27:11)

That's great.

Tommy Vietor (27:11)

Adding neutrophil to your daily routine is easy. Order online, no prescription needed, with automated deliveries and free shipping to keep you on track. Plus, with the Nutrafol subscription, you can save up to 20% and get added perks like free Headspace membership to support your hair health journey. Let your hair become one less thing taking up space in your head and see thicker, stronger, faster growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with Nutrafol for a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners $10 off your first month subscription and free shipping when you visit nutrafol.com Enter the promo code CROOKED that's nutraful.com spelled N U T R A F O L.com promo code CROOKED

Jon Favreau (27:49)

POD Save America brought to you by Zebiotics Pre Alcohol. Tired of sacrificing your next day for a good night out? I used to have to pick one or the other, but with Zbiotics Pre Alcohol, it's changed the game. Now you can enjoy a night out and still wake up feeling like yourself. So you're hearing this after we went to Australia and New Zealand? Well, I'm recording this before in a different era when I just put some zebiotics literally in my bag this morning, because I knew that. Listen, we're on the road. You have a drink during the show. That's right. Keep it loose. And so we brought. I brought some zebiotics for us.

Tommy Vietor (28:16)

Gotta have it.

Jon Favreau (28:17)

Zebiotics. Pre alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. I'm just thinking, like, I have these shots that are not alcohol. Then I have a bag of white powder that's creatine, that looks like drugs. I have Adderall I like. I. I'm telling you, like, my bag looks like I'm a much more interesting person, really. I'm just a late stage capitalist millennial

Jon Favreau (28:52)

Johnny Montana with a lot of.

Jon Favreau (28:53)

A lot of things ins and outs to keep this system running, including Zbiotics.

Tommy Vietor (28:57)

We love Zbiotics.

Jon Favreau (28:58)

We do. We genuinely do.

Tommy Vietor (28:59)

True.

Jon Favreau (28:59)

If you're ready to try it, go to zebiotics.com crooked and you'll get 15% off your first order when you use crooked at checkout. Plus, it's backed by a 100% money back guarantee, so there's no risk. Subscriptions are also available for maximum consistency. Remember, head to zbiotics.com crooked and use the code CROOKED at checkout for 15% off.

Jon Favreau (29:20)

All right, let's turn to a lighter topic, the peace president's next war topic,

Dan Pfeiffer (29:23)

than your Twitter fights with a fucking loser. Yeah. What is. What is that?

Jon Favreau (29:29)

It's war. It's war, Dan. Real estate bozos Steve Whitcoff and Jared Kushner met with Iranian officials in Geneva on Thursday to negotiate a new nuclear deal and possibly stave off military intervention. Spoiler alert. Didn't go well. No agreement was reached after the first day of negotiations. This comes after Politico reported that the administration is toying with the idea of having Israel, not the US Military, launch the first strike Against Iran. Why? Here's what a source familiar with the discussions told Politico. Quote, there's thinking in and around the administration that the politics are a lot better if the Israelis go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us and give us more reason to take action. I don't know. Like, what do you make of the White House wanting to use American lives as bait to sell the rest of the country on a war with Iran?

Dan Pfeiffer (30:25)

It seems like it should be a gigantic scandal that they would like to do this. Right. Seems like it should be a big deal. It's not. There's a lot happening today. It's not even make the a block of this podcast. It came literally came after an online feud you had, but about the State of the Union.

Jon Favreau (30:41)

It was an offshoot.

Dan Pfeiffer (30:42)

Yeah, I understand there is a reason it fell the way it did in the lineup, but it does speak to how impossible this war is to sell to the American people that they cannot do it in any sort of normal way. It's why they're not even trying to do it, so that they're so desperate for a rationale for a war that the neocons, of which Trump is now one of them, apparently have wanted for decades and decades and decades. They're so desperate for that to create a pretext for this war that they are. One of the ideas on the whiteboard is let's get some Americans killed so that Americans will be mad and want to go to war with Iran. Seems bad.

Jon Favreau (31:26)

Yeah. I mean, let's let Israel go first. So because again, the Israeli government very popular here. Let's let the Israeli government go first and then Iran will retaliate and what, maybe hit an American military base, I guess. And you know, we're hoping that our defenses will hold and no one will get hurt. But, you know, who knows? Because maybe if an American service member is killed or wounded, then American people would be like, well, Iran attacked us and killed Americans and so now we have to attack Iran. And like, honestly, the worst part of it is I could see it working.

Dan Pfeiffer (32:04)

I don't think it would work. I really, I really don't. I think that the Trump people think the American people are much are stupid and they're not. Israel attacks Iran and then Iran attacks an American base. I do not think the American people are then one to sign up for a protracted war in the Middle East.

Jon Favreau (32:23)

I certainly hope not. I certainly hope not. I talked about this earlier, but I think I can't remember which podcast I said this on. But the polling was at like, 20% of Americans support any kind of action against Iran.

Dan Pfeiffer (32:36)

We talked about this in an actual private conversation that wasn't recorded.

Jon Favreau (32:40)

There we go. That's wild. But then the CBS poll that dropped the day of the State of the Union asked it with, would you support military action in Iran to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon? And when you add a nuclear weapon, then it was 47% approve, 53% disapprove. So you can start, you basically, you can just start seeing their house of lies that they're building this, this case on, you know, ballistic missiles that may reach the United States soon. And, oh, now what if Iran attacks America as a retaliation for Israel? Oh, now what if there's a nuclear weapon and they're a week away? Like, they're just, you know, it's all the greatest hits from Iraq without any of the effort, really. But, you know, everything's gotten dumber since then somehow, and the information environment's gotten a lot more awful. So.

Dan Pfeiffer (33:33)

But American people have gotten a lot more skeptical of foreign interventions. And that question in the CBS poll, I think in people's minds is a military strike, like Midnight Hammer or whatever we call it, the other thing, not an actual protracted conflict that could cost American lives, could lead to attacks on the homeland or on Americans abroad, could likely lead to a giant spike in oil prices and just general chaos in the world. And just remember, this is a president at 38% approval who is underwater on every single issue, including national security and foreign policy, who may launch United States into a war. He has not explained to a single person why it's happening. And so I think, I just think there's, People do not want to go to war, and they really don't want Donald Trump to take him to war.

Jon Favreau (34:26)

Yeah, that's, that's true. All right. I'm holding out hope. Holding out hope, although, I mean, I guess hope for public opinion.

Dan Pfeiffer (34:33)

But I mean, while you're, by the time you're listening towards, by the time you listen to this, it is quite possible that the strike happened because the gating issue was they were going to get through these talks on Thursday. We're recording this on Thursday, the talks are over. So at any point, something could happen. I would not be surprised if it happened over the weekend or overnight. We don't know.

Jon Favreau (34:55)

Yeah. So House Democrats are also planning to hold a war powers resolution vote next week that would force the president to seek congressional authorization before carrying out any military strikes in Iran. Democrats already have the support of Thomas Massie, who sponsored the bill with Ro Khanna. And on Thursday morning, Representative Warren Davidson, a Republican from Ohio, threatened to support the resolution if the White House didn't brief Congress on its justification for the war. The White House, unsurprisingly, is already whipping votes to defeat the resolution. And I think we Democrats have already lost. At least Josh gottheimer and, and, and Jared Moskowitz, I think. Yeah. On this one. So, you know, I don't think we have the votes currently, but I don't know. What do you, what do you think? Do Democrats, there's a chance that Democrats can get enough votes to pass this thing?

Dan Pfeiffer (35:40)

I don't know. I think it's hard for Republicans to vote to him in the president on a national security issue. So we'll see. I. Do you guys got to rant about this on Tuesday? I would like a, I like to reclaim my time for a second, please.

Jon Favreau (35:55)

Yes, go.

Dan Pfeiffer (35:56)

What Jared Moskowitz and Josh gottheimer are doing here is disgusting. Even if you believe against all evidence that Iran is an imminent threat to the United States that demands military action, the idea that you would let this president, this corrupt tin pot dictator surrounded by yahoos, including a military commanded by a Fox News host who's drunk, probably

Jon Favreau (36:22)

drink with a reported drinking problem, maybe

Dan Pfeiffer (36:25)

wage war in Iran without going to Congress, that you would give up your responsibility, your power to try to influence how that war would take place because you want to show yourself to be tough on Iran or friendly with Israel or whatever else is just, it is immoral. It's unpatriotic. It is truly, truly disgusting. Like, we can disagree about the merits of military action in Iran. You cannot credibly argue that Donald Trump was without Congress on his own, should unilaterally launch a war with Iran. That is an insane position for a Democrat.

Jon Favreau (37:04)

Like, I think, I think striking Iran in a war is insane.

Dan Pfeiffer (37:07)

Yes.

Jon Favreau (37:08)

But like, let's say that you just genuinely believe it's the right thing to do. Right. Well then, like, what are you afraid of taking it to Congress where you work, where you have been elected to represent people and having the debate there and making a decision as a Congress, as the Constitution intended.

Dan Pfeiffer (37:25)

Yeah. All their, all that war powers resolution is doing is saying Donald Trump has to come to Congress first. There is not, there is not an imminent threat here. And if there was, then the president has the power to act, but there is not one. We know this because Donald Trump told us quite recently that they obliterated the

Jon Favreau (37:42)

nuclear program in Iran and You can. I mean, you know, I yelled about this before, but you can tell that it's bullshit from the line and gottheimer's statement that it's like, you know, this, doing this would show. Show weakness.

Dan Pfeiffer (37:56)

Oh, what are we in 2003 here?

Jon Favreau (37:58)

Yeah, I mean, it's also. It's like, Josh, you were there. Like, you were. You were there. We went through this. He was on the Kerry campaign with me. We went through John Kerry voting for the fucking war in Iraq. Everyone gave President Bush the authorization for the same reasons. We don't want to. We don't want to hem in the president. We want to give him the authorization for war. I mean, they. This, this isn't even that.

Dan Pfeiffer (38:17)

This is like, if you want to vote to authorize the war, I think that is an insane position. But that is a vote that is you putting your name in and saying, I support this. I'm giving my power from a co equal branch to authorize this military conflict to try to block the vote from ever happening to somehow burnish your national security bona fides is disgusting.

Jon Favreau (38:43)

It's insane. I do not understand it. Well, Dan, good news. Sometime in the near future, our government's wars of choice may not require humans to fight them. I talked about this on offline last week. But the Department of Defense is threatening Anthropic because the AI company won't let the government use Claude, their AI model for mass surveillance on Americans or for firing weapons without human involvement. Axios reported on Wednesday that the Pentagon has taken its first steps toward designating Anthropic a, quote, supply chain risk, which would mean that no company that works with the Department of Defense could also work with Anthropic. The Pentagon typically reserves the supply chain risk penalty for companies that are based in, like, countries that are US Adversaries, like China's Huawei. Even more alarming, Elon Musk's XAI signed a deal with the Department of Defense this week that agreed to the standard anthropic rejected. So the government's murderous surveillance drones may someday run on Grok and Anthropic, in a statement right as we were starting to record, said that they in good conscience cannot agree to this, and so they're holding strong. Dan, is this what people voted for? For murderous surveillance drones that can run

Dan Pfeiffer (40:00)

to be commanded by Pete Hegseth? No, I don't think that's what people voted for. I mean, this should be honestly one of the biggest stories in the country because it tells us two things. One, it speaks to all of the massive ethical and policy dilemmas that come with the very rapid emergence of AI. It also reveals that the Department of Defense, because I will call it that, not the Department of War under Donald Trump, would like the power to do mass domestic surveillance. And then just on top of that, at the same time this story comes out that what they want, they want it. Like the Department of Defense argues, we want anthropics who let us do everything we're legally allowed to do mass. There are only two rules from anthropic here. No mass domestic surveillance and no autonomous weapons that don't involve humans. Actually me, the ones who make decisions. The latter is technically legal, although quite irresponsible, and I'll get to why it's even more dangerous in a second. But mass domestic surveillance, not legal. And why do they want that? There should be some follow up questions on that.

Jon Favreau (41:08)

Well, I'm sure it's only gonna be mass domestic surveillance if they go to the FISA courts and then they get Article 3 courts and they get the warrants properly, because that's how they've been doing things in the Trump administration.

Dan Pfeiffer (41:19)

And it's also not mass. Right. Those are individual things. Although obviously the Bush administration did do it with metadata at a very high, high level. And that continued for many years after that. But the other thing is there's this study that came out the other day where they were having all of the AI models play war games against each other. And the big takeaway was AI models are very quick to use tackle their nuclear weapons in war games.

Jon Favreau (41:48)

Yeah. I mean, because they're not in hindered qualms of it.

Dan Pfeiffer (41:53)

And it is a way like it is the fastest way to domination. And this is like the big takeaway is that this is what they do and now we want to give them the keys to the arsenal. Like it just, it is insane. Also just on this. It's not just Pete Hegseth is such a fucking moron. In the meeting with the CEO of Anthropic the other day, he, he threatened him with two things when they refused. One was what you mentioned, blacklist in the supply list. The other one is that they would use the Defense Production act to seize control of Anthropic's AI model. Now those things are, are in complete conflict with each other. If you are subject to a Defense Production Authorized act acquisition, it's because what you have is so essential national security, the government needs it right now. And the other one in the blacklisting is that you're so Dangerous that no one who does business with you can be in contact with the government.

Jon Favreau (42:49)

Yeah, yeah. I don't know that. I know. I don't. I don't know that consistency is what they call.

Dan Pfeiffer (42:56)

But like, this is just a. This is the future we are living in. And I don't think any of these AI companies are covered in glory. Anthropic, I would say, limited to their credit in this instance, but Anthropic exists. And I just read an incredible book about this. It's called emperor of AI anthropics, which is about OpenAI. But anthropics exists because the CEO and the heads of anthropic and that team left OpenAI because they thought Sam Altman was abandoning the original mission of OpenAI, which was to guard against risk. Now they've also commercialized on running a $380 billion company right now. But there are a lot of other people who are going to do, like Elon fucking Musk who are going to do the things that Anthropic.

Jon Favreau (43:39)

Well, this is. I know, and we were talking about this like you could. I mean, Anthropic could be the best actors ever, right? Just in a pretend scenario that they're. They're only out there. They don't even care as much about making money and they're only there for good.

Dan Pfeiffer (43:53)

Just let's just. People who gave them $380 billion probably hope they care about making money.

Jon Favreau (43:56)

But I'm saying, like, just for the sake of argument.

Dan Pfeiffer (43:58)

Yeah.

Jon Favreau (43:58)

The problem is, like, we're in a very competitive environment in a free market system and there's going to be other companies and there's. And like, whether they're US Companies or bad actors overseas and foreign, whatever they may be, someone's going to figure out a way to do this. Which is why you can't just fucking make a. Make a bet on a company being made up of good people. You have to fucking regulate it, which this administration is not doing. Like, there is. There is no scenario here where it is not absolutely necessary to regulate artificial intelligence. There's just no scenario.

Dan Pfeiffer (44:30)

And with statutory, with statutes, with legislation like, yes, the administration, whose current philosophy is no regulations at all, and they're trying to ban regulations at the state level. But Congress needs to get involved here, and that is dangerous because most of them are still using their AOL accounts. But like, it just. You need, like the fact that AI cannot do mass surveillance and automated weapons should be in law. Like, that's something that should be in law and written in a way that prevents it. So it's not up to the goodwill of CEOs of billion, multi billion dollar companies to hold the line against this.

Jon Favreau (45:08)

Pete Hexa yeah, and the only sliver of good news here is that they can't automatically fire the weapons yet. They're not. That is they don't have that capability yet. I think they don't have the mass surveillance capability yet either. But they're, you know, they're all pretty close.

Dan Pfeiffer (45:24)

But they are using AI to go through intelligence and do decision making matrixes. God knows when Elon Musk get the X AI on there, but I'm sure that could be greenlit by Donald Trump any day now.

Jon Favreau (45:37)

Yeah, well he's too busy making sure that AI can undress images of random people online, so that's what he's focused on.

Tommy Vietor (45:54)

Positive America is brought to you by stamps.com it is staggering that to this very day many small business owners are still making post office runs or stuck with expensive postage meter leases. It's 2026, not 1926. Mail and ship when you want, how you want. With stamps.com?

Jon Favreau (46:10)

pre Social Security era, who are the poorest people in our country? The elderly.

Tommy Vietor (46:14)

At that time our stock market crashes are bitcoin. Now with stamps.com you can send from your computer or phone 24.

Jon Favreau (46:20)

7.

Tommy Vietor (46:20)

No long lines, no low supplies, open anytime. Print postage on demand. You get up to 90% off carrier rates like FedEx, UPS and USPS schedule carrier pickups right from your door and get carrier compliant labels every time. No errors, no rejected mail, no wasted trips. It's perfect for your business. Send certified mail, get document tracking and confirmed delivery and analytics to make sure you know exactly what you've sent and spent. For almost 30 years, millions of customers have relied on stamps.com to make mailing and shipping faster. And so simple. Look, if you're a small business owner, getting stamps.com just makes sense. I cannot believe people are still wasting time going to the post office dealing with shipping. It's a pain. Stamps.com is a great solution. It's simple. You'll save money, you'll save time. Everything about it will work for you. Right now you can try stamps.com risk free for 60 days. Go to stamps.com and use the code PSA to get 60 days risk free. 60 days gives you plenty of time to see exactly how much time and money you're saving on every shipment. That's stamps.com code PSA stamps.com, code PSA

Jon Favreau (47:19)

this episode is sponsored by better help, the cards and flowers are gone, but the pressure to have your love life figured out will remain. Whether you're in partnership or navigating life on your own, or maybe you're in some sort of newfangled arrangement where there's multiple people and a lot of complicated feelings that you have to constantly explain why it's so good. It's normal to feel a bit of a post holiday emotional hangover. Working with a therapist can help you cut through the societal expectations and find a path that feels authentic to you. Like the expectations I just put on you. Like the judge's robe I just put on to talk about your polycule therapy can help you identify what's weighing your relationships down and find ways to brighten them again. Also, by the way, it can just be a way where you can work through some stuff because you know, things can be great. But then you notice that little bit of that little edge that trickles in, you know, and you're like, let's, let's nip that in the Buddha. BetterHelp's quality therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the US BetterHelp does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences and their 12 plus years of experience and industry leading match fulfillment rate means they typically get it right the first time. If you aren't happy with your match, switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored rex. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, Having served over 6 million people globally and it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. Sign up to get 10% off@betterhelp.com PSA that's betterhelp.com PSA.

Jon Favreau (48:46)

All right, we should also talk about the latest developments in the Epstein man.

Dan Pfeiffer (48:49)

What a pod this is. Honestly now I'm sort of regretting spending seven to eight minutes on your Twitter habits.

Jon Favreau (48:55)

Apologies to the listeners, which is in the news today because the House Oversight Committee took a field trip to Chappaqua, New York for a closed door deposition with Hillary Clinton. Bills is scheduled for Friday. Hillary said she had no memory of meeting Epstein, no knowledge of his crimes, and briefly paused the deposition at one point after Lauren Boebert snapped a pic and leaked it to Benny Johnson. Because of course, Hillary later came out and told the press the same thing that she said in her statement, but that also, towards the end of the deposition, they started asking her about UFOs in pizzagate. So that's what. That's how the Republicans were using their time in Chappaqua. Stay tuned tomorrow for part two with Bill Clinton. But the much bigger Epstein news this week is that Trump's Justice Department appears to have removed FBI notes from three interviews that agents conducted in 2019 with a woman who accused Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump of sexually abusing her in 1983 when she was just 13 years old. We know this because the DOJ did release the FBI's initial interview with the woman where she only accused Epstein of abusing her in that initial interview. And because they released a summary of the allegations against Trump that just happened to be in an FBI presentation about the Epstein files from last summer. Allegations that were also referenced in an evidence list that prosecutors provided to Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys, which was also released on the DOJ website. So the existence of those two documents reveals that there were these three interviews that the FBI conducted with the woman where she had made allegations against Donald Trump. But though the notes for those three interviews have disappeared from the website, this was first reported by the journalist Roger Sullenberger and then confirmed by NPR and other outlets. On Wednesday, the Justice Department said it would take another look to see if any documents were improperly tagged and will release anything they find that falls under the requirements of the law. On Thursday, Oversight Chairman James Comer said the committee would be looking into it as well. What do you think, Dan? It's just pretty stunning.

Dan Pfeiffer (51:08)

What are the odds that the documents would be mislabeled, would be the ones that included allegations about Donald Trump? Just like what? What are the odds?

Jon Favreau (51:19)

What are the odds? What are the odds? I mean, also, what are the odds that they are still incompetent enough to leave a couple documents in there that reveal the existence of these allegations?

Dan Pfeiffer (51:30)

We are dealing with criminals. We are not dealing with criminal geniuses. Yeah, this is the thing that people said about the Epstein files, which is, you know, it's very possible or real, that Pam, Botany, Cash Patel, some other person who works for Trump could go in there and take out the Trump stuff. And people kind of said that you. That's crazy. That's conspiracy theory. No, it's like, this is. These guys lie and cheat in every way, shape or form, and they did it here. They're just really bad at it. But if they were slightly better, if they had, like, third grade competency and criminality, then like, no one would ever know this happened.

Jon Favreau (52:06)

Yeah, and it's.

Dan Pfeiffer (52:08)

The documents are currently not. We don't know where they are. I don't think the oversight ranking member, Congressman Garcia went to go find them. Hasn't seen them yet. Like, have they been destroyed? Like, these are fair questions to ask.

Jon Favreau (52:21)

Yeah. It also seems like this one is not going away because you assume that the victim is out there or the person who made the allegations. She also made allegations against Jeffrey Epstein that are more substantiated than the allegations against Donald Trump. We should say, of course they're unsubstantiated so far. But like, you may have to imagine she's out there, her lawyers are out there, people who know her out there.

Dan Pfeiffer (52:44)

Like, I just think people who conducted the interviews are out there.

Jon Favreau (52:46)

People who, yeah, the FBI agents are probably out. Right. So it's like, I don't think this is, I don't think it's the last we've heard of this one.

Dan Pfeiffer (52:51)

Like, this is just, it speaks to the volume of insane news in Trump's presidency that we have talked about a war with Iran, we have talked about a, the Fox News host, Defense Secretary trying to use killer robots. And now we are talking about a potential like the Department of Justice going illegally. This is illegal, what they did. If this was done intentionally illegal, it violates the law that was passed requiring disclosure of the records. Went into illegally hide, steal or destroy records that implicate Donald Trump in a child sex trafficking ring. That is what it is. Whether those allegations are real or not, we don't know. But the COVID up, the attempt to protect him from those allegations and is a massive, massive scandal also one that

Jon Favreau (53:47)

like this was known. The NPR story hit the day of the State of the Union. Because we first talked about this on Jimmy Kimmel Live. Yeah, because there was a, there was a question about the Epstein files and so we brought it up there too. But like, it's wild that then the state, the whole State of the Union happens and we're just like, okay, that's

Dan Pfeiffer (54:04)

so true of like so many other things. Like, I mean, this is, there's just a different world with a different president, with a different media environment where this is all we've talked about for a year and a half now, every single day.

Jon Favreau (54:14)

Yeah, I mean, it is wild that. I mean, it's still in the news. I mean it is a gigantic scandal, like you said, but it is one of the few stories that has sustained itself.

Dan Pfeiffer (54:24)

Yeah, this all kicked off last summer. Really.

Jon Favreau (54:26)

Yeah, for sure. So I know We've talked about Trump's plans to steal the midterms quite a bit recently, but there's a new development on that front. We should also mention the Washington Post reports that, quote, pro Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17 page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting. So that's fun. One lawyer who's pushing the E.O. told the Post it would empower Trump to ban mail ballots and voting machines, among other things. So they're going to use this fake finding that China interfered in 2020 to justify a national emergency, to justify taking the power to run elections away from the states, which is, of course, constitutionally mandated. How real do you think this is and what's your gut on how the court might respond?

Dan Pfeiffer (55:22)

There are definitely lunatics outside the White House working on this. There are definitely lunatics inside the White House who are helping them do this. Whether Trump signs it or not or actually comes out. Open question. I really struggle to see what the legal basis for any of this is. Right. As you mentioned, it's in the Constitution. They are, ironically enough, relying on the same statute that the tariffs were used for, the emergency power statute, which indicates no specific discussion of elections or any of these things. There is no statutory power the president has even in an emergency over elections, and there is no evidence of foreign involvement. This is based entirely on an intelligence report that Beijing considered but then decided not to get involved in the 2020 election. That's it.

Jon Favreau (56:22)

And also the remedy for Beijing considering but deciding not to get involved in the 2020 election is to ban the mail ballots and voting machines in the 2026 election.

Dan Pfeiffer (56:33)

There is some weird thing about how they were like a. Like one of the conspiracy theories is they were going to make light driver's licenses, fraudulent driver's licenses for people to vote by mail. But the point is, it makes no sense. I can't imagine. Like, you know, I don't put a ton of faith in the judiciary and the Supreme Court, but this seems quite, quite like. If you thought their interpretation of the law on the terrorists was absurd, this is like 10,000 times more absurd than that.

Jon Favreau (57:01)

I agree with you. And if I were conspiracy minded myself, I might say that one of the reasons that Trump flew off the fucking handle with that Supreme Court decision, why he was so angry at the Supreme Court and said such crazy shit, like they've betrayed their families and they're disloyal and all that shit is because someone told him that that 6, 3 majority in that case is probably what you'd get in a case where he tried to declare a national emergency and take over the elections.

Dan Pfeiffer (57:35)

Yeah, that seems possible. You know, if I was conspiracy minded, I would also think about that.

Jon Favreau (57:42)

But you're right that, like, even if, that, even if that wasn't going through Trump's mind, I do think that the reasoning, if you look at that case, the reasoning that Roberts and Barrett and the liberals signed on to and Gorsuch and the liberals all signed on to is like. It is, it's like you can do major questions doctrine. You can use president. Like, there's, there's just. You can't, you can't usurp Congress's power that is prescribed explicitly in the Constitution with a fucking executive order just because you say there's a national emergency. Like, that's why he thought he could.

Dan Pfeiffer (58:15)

Exact same thing, right? Power to administer elections, in this case, states. You're taking power from the states which is explicitly designated in the Constitution. You can't do that. You couldn't do it with a law. You can't, you can't do it with an executive order. Just like the tariffs. Like, I think this is like, what is more disturbing about this is the mentality and the lengths to which this administration is willing to consider to try to avoid the, what they believe to be a significant ass whipping coming in November.

Jon Favreau (58:43)

Yeah, you can see why it's. Yeah, you can see why rigging the election feels important to them because here's Mike Johnson on Tuesday threatening us with a good time.

Dan Pfeiffer (58:51)

If we lost the midterms, Heaven forbid,

Jon Favreau (58:53)

if we lost the majority in the

Jon Favreau (58:54)

House, it would be the end of

Dan Pfeiffer (58:56)

the Trump presidency in a real effect.

Jon Favreau (58:58)

So we've got to keep. Hell, yeah, it would be.

Dan Pfeiffer (59:00)

If that is not in a DCCC fundraising video right now.

Jon Favreau (59:06)

I mean, and not.

Dan Pfeiffer (59:07)

Do not text me with it. Do not text me. I do. If I get a fucking text, I'm going to say stop. So do not text me with a D, triple C. But if you put it in pre roll, that's pretty good.

Jon Favreau (59:17)

How do fucking Republicans pitch every dumb reporter in D.C. that the moment of the Democrats sitting in the State of the Union, it's going to save the midterms. And then they got the ad out already and they got all the stories about the bullshit ad. That's terrible. Anyway. And like Mike Johnson says that. And we can't, we can't make something of that.

Dan Pfeiffer (59:36)

Yeah, yeah, I mean,

Jon Favreau (59:39)

anyway. We also have a new Washington Post ABC News Ipsos poll that found a 14 point enthusiasm gap working in Democrats favor for the midterms. 79% of Democrats said they were certain they would vote in the midterms. Only 65% of Republicans said the same thing that said the generic ballot in this one is only a two point Democratic lead. Didn't love that part. But what do you think's going on here? Or do I have to wait till the next episode of Polar Coaster because I am a subscriber, which you can be too@crooked.com friends actually John, I hate

Dan Pfeiffer (60:08)

to do this to you, but you have to wait to the next message box to come out. But you can be a subscriber to@crooked.com yes we did.

Jon Favreau (60:14)

There we go.

Dan Pfeiffer (60:15)

Look, I think I'm not worried about the generic ballot in here. The generic ballot average is about 6 or 7 depending on which site you look at. But this is a the post reveals what is obvious in the electoral data we've seen so far this year. Democrats are incredibly fired up, Republicans are depressed and swing voters are looking for Democrats like that. That is what we saw in that special election in Texas. And if you don't want to believe a post ABC Ipsos poll, just look at what's happening in Texas right now in the early vote. So there's a day or two left in early voting as of Wednesday night in the Democratic primary. They have early votes cast are 163% of what they were in the 2022 election Democratic primary. Now you may say to yourself, I don't remember a particularly competitive democratic election in 2022 in Texas. I don't either. But here's what I will tell you. There is an incredibly contested Republican primary happening right now which has had tens of millions of dollars spent in the air. I think there's been, there might have been $100 million spent in that race already. And Democrats have cast in Texas to say Donald Trump won by almost 14 points. Democrats have cast 140,000 more early votes than Republicans as of Wednesday.

Jon Favreau (61:28)

How many do you think some of that is just behavior like Democrats vote early and Republicans don't though.

Jon Favreau (61:34)

Maybe.

Dan Pfeiffer (61:34)

But the Republicans are also trailing their pace from so you can look at

Jon Favreau (61:39)

this comparison of 2022 is instructed. Right?

Dan Pfeiffer (61:42)

Right. So you can Compare now to 2022. Democrats are doing well. They're Republicans are not. Or you compare Democrats, Republicans right now and Democrats doing better. But even Democrats do better. It's a state with more Republicans. So they should be doing better, and they are not. So Democrats are fired up. Like, we know Republicans are more same day voters, all of that. But there is plenty of evidence that Democrats are very, very fired up. And that is good news.

Jon Favreau (62:02)

Too big to rig. That's what we got to do. Just got to have more people, more people voting. So it's too hard to declare emergency, national emergency, and take the voting machines.

Dan Pfeiffer (62:12)

Sure, yeah, that makes sense. You said this. We need the voting machines to be so full of ballots that little cash Patel can't carry them out of. Out of the Fulton County.

Jon Favreau (62:22)

Yeah, we did say that.

Dan Pfeiffer (62:23)

Yes.

Jon Favreau (62:24)

Again, I forget what I say. Off, off mic and on. All right. Speaking of the midterms, when we come back from the break, you'll hear Tommy's conversation with Shelly Jackson about why we need to field a Democrat in every down ballot race, especially in states like Arizona, where we need to build more electoral power. We'll be right back.

Jon Favreau (62:48)

Pod Save America is brought to you by Uplift desk. John. Tommy and I have Uplift desks in our office and we genuinely love them. We are moving up and down all day. Sometimes we're sitting, sometimes we're standing, sometimes you're standing. You gotta change your vibe.

Tommy Vietor (63:01)

It's nice. Cause otherwise you slouch all day long and you feel terrible.

Jon Favreau (63:04)

And now there's the all new uplift V3 standing desk, which transforms your desk into a productivity engine. The V3 combines the best of Uplift's V2 and V2 commercial into one smarter, stronger frame. This thing, it'll send you up into the ceiling panels if you're not careful. That's how quickly we're rising these desks these days. I don't know what they've done between V2 and V3. I guess I have V2. I think it's great.

Tommy Vietor (63:26)

Yeah, it's like an AI model. It's just exploding in progress.

Jon Favreau (63:29)

Yeah, a lot of extra tokens now. Redesigned feet and steel reinforcements make this the most stable standing desk yet. Assemble in minutes. No stress, no mess. The new flex mount cable manager comes in every desk to keep cords hidden and tidy. Upgrade everything. Speed, stability, ergonomics and design. Ultimate customization options with the most extensive range of desktop styles and accessories in the industry. We genuinely do have them and love them. They've totally made working at our desk better, like, all the time. I would say that we all sit after lunch. You got to be low after lunch, but then you get back up.

Tommy Vietor (63:59)

You got to move.

Jon Favreau (63:59)

You got to change your vibe.

Tommy Vietor (64:00)

You sound like Joe Biden there.

Jon Favreau (64:02)

Get back up.

Jon Favreau (64:02)

Yeah.

Jon Favreau (64:03)

Get back up.

Jon Favreau (64:03)

Yeah. He, he would not do well with a standing desk, I don't think. Transform your workspace and unlock your full potential with the new Uplift V3 standing desk. Go to upliftdesk.com PSA and use our code PSA to get four free accessories, free same day shipping, free returns and an industry leading 15 year warranty that covers your entire desk plus an extra discount off your entire order. That's U P L I F T d e s k.com PSA for this exclusive offer. It's only available through our link upliftdesk.com PSA

Tommy Vietor (64:36)

my guest today is doing absolutely essential work in Arizona recruiting and supporting candidates for office. Shelly Jackson, welcome to Pod Save America.

Shelly Jackson (64:44)

Thank you so much for having me. I'm so grateful to be here.

Tommy Vietor (64:47)

We are grateful to you for the work you're doing. So you have a lot to talk about. You ran for school board and you flipped a seat when you were 24. We need more people like you. Now you run an organization called Instituto which is doing recruiting, training, ongoing support for people who want to run for office or who organize around really important issues. Instituto is also a key partner, I should say, for our friends over at Vote Save America who launched this first of its kind candidate recruitment pilot program to get candidates to run for down ballot races in Arizona, North Carolina and Texas. Now the filing deadlines in Texas in North Carolina have already passed. But in Arizona I believe you have until March 23rd if you want to run for office. So go to votesave america.com run if you want to learn more. Also, I think the filing deadline is not yet passed in about half of the country. So if you're listening and you are inspired to take the plunge, check out your your deadline in your state. But let's start with Instituto. What are the gaps that you guys are filling to help candidates run for office and then more importantly, to be successful once they win?

Shelly Jackson (65:48)

Yeah, I love this question. And yes, also shout out to the Vote Safe America team and the Pipeline Fund. It's been so incredible to have this partnership here in Arizona. A lot of the times when candidates are running for office and probably all across the country as well, they're doing it with very little support. They're going in, maybe excited to help their community, but don't know where to start and end. Missing a lot of gaps along the way. But aside from like the logistical pieces of running for office for women, for people of color, there's also these pieces around funding. Right. Having a support system that are also super essential to making sure a candidate can win and that they also have the morale they need to move things along the way. And so at Institute though, we do a couple of things. We help identify candidates. So we are always on the search and we're always looking to find new people who want to get involved. And, and sometimes just tapping people on the shoulder is needed. A lot of the times people don't even see themselves as someone who can make change. And even for myself, let me tell you, I did not have on my bingo card that I was going to run for office. Someone asked me and then they asked me again and again. And so being able to have someone actually tap you on the shoulder is super essential. So that's one of the things that we do is we just straight up ask people and then after that we are supporting them with training, making sure they have the skills needed to run, making sure that we're also talking through with them. How are you thinking about your finances? If you're running for school board, you don't get paid. If you're running for the state legislator, I believe the most they make is about 27,000 and that's a really hard job. Right. So we have the conversations and we provide the resources for people to make informed decisions. And then once they get into office, we also have a co governance fellowship and this really helps support the now elected thinking through what does it look like to govern, what does it look like to do this job well and what does it look like to do it with community to make sure that we're also not moving on our own and being harmful once we get into office.

Tommy Vietor (67:46)

That's great. I mean, so Turning Point USA is also based in Arizona. Folks probably heard of it. It's, you know, the organization started by Charlie Kirk. It funds a ton of grassroots youth activism to bring people into the MAGA movement. Now obviously I disagree politically with them on like everything, but I am very impressed by the work they have done. What kind of support do you think Turning Point is providing on the Republican side that Democrats are missing on the progressive side?

Shelly Jackson (68:15)

Ooh, I love this question. Also cringing at the fact that they started in Arizona. Don't love that.

Jon Favreau (68:24)

Yep.

Shelly Jackson (68:25)

But you know what? One thing I think that they are doing that we can think about more on our side is creating low barriers of entry. I think a lot of the times on our side we start to do purity tests. We start to create this really hard high bars just for people to get involved and sometimes we just end up pushing people away instead of inviting them in. And I do think at Turning Point, they are on campuses, they are all over and they're welcoming any and everyone. And then once they get into the door, I think they push them. I think they share this ideology and this narrative that they have. And the more people are there, the more they start to adopt it. But I think sometimes on our side we forget about that or we expect people to be at a certain place right away and that's just not where most people are.

Tommy Vietor (69:13)

That is such a good point about the barrier to entry, because in a lot of ways the barrier to entry for a Turning Point event is like going to a big event that feels like a party where everyone is welcome and they bring you in this giant funnel and then eventually they can try to get you to run for office or be an activist or whatever it might be. Now Arizona is a really important swing state in like every single election. One would like to think that, you know, national Democrats, the national Democratic Party, maybe big donors are just chucking resources at you guys. Is that happening? Do you hear from like the DNC, super PACs, anybody?

Shelly Jackson (69:45)

You know what, this year is actually really interesting in Arizona when it comes to the funds because this will be the first year, I think in about 14 years that we haven't had, we won't have a Senate race. Right. So for the last few cycles we've had a really big top of the ticket race that has been helpful to garnering support. We know that when we get big funds like that, it really helps other candidates that are down ballot as well. But this year we don't have a Senate race or anything like that. So I think we are already starting to see some differences. The money is not flowing in the way that it has in the past. I'm still trying to hold out hope that it is coming and it is on its way because as you know, we have other races that are still important here in our state.

Tommy Vietor (70:27)

Yeah, absolutely. So back to you. You ran when you were 24, you ran for school board, you flipped a seat. What you said like, you know, you had to be asked and asked and that's again, I mean, what made you want to run for office and what did you learn from that experience that might inspire or just, you know, like inform listeners who are thinking about doing the search? Same thing.

Shelly Jackson (70:44)

Yeah. So you know what, I'm someone who never thought I was going to be in politics and social justice. So I definitely never thought I was going to run for Office, so we can just start there. I never saw myself like that. I grew up thinking I was going to be a nurse because my grandma was a nurse. I wanted to be just like her. And I got to my senior year of high school and realized that I like taking care of her. I don't think I would actually like taking care of other people.

Jon Favreau (71:10)

That's fair.

Shelly Jackson (71:10)

Yeah, I get that I was in this crossroads, but I had a dance teacher who was like, look, Shelly, you've danced your entire life. Why don't you become a dance teacher? And I said, sounds like a plan. I went to school for dance and dance education, and during that time I actually had the opportunity to teach dance all over Arizona, working with an organization. And that was really eye opening for me and was my entry point to really critically thinking about systems and resources. And I started to wonder why when I'm in Scottsdale or when I'm in Chandler, like these students get X, Y and Z. But when I'm on the south side in the neighborhood I grew up in, we actually don't have as much as many accesses to after school programs or the arts or these other essential pieces that I was seeing in other places. And so that had already kind of like opened up my mind. And that's how I started to get into organizing. I was really lucky that a former teacher of mine at the time was now a state representative and he had posted on Facebook one day, I'm looking for young black organizers to get involved. And I was like, I don't know what that means, but I'm there. And I started organizing on all the things. And so to fast forward, 2020 comes around, it's the pandemic. Candidates all over are struggling to get on the ballot, right? Because in order to get on the ballot, you have to get signatures. A lot of the times people get signatures by standing outside of a grocery store, right, Asking, can you sign this thing? Or knocking on someone's door. But people didn't have the ability to do that because everyone was staying inside. So then we end up getting to a place in my district in Roosevelt where we had three open seats, but only one person had actually made it on the ballot, which was just wild. So in that situation, people can now start to run as a write in. And we. I didn't think anything of it. I was watching what was happening and I was hoping for the best. But what ended up happening was MAGA folks in our neighborhood said, hey, this is an easy way for us to be on this district. So they started running as writing candidates, and at the time, they were the only ones. So we were going to end up in a place where we now had a majority MAGA district. And people started calling me, and I was ignoring their calls because I had a feeling. I had a feeling what they were going to ask. And then I started to answer, and folks kept saying, hey, we're in this moment. We need you. You're from here. You taught in the district. Right. You have an education background. And I said no. And I said no for a couple of weeks. And it really got to a point where I was like, am I going to be okay with whatever happens if I'm not there? Am I going to be okay with students missing out on more resources? Am I going to be okay with this ideology being pushed that's also going to show our black and brown students that they don't belong in their own neighborhood? And then I said, no, I'm not okay with that. And I finally ended up saying yes. So I'm really grateful that people kept pushing me and we were able to do really great things. Two years in, I became the board president. So I spent my last two years actually leading the district and working on the ground with really great people. But it was hard to see myself in that position because I had never thought of it for myself. To your point, I was also 24 years old, and I did hear a lot of rhetoric around, well, young people can't do this. Right. Or we need more qualified people. But I'm lucky that I had finally got to a place of no. Me being young is exactly why I am qualified. Right. These are actually things that make me ready. They're not barriers to doing the work.

Tommy Vietor (74:45)

That's an amazing story. I mean, yeah. I'm sure you've noticed that a lot of the elected Democrats are super old. A lot of them pay lip service to the idea of this next generation of leaders, but it's not clear they're doing much about it. What kind of things do you think are keeping young people from running? And, like, what do they need to get over those hurdles and take the plunge like you did?

Shelly Jackson (75:03)

Yeah, you know what? I think that a lot of it is apathy. I think if you're a young person and you're looking at what's happening, you're kind of like, well, this is just how things are, and this is how things have been in a really long time. And so that. That may be a reason why folks don't even want to get involved, let alone running for Office. I think something that young folks should remember is that if we see things as they are, as not working, it's because we're not at the table. Because the people who have been in office are the ones continuing to make the rules. And the conditions show that it's not changing material conditions for everyday people. The conditions show that cost of living continues to rise and that they need fresh voices, fresh people who are ready to provide a different perspective and like, really shake things up. What I hope is that young people start to see their apathy as like a superpower. I don't think apathy actually has to mean we do nothing. Right. I don't think apathy means that we kind of just sit and watch things go. I think it's actually a nudge towards, like, I'm not feeling it. And in order to be able to have a different outcome, I actually have to do something and investigate what is that something? Is it running for office? Is it organizing? You know, is it joining a protest?

Tommy Vietor (76:21)

That's great. I love it. Last question for you. So, you know, you've done all this work sort of finding these candidates, recruiting them, training them, helping them succeed when they get there. Are there any, like, stories or people you've met that really inspired you or that, you know, I don't know, maybe opened your eyes that, like, about how different someone could be for running or like how just like the range of places people are coming from to run for office because of your organization?

Shelly Jackson (76:43)

Yeah. So many amazing people that are coming up. One person that I want to highlight that's not from this season, if you will, but has just won a city council seat. Her name is.

Tommy Vietor (76:53)

I love it this season. This season on running for office.

Shelly Jackson (76:57)

Exactly, exactly. I think a lot about Ana Hernandez. She is someone who first ran for a state senate seat and in a district is a very Democratic district. But she had an incumbent who had been there for a really long time, but he was very status quo. He wasn't getting things done. He wasn't holding the line on different issues. And she came in and everyone said that she had no chance of winning. And she won and she won by a lot. And while she was there, she led the charge against the abortion fight that we were having in the state of Arizona and was able to make a ton of different change. And now she's at the city council fighting. And she is someone who is loud. She's like super authentic. She brings her family everywhere. And I think it is just so beautiful to see and I think so against status Quo. So I mentioned her a lot, but someone I actually want to highlight who's from the VSA program, she. The pipeline. She heard you all on the podcast, and she said, right on. Oh, I'm interested. Her name is Caitlin, and she is from New York now living in Arizona, and has an education background and was watching what we're seeing across the country on authoritarianism and the attacks on democracy. Heard the podcast and was like, well, maybe I can do something about it. She reached out to our team. We had several conversations with her, and she shared with us more about the district she was living in. She's in a school district where they have appointed a lot of seats. So that's a fun fact, right? People don't know that when there's not a seat, like, let's say a seat goes uncontested or someone steps down from the seat, then someone else appoints that seat. And Arizona, specifically, in Maricopa county, we have a county superintendent. Her name is Shelly Boggs. I don't claim her a different Shelly. It's spelled with an fy. Okay, not a fan.

Tommy Vietor (78:45)

Not a fan.

Shelly Jackson (78:46)

Yeah, mine is spelled with the ey. But Shelly Boggs has been appointing MAGA folks to school boards all across the state. And so now she's in a district that's actually very blue, but a good chunk of her school board members representing her are MAGA red. And so once she heard the podcast and talked to us, she actually decided, yeah, I can do this, and I can change my district and I can put students first. And now she's running for office, and we're really excited about her.

Tommy Vietor (79:11)

God, I love that story. That is such a great story. And in your point about them appointing people to these seats if no one runs is why we have to run people everywhere in every election, all the time, especially this year, when fingers crossed, things might go well. So again, if you're in Arizona, you still have until March 23rd. If you want to register, go to votesaveamerica.com Run Shelley. Where can people learn more about Instituto or chip in to help you guys out?

Shelly Jackson (79:36)

Oh, that's a great question. So folks can go to Instituto I.O. to both donate and learn more about our trainings. Everything is on that website, and from there, let's talk. Let's figure out how we can get you running and support you along the way.

Tommy Vietor (79:50)

Well, Shelly, thank you for the work you're doing. Thanks for doing the show, and I hope to talk to you again soon.

Shelly Jackson (79:54)

Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Jon Favreau (80:01)

That's our show. For today. Thanks to Shelly Jackson for coming on. If you're interested in running in Arizona, head to votesaveamerica.com run to get more info. I'll be back in the feed on Sunday with a conversation with Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner.

Dan Pfeiffer (80:14)

Bye everyone.

Jon Favreau (80:16)

If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad free and get access to exclusive, exclusive podcasts, go to crooked.com friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substack, YouTube or Apple Podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review that helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Crooked. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our producer is Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farah Safari. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reed Churlin is our executive editor. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Kanter is our sound engineer, with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Matt de Groat is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Hayley Jones, Ben Hefcoat, Mia Kelman, Kirill Pelaviev, David Toles and Ryan Young, our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.