A (3:20)

All right. The Supreme Court issued an opinion this week in the Calais case that I. I can say is tenuous and thunderous. I wrote about it right away in my substack, but I want to move to the thunder part. We kind of thought the decision would have a huge impact, but not until 2028 at the earliest, if then. We're now seeing Republicans across the south scramble to try to implement gerrymanders in time to have effect in November in Florida and Louisiana, others to come. Do we have a sense yet of the likely impact on the midterms of the decision?

D (4:02)

Well, as the most political person here, we'll start with the political ramifications of all of this. This is so untoward on a lot of levels. The American people don't like this, and they don't like the idea of limiting or messing around with voting rights. It feels very much like we are taking steps backwards. And the idea of the Supreme Court ruling in this Louisiana case further gutting Section 2 of the Civil Rights act, it really is a culmination of over 13 years now since the Shelby case of gutting the Civil Rights Act. And I know some people have said this, and it. And it's really not hyperbolic, but if you are a person of color who lives in the south or you're old enough to remember what Jim Crow laws were like and what it was like before the Civil Rights act, before the Civil Rights movement, before the Voting Rights act, before all those things, it's hard to imagine not feeling like we are taking a step so far backwards to those times. And unfortunately for people who are trying to make the argument that we no longer need the Voting Rights act, that, you know, racism is. It's not a thing anymore. Just take a look at Donald Trump's presidency, the people around him, their attack against people of color and minorities and women, anyone who's not a white Christian male, and you will see that that's just not the case. Now, maybe back in, you know, theoretically, under the law, you know, you could say, well, we're. We're aspiring to be a more perfect union. And, you know, it's aspirational that we would not need the Voting Rights act anymore, but we are certainly not in that place, especially not with this administration and what they're doing, dismantling DEI and all of the things, voting now is the next frontier for them. And Donald Trump has mused more than one time about canceling elections. Why should we even have them? And then you have Louisiana's response to this case. Well, let's just go ahead and cancel the primaries. And as. As a direct result of that. This is all a petri dish. It should scare the hell out of people. And I am fearful of what the fallout will be, both politically and electorally for this country moving forward.

A (6:27)

I think you're exactly right, Tara, that that's what the Supreme Court said. We don't need it anymore. That's not withstanding. And Donnelly passed in 1965 and was considered maybe by many to be the hallmark legislative enactment, certainly of that decade, and extolled again and again, Reagan, George W. Bush, when they sign its renewal, make a big deal about it. And I think what you said is what the Supreme Court, in essence said. Certainly what they said in gutting section 5 and Alito's opinion this week, I think not really intellectually honest, certainly gutted Section two and said something like that. That's a judgment that, if you believe is so clearly for the legislature to make, if they want to say that. And as you say, Tara, it is so belied by what happens in the country first. One more quick legal point is under the Voting Rights act, you. You have to show that groups, any groups, white people, vote cohesively before you have this kind of enactment. But the fact is they do in both parties. That's what we've been seeing, starting in Texas, where Texas Republicans say, oh, I think we can gather those Hispanic votes now and have four or five. It is such a fact of life, especially in the south, that there is cohesion. In a perfect world, maybe there wouldn't be, but. But trying to will away the perfect world with this sort of pronouncement, that's just not a legal pronouncement, but a policy pronouncement. And the more you think about it, man, oh, man, oh, man, it's gonna have a seismic impact, I think.

C (8:08)

It's unclear how in the end, this impacts for the short term. I think for the long term, we're gonna have to figure things out, we being America and how this sort of unfolds. I think there's two things that I want to add to this discussion, sort of outside the legal and political. It is not clear to me that this benefits Republicans immediately if they start to do this. And the reason why is for the same is if you look at Republican voters now, confusion does not necessarily benefit Republicans, in other words, their demographic in terms of education, in terms of political focus, in terms of being excited for 2026 as compared to as they were in 2024. I just think that if the act of voting is very, very complicated, yes, historically, that hurts Democrats. I just think that the parties have changed, at least from what I'm seeing. I just don't think the data's there anymore. So that's the first thing. And I think stuff like this, as Tara was saying, is going to have a backlash so that you could get those groups, African Americans in particular, very, very engaged in a midterm that they might not otherwise be. There is a second issue just being out there, which is, you know, we talk a lot about the aging of our political leadership. That is very, very true of black political leadership. If you look at the data or if you look at the numbers around, for example, the Congressional Black Caucus, it is significantly older than the average. And I think if there's something to sort of silver lining out of this, it is that groups, in particular African Americans, Hispanics, need to really think about getting a new generation that fight these fights in ways that are meaningful for the way that populations elect now, because you're going to get a lot of retirements of the Black Congressional Caucus, if not in 2026, but 2028. And those open seats do not necessarily go to the next in line now. And you sort of wonder if we didn't have that many open seats because we had younger leadership. It is something that I know is being discussed in the black political community and something that this is a wake up call for all groups about what age means. It means that if the rules change, you may not have incumbency, and that's really bad.

B (10:41)

I think at the same point, you have a generation there, and it's incumbent upon them to explain to a younger generation, yes, of African Americans, but people in this country about how things were before the Voting Rights act was put in place. And I take your question, Harry, about what happens between now and the midterms. I think it's hugely incumbent on Democrats to make that case, educate people on why this is so significant. And I note this is happening at a time when this process of redistricting, as changed as it's become, is really getting this accelerant as a result of this decision by the Supreme Court. I was driving around Virginia before the vote that took place there in April to redraw districts there. And it was interesting to chart just the way that people regarded that, picking up on what Juliet said just a moment ago. I think that there is still an element of confusion about the process here and where all of this is leading, why it's happening, the way in which it is and it's very much emblematic of this moment. I think I go back to sort of what kickstarted this most recent conversation about redistricting. That is Texas doing this earlier than expected. I think we're moving away from norms and the way that things were done in a way that was easily understandable. And I think the legacy of that confusion, I would agree, is going to be something that's really going to resonate with a lot of voters here. Why is this happening? How's it happening? What are the effects going to be?

D (11:54)

Yes. And just to address a couple points that Juliet made, the confusion part of this is also the point because if you look at where this is happening and where it will have the most impact, it is in red states that have super majorities in the legislature. And so unfortunately, as galvanized as black voters may be, if they feel as though rights are being taken away and ones that were fought for in both blood and treasure here to get in this country, their votes in these redistricts will be diluted. That's the whole point of this. They're trying to redistrict black voters out and dilute their voting power and their ability to elect representatives who represent their interests in the South. That's what started this whole thing. So that is, that can have a voter suppression impact because now they feel like, well, it doesn't matter. You've divided us all up. We don't have the same voting power. Why bother? That's another part of this that I we have to be careful of, particularly for younger voters who are already very skeptical of the system, that don't feel the system is working and are not as bought into our democratic norms and institutions because look at what they've grown up under. They don't know it. So the institutional knowledge of the importance of fighting for your voting rights and knowing that your vote counts and all those things that also is beginning to die off with the older generations. So you have a combination of all of these things. And Republicans have done a very good job of spending the last 20 years or so, some could argue longer, but at least a good last 20 years, building up their super majorities at the state and local levels so that they have in all the way from secretaries of state to the attorney general, down to depending on what state you live in, like Florida, for example, you elect your supervisor of elections. It's not an appointed position. They have politicized this and they've been laying the foundation to manipulate this to their advantage for 20 years. So the Democrats have a lot of catching up to do.

A (13:53)

And what that means, tangibly, you can have a say, 60, 40 majority in a state that's kind of close to Louisiana. But if you control and have leverage over the political process, I don't think people even realize this. Louisiana's first map, which now may come into effect again had one seat that African Americans could expect to vote. An African American representative in Tennessee now is 8 to 1. And the incoming governor says that she wants to make it nine, zip. In other words, it's the really stunning manipulation of the map to take what's already a super majority and make it nearly monolithic. But back to your point, Tar, I just don't see, given what Section 2 was designed to do, how this doesn't really drive a dagger home for specifically districts that have been drawn because the law required it until Tuesday to have a minority representative go. And we're talking about, I don't know if any of you have different views, but 20, maybe seats that are, maybe some of them go dim. But I think precious few of them actually remain minority seats. And that's going to really change the look of Congress, among other things.

D (15:13)

Well, people should ask the question why? And Democrats should not. They should be unafraid to challenge the Republicans and challenge the American people. To put this in context, why are we doing this? Why was this necessary? We had redistricting every 10 years. Why are they trying to change the rules and manipulate the process? Now, that was something that Republicans, as someone who used to be one, that the process arguments were something that Republicans used to throw out at Democrats all the time. And now. And the whole, oh, they're rigging the systems and blah, blah, blah. The accusation is always a confession with these people on the MAGA side that they're doing the exact same thing and they're doing it under the auspices of it's, well, we don't have racism anymore. Yet a lot of what they're doing is talking about reverse racism. Oh, it's against white people and DEI is against white Americans and leaving out the structural advantages that white Americans have had in this country, particularly white men, since the founding of the country. So they want to try and muddy the waters and deny that. And it doesn't mean that everything is racial all the time. But we cannot deny the history and the systemic racism in this country. And one of cornerstones of our freedoms in this country is the freedom to vote and to vote in people who represent you. And now Republicans are trying to take that away. Democrats should lean into the fact that they're taking freedoms and fundamental rights away. They took them away from women in Roe v. Wade, and now they're taking them away from people of color. And who can represent them? Why? What are they afraid of?

A (16:45)

Well, and this for everyone, first is there's the what, which is this arcane legal issue has now really been elevated to popular focus. But the, but I want to ask about the how, because if Democrats are making this case and pushing back, we are hearing Hakeem Jeffries and others talk about quite a race to the bottom right and remaking everything, taking California, making it bluer and bluer, maybe Illinois. Is there any other choice here? If they choose to engage as they have, are we looking at just the nastiest, ugliest state after state map going forward?

C (17:21)

Yes, and absolutely.

A (17:22)

Should.

C (17:23)

I mean, if the rules change, you can't. Whatever the other party is, you can't expect the. I mean, this is foreign policy. You can't expect the other party to remain using the same tactics. This is so typical of. Whenever I think about the Trump administration's national security or foreign policy, which is more my lane, I always think is like, you know, he thinks it's binary and transactional, as if the other party doesn't have options. Options. We're seeing this in Iran, we're seeing this with the Gulf states, right?

D (17:50)

It's like, oh, wait, the enemy has a say.

C (17:52)

Yeah, exactly. I mean, or China has a say. And the same is true here. And I don't look, I am law. Where we should all, as journalists, as commentators, as political people, like, we're not going back, people. I mean, this idea of nostalgia or, you know, whenever I watch tv, I hear an analyst say, trump should. I just, I want to walk off a plane. He's not going to. Trump should really tone his voice down. You know, he should really not, you know, bring about extremism. It's like, oh, that's like, get the. Trump should. Get the Republicans should. This is. And remember, and I'm clear, because Tara's a great example of this, this is not Democrat versus Republican. This is, this is a wildly unpopular president at 35% at best. Because when you actually drill down on things that his people voted for him about, he's even lower. So be worried if this was wildly popular, right? And people always say to me, how do you seem so calm? And like, I was like, yeah, it's, you know, it's nerve wracking. I hate all of this noise. I would rather not be doing any of this. But I would be more worried if this was wildly popular. And so, you know, part of it is this is a wildly unpopular president and positioning. Why should the Democrats or the opposing party. I don't even understand the argument that they wouldn't go for the jugular.

D (19:17)

Right.

C (19:18)

Because they're the outliers. If I look at the numbers, they're the outliers. So I feel very confident about getting in the arena and I think go

B (19:28)

back to Virginia, but I think that it confirms what you're talking about. And I think that if you were to canvas Virginians ahead of that vote, there were probably a lot of citizens of that commonwealth who were maybe uneasy with what the Democrats were proposing. I think the Democrats do a good job of making their case to move on this, to kind of match what we're seeing in these other states. I think it highlights the fact that there is a hunger among Democrats for leadership to do this or go in this direction. So to take the phrase that Harry used with this fight down to the bottom, I think that there is in that as well an eagerness in the opposition to see them match what's happening, to not go down without a fight. And I think that Virginia is a bit of evidence of that.

D (20:08)

And I live in Virginia and so I was privy to a front row seat to how Virginia handled the redistricting issue. And it is true that the voters mostly don't like this kind of stuff, but they also recognize that games are being played. So if the Republicans started this like in Texas, California stepped in and said, well, we'll have our voters vote on it. And then Virginia answered the call and said, we will too. The difference is they're putting it to a vote to the people to let them decide versus an executive decision coming from on high, like what happened in Texas or what they tried to do in Indiana and other places and now what's happening in Florida. So the voters here, as much as they don't like it, and you have, you know, Northern Virginia is its proximity to D.C. you have a very educated, politically, you know, in tune populace up here, which is where the majority of the voters are in Virginia. I mean, Virginia is a big state, but the majority of the voters are up here. And they understood what they understood the assignment. Like, yeah, we don't really like this, but it's temporary. Which was the genius in the way the Virginia legislature handled this is saying, okay, we'll put this up to a ballot vote. It's temporary in response because you have to fight fire with fire and play the game that you're in, not the rules by which you wish you had, but what you're dealing with now. And I think people can respect that, but they don't like it overall, but they'll respect that now. They almost lost. I just want you to know they ran out the clock. Because what the Republicans did, speaking to the confusion part of this is that the Republicans went and took a really dark arts approach to muddying the waters by appealing to minorities using Barack Obama stop the steal.

B (21:47)

I was struck by seeing that on signs as I, as I drove around that phrase back again.

D (21:51)

That's right. And that, you know, Democrats were doing this and they used old, old words from Barack Obama back when Democrats were not happy with gerrymandering, you know, which was legit back then, 15 years ago. And bringing it up now and then just trying to use minority families and pictures and things saying that this is an attack on your voting rights. It's okay if you're uncomfortable with this. And they used that to try to confuse people. And it was beginning to work. And I, you know, if they had another two weeks at that, I think that measure might have gone down, which is why it was so close. So Democrats have to be very careful and be prepared for the types of tactics that Republicans are going to use to try to muddy the waters. Because confusion also creates voter suppression. And that's the point.

A (22:37)

And that's all 100%. But I just wanna tie it to a legal point for the next few months, which we didn't think would be so active to the point of popularity. I mean, this is so elemental for them. You know, numbers in Congress, everything is the kind of trigger from that. And Florida's a great example. I mean the people do not want this on both sides, but the legislatures are storming ahead anyway. Just give us these numbers even in the face of popular pushback. But how that's gonna play out in the courts, that's actually gonna be a foundation of a legal claim for can you just totally do away with things a few months before. But the immediate dynamic, this is always like this with elections of shit happens so fast and you can't then rewind. There's really a greater, certainly greater effort and I think some kind of impact even before the midterms, which I hadn't anticipated. And yet 28, everybody into the pool. All bets are off and you know, no holds barred.

D (23:42)

Clearly. Just, just really quick about Florida. Cause people are probably wondering since it just happened this week, kind of, I mean, this has been a wild political week. And it happened so quickly between the Supreme Court decision and then Florida kind of moving up its vote on this. Florida, this is going to be another interesting legal battle that I think you should keep an eye on, because Florida has a state law, a state constitution law that says you cannot redistrict based on race. Basically, they. They did this to prevent in the state of Florida, to prevent what's happening right now, to prevent it from happening there. And so this would impact, I believe there's 28 seats in Florida. Eight are Democratic, 20 are Republican. This could dramatically change that to basically two Democratic districts, and the rest would be Republican. I interviewed the Florida Democratic Party chair, Nikki Fried this week on our Seneca Project podcast about this, and she used to be the Florida AG Commissioner. She's been involved in Florida politics for a long time. She said this is the first time she's ever seen an absolutely quiet chamber after a vote. When those representatives voted for this in Florida, you could have heard a pin drop because none of them wanted to be seen as applauding this effort so that it could be used against them in a political ad. So that goes to show you that this is unpopular, but they're still pushing forward with it anyway because they have these super majorities and they have a governor who is, you know, trying to suck up to the President of the United States or find an Act 2 where they're really trying to use Florida as that example. But the legal challenge here is this. This Supreme Court case really shouldn't impact what's happening at the state level. You're going to have supremacy clause issues and all of that going on. And I believe Mark Elias over at Democracy Docket has already filed a challenge. Challenge to what Florida's doing.

A (25:28)

Yeah, no, that challenge was filed already this morning. Your old colleague Rick Wilson from Florida Republicans said this couldn't happen because it's so there's such a political wind against it. And yet, as you say, Desantis was able to force it through with. And it could be real consequences. But, like, I mean, Florida now is completely lopsided, and this would make it ridiculous.

D (25:52)

Yep.

A (25:52)

Foreign. Hey, everyone. Harry here. You know, I don't do many ads, but I made an exception a while back for Quince Clothing. And I'm here to tell you I'm still wearing my Quince organic cotton crew neck sweater all the time. And it and the Quince Comfort Stretch Traveler five pocket pants are the first things I reach for when I'm packing a suitcase. They're durable, they fit great, they look good. And they are inexpensive to boot. It's been a major addition to my closet. And now that it's getting warmer, I'm really looking forward to checking out the Quince Pima cotton T shirts. Refresh your wardrobe@quince.com TalkingFeds for free shipping and 365 day returns now available in Canada, too. Quints.com Talking Feds talk to you later. More, more, more to come. What a week it has been, Tara. So I wanted to talk a little bit about the Fed and Jerome Powell's decision that he's going to stay on the board after his term, leading it ends and all the sort of preamble involving Trump's efforts to oust him, his replacement. David, you've been really very focused on it. How unusual is Powell's move and which we gather he didn't want to do. How unusual is the move to stick around on his part?

B (27:32)

Very unusual. And Maynard Echols was the last to do it many decades ago. But you're right, I think he was eyeing retirement, looking forward to retirement after this long stint in public service. But he has emerged as a real stalwart of institutionalism in D.C. the likes of which we don't have a lot of these days. And you saw that from the very beginning when the administration trained its sights on the Fed, when the president first began lambasting him. And then there was this investigation that was brought forward by the U.S. attorney in D.C. into both him and the Fed for this renovation project at the Fed and what he said about it on Capitol Hill. And that prompted him to do something rather extraordinary, which was to speak out in the aftermath of learning of that investigation, delivered this message on video, I think shocked a lot of people because we often don't talk about the drama of the Federal Reserve. It's not Instagram. Right.

A (28:21)

He's not a rabble rousing guy.

B (28:22)

He's sexy or gets a lot of attention. But he has become a kind of quiet resistance figure throughout all of this. And you're right, I pay a lot of attention to his speeches and press conferences. And in the wake of that video, he hasn't engaged with the politics of this a lot. But that was the open question going into this last meeting, his last meeting as chair. Would he stick around as a Fed governor perhaps until 2028 when his term ends? And he said he's going to stick around for a time to be determined. And the reason is he is unsatisfied with whatever deal Jeanine Pirro brokered, that is she's dropped that investigation. It has now been moved over to the inspector general at the Federal Reserve. The open question was, would that satisfy Jay Powell? He said he would stick around until that was resolved. It seems like an investigation continues here, and that is what's animating him. That's what's keeping him in that job. But he's maintained throughout his entire tenure at the Fed that its independence is sacrosanct. And the more the President attacks it and questions what it's doing and what he's doing and other policymakers are doing, the greater the damage or potential damage to that institution. So he's going to stick it out. And again, I think he is taking a principled stand in Washington at a time when it is seemingly more and more difficult for people to do that.

C (29:37)

There's no question in my mind that when his term is over, they'll go after him again. And the reason why is this goes back to my other point. When you have no policy agenda to rely on the 35% on the major issues that people voted for him. We'll talk about the economy, this. Why did Comey happen? They'll go after him. So my guess would be if you're just. Just thinking strategically, if you're him, you don't have much confidence that Kevin Warsh is going to defend you or defend the institution. I've been. I don't know anything about the details of it. His resume seems a little bit lighter than I would anticipate for the board chair. He married incredibly well. Great for him. But, like, it's not like he's like, run some. You know, it's like, it's like, not like you're like, oh, that's. That's someone I want to put confidence in. So if you don't have confidence in him that the institution will defend you, my personal thing, everything you think that they won't do, they do. So of course they're going to restart an investigation after he's no longer protected by his status because he won't have the institution to protect him or the levers of the economy to sort of say this is wrong. So, I mean, this is the horribleness that we're in, which is we just have to anticipate the worst that they're going to do against these institutions and then either try to extend the Runway. This is my crisis management. Either extend the Runway or be ready for that action. And I have no doubt that he is preparing what it would look like if the administration went after him after. He's no Longer on the board.

D (31:19)

The fact that we're even taking these aspects into consideration in the handoff for the Federal Reserve chairman position again speaks to the incredibly precarious situation this country is in when it comes to our institutions. The Federal Reserve is pretty freaking important, not just for domestic policy, but internationally as well. We're talking about monetary policy. We're talking about one of the most corrupt, if not the most corrupt and conflicted administration this country has ever had. And a lot of people, the average person does not fully understand, even, you know, for me, and I worked in Capitol Hill for many years. I've been in politics for 30 years. Even I don't fully understand everything that the Federal Reserve does or how it works, or monetary policy. And strong dollar policy versus the gold standard versus all of that. That's not my job, but that's the job of the Federal Reserve, and it's the job of the people who are on the committee that make these decisions. Right, the Federal Reserve, the chairman doesn't make unilateral decisions. The decisions are made by committee. However, this administration is choosing people who are political animals, not necessarily, to Juliet's point, economic Monet, policy, intellectual, you know, that have intellectual heft. Jerome Powell was that guy. You know, Ben Bernanke was that guy. You know, you want people who have a steady hand and who are not going to be influenced by the political wins in that position, like, you just don't. And unfortunately, Kevin Warsh is a political guy. Yes, he did marry. Well, you married Ron Lauder's daughter, like Estee Lauder, that guy, the one that's, like, weirdly obsessed with Greenland and is very influential in Donald Trump, Trump's orbit here. That's. That's questionable. You don't want someone like that at the head of the Federal Reserve. You want someone that you're going to feel confident can steer the country in the right direction when, God forbid, we have another financial crisis like we did in 2008. You know, I mean, this, this is just, this is the problem that I have with all of this.

C (33:21)

I agree with you. Mostly. I wanted to ask David a question because you followed the. Maybe the polling on financial stuff. Like, it does strike me that, I mean, people obviously feel gas prices, but, like, this corruption thing, like, whenever I think about what are the signs that our democracy is under stress, it's, you know, it's the suns. I mean, I actually sort of am obsessed with them now. Like, it's just the amount of sort of corruption. Does that. Do people get that or does that have political resonance. Cause it would strike me a very easy thing to go after the corruption as, instead of, say, democracy, which is hard for, or institutionalism, which are hard for people to get.

B (34:03)

Yeah, it's sobering to see how little resonance that has, I think. And, you know, you look at all of these investigative pieces about how much money the Trump family has made since Trump returned to office, and it's just extraordinary. And it seems like people are becoming inured to that, that we have all of these deals involving, yes, the President's sons, other members of his family, involving digital currency and cryptocurrency, all manner of things. And I think people are, if not content to look the other way, just happen to. And it makes me think a lot about the regulatory state, the state that it's in right now. And we had this situation involving Disney and ABC this week, an FCC that's supposed to have five commission members, only has three, and there's one Democrat on it. And I think you see that in a number of major regulators in Washington today. The SEC is not fully staffed. Cftc, it's the same thing. And it's been a rather cunning move, I think, by this administration to note that they can do that. They don't have to fill those seats. They don't have to have as robust a system as you would have had in the past. You're supposed to have by law. I just want to go back to something Tara said, just about the role of the Fed chair, and that he doesn't act unilaterally. I think that that's something that this new Fed chair is going to face when he's confirmed. I think that the President likes to do things quickly or expect results quickly. And as willing as he is to attack Jay Powell, he's been willing to elevate Kevin Warsh as somebody who can kind of do what he wants or take the Fed in the direction he wants it to go in. The principal job of the Fed chair is to manage a committee of more than a dozen people to make these decisions. And so I think it should engender some confidence, at least for the time being, in a lot of people who wonder about what one person, what Kevin Warsh could do to the direction of the Fed, because it still has to be done by committee. Now, I say that as we're awaiting the Supreme Court decision on Lisa Cook, and I think we are at a moment where there could be this kind of further erosion of who is on boards like this one, who is able to serve to the best of his or her ability without the challenge of this administration, rightfully or wrongly. I think that still has yet to be seen. But I do think that the role of Kevin Warsh is going to be limited by the fact that this is something that is determined by the committee.

D (36:11)

Just so that people remember who Lisa Cook is. Lisa Cook is the first black woman to be appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Her term is supposed to be up in 2038. She coincidentally was one of the first people that the Trump administration went after on some trumped up BS charges to try to get her fired off of that board. Now the president cannot directly fire her without cause. So they basically made it up, which is the same thing that they're doing going after, you know, Tish James and others. And she challenged it, obviously, which is what David's talking about, that that's now going all the way up to the Supreme Court where the President can actually do this. And what they're accusing her of is cause for her to be fired because it doesn't have anything to do with her job as the Federal Board of Governors member on the Federal Reserve. This is not happening in a vacuum. They are trying. Who else are they going to go after next here? And I just think that people need to pay attention to whether Kevin Warsh has intestinal fortitude to stand up to the President when he's pressuring him to lower interest rates to try to impact inflation. All of the things that the average person does get, they get interest rates, they get mortgage rates, they get inflation, they get the cost of living things. They don't understand completely how we get there or how it works, but they know the numbers and how it impacts their lives every day. So that becomes the political challenge. Will he stand up to them and stand up to Trump when Trump is raging at 4 o' clock in the morning on truth social media, calling Kevin Warsh, whatever names he decides to call him after he's appointed him. Because let's not forget Donald Trump appointed Jay Powell.

B (37:43)

That's right.

C (37:44)

Yeah.

D (37:45)

Back when there were adults in the room.

A (37:46)

And my general sense about Wash. David, correct me if this is wrong, but the jury is kind of out. Is he a lap dog or might he have the bona fides? I also want to make a point though, about the Supreme Court case. The very reason the Supreme Court has this little difference between cause, which I think everyone agrees they didn't really have for Cook and non cause is the whole pivot point that the Supreme Court has again and again ruled for the Administration saying you have this power over what we thought were independent agencies with the exception of the Fed, for no principled reason really, I think, but just cause, holy shit, we can't do that because Donald Trump would then exercise this power. But the very reason that they have it is what this episode illustrated. It's because there's a tendency for presidents to want to push for higher interest rates in the short term. That's good for them politically, maybe bad for the economy. Exactly what Powell stood up against. And I do want to say, as you said, David, like an improbable kind of gray suited hero. But he really, as much as anyone, just said it straight, including now I'm sticking around when I want to retire because I don't want him to have the power to further corrupt the Fed. Maybe just one quick point on the gas prices and what you said, Julia. It seems like they ain't going down.

C (39:12)

Yeah.

A (39:12)

And there's really a kind of stalemate in Iran. And then you think about the several months that it would take even if they were to go down for things to actually have an impact for Americans. It's not just the gas pump, it's all kinds of industries that rely on, on petroleum products. Is this gonna be the big story heading all the way into the midterms, do you think?

B (39:36)

I was struck by that hearing or the two hearings with the Defense Secretary this week. And a number of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle asked him about the consequences of this war, which as you point out, Harry, is at the stalemate stage. But we've hit the 60 day mark and I think a lot of questions about how long it lasts and what the ideal outcome is for the administration, for all of us. And it was the Secretary's unwillingness to engage with that question of how do you explain to Americans the consequence of this war? That was illuminating to me because I think again, it wasn't just Democrats who were asking that question. I think a lot of Republicans are as well. And it gets to what you're saying, which is we all see that gas prices are directionally going in one way. They've gone up from the beginning of this war and it's record after record and we're seeing the knock on effects of that with products that are made with petrochemicals. We're seeing airlines cutting flights and reckoning with the fact that jet fuel prices are going to go up. So I think it's going to become realer and realer. And yes, there are places around the world where the Hurt has been acute for many weeks now, where the work week is shorter, et cetera. But I think there's a recognition here that absent any articulated strategy, voters of all stripes are going to be wondering why we're in this, why we got in this and where we're heading.

A (40:47)

I just have one final follow up, maybe for you, Tara. First, I do want to say, as David mentions, today is the day that the war becomes, by some people's accounts, triple E, illegal because, because it's the 60 day mark under the War Resolution act that things just have to stop. And it really looks like the administration doesn't care at all. But the political point, unpopular war, unpopular president, and back to the Fed. You saw Thom Tillis play a pretty powerful role here in keeping Powell in and making certain demands that we basically won this short term battle. I wonder what you thought of that. And, you know, it's an illustration that a single Republican senator can have real power here.

C (41:32)

Yeah.

A (41:32)

Do you anticipate more of that and do you see a way in which they're gonna now go after him to try to deter future apostasy?

D (41:45)

Well, you know, I've said this many times that I, I have very little grace for Republicans who have been in power who could have stopped a lot of what Donald Trump has done to this country, both in the first term and this time around. The lack of courage on the part of Republicans, particularly senators who know better, has been one of the biggest failings, I think, in history when it comes to this country and how we got here. These people are, they're the enablers. I blame them. Donald Trump is who he is. The people who enabled him are worse because they could have stopped him. That's nice. Thom Tillis has decided to find his spine and reattach it while he's decided to retire because he has no political consequences to face now. So this courage all of a sudden to stand up and do the right thing is only because he's no longer worried about getting reelected in the moment that we're in and the state of this country, that is a shock to me that now he all of a sudden has become the guy. Well, thanks. Appreciate that. Tom Tillis. It's a little late. It's a little late. I mean, I'm glad it's happening now. Will this catch on? Listen, political figures only respond to when their power is threatened. They are single seekers of reelection. As long as Donald Trump continues to hover in the 30s, you may see some more senators step up, not because they all of a sudden found the conscience and principle. It's because they're worried about losing their speakers seats. And this is the fact that the Senate being in play now has probably come into some folks minds going, oh my God, nobody is safe now with Donald Trump doing all of what he's doing. None of us are safe. So will they do it? We'll see. I'm not going to hold my breath. They welcomed Donald Trump back into the party after he fomented a violent insurrection to try to overturn a free and fair election after January 6th. That was a constitutional challenge that could have been a crisis in this country. People died and it was the worst attack on our capital since the War of 1812.

A (43:50)

So.

D (43:51)

And that didn't stop them.

A (44:00)

All right, it is now time for a spirited debate brought to you by our sponsor, Total Wine and more. Each episode you'll be hearing an expert talk about the pros and cons of a particular issue in the world of wine, spirit and beverages.

E (44:18)

Thank you, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we unbottle the truth about wine. Is there really a right or a wrong way to enjoy it? Wine drinkers near and far have lived by a certain set of written yet unofficial rules to follow, particularly when it comes to pairing wine and food. You've heard a couple of them before. White wine pairs with seafood. Red wine pairs with big ol juicy steaks. And while we like to think of these more as guidelines than rules, some suggestions actually do serve a higher purpose to help your wine get the most from your dish and vice versa. One pairing that's not quite as obvious involves tannins. Tannins are the dryness that you taste and feel in wine. They come from grape seeds, skin or oak barrels. Traditionally, high tannin wines and spicy foods don't pair well together. The dry components of the wine become more pronounced with spice, which makes the food itself taste even hotter than it actually is. From drinking red wine with fish to white wine with beef, we say you do you. But there is one no, no that we wholeheartedly live by. Always. Yes, always hold your glass by the stem and not the bulb. And there are a few reasons why putting your warm hands on the bulb transfers unnecessary heat to the wine. As wine warms up, it will become off balance and you will taste the alcohol more and more. Not to mention you can easily avoid smudges to your beautiful glassware. To truly enjoy wine, you can never go wrong pairing the wonderful selection and helpful guides at Total Wine and More. Cheers.

A (45:47)

Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and More for today's a spirited debate. Okay, there's an end for now. I really want to move to talk a little bit about the White House correspondence dinner, the attempted assassination. But let's start with the dinner because, David, you were there. You know, tell us what you saw.

B (46:08)

Well, the vibes were off from the get go. I think it was raining and there were big protests and the like. But I think all of us journalists were kind of girding ourselves for what we assumed to be a speech where the president was going to eviscerate the media and take us to task. So there we were in our formal wear, our gowns and tuxes.

A (46:24)

Some were planning to walk out before it.

B (46:26)

Yes, I think that there was a big debate about that among the press corps and other participants. What do you stay for? What don't you? So the dinner begins at a level below the lobby. There's a concourse with rooms off of the entire thing. News organizations rent them out and have parties of their own. You had to flash an email invite to get to that level. And in each of those rooms, you would pick up your paper ticket to get into the event itself. Security. I've been to a few of these. I don't have a memory of what it was like before, but we were kind of funneled through a magnetometer. There was a TSA agent in TSA dress in the blue shirt, guided us through some security around him. And then something I noticed immediately was just how packed that ballroom is. I think it seats 2,600 people. So I was on the outer rim of it. But there's a big well with tons of tables. And as we learned as the night unfolded, no real egress for a lot of people. There was no aisle because it was so packed. Handful of speeches, national anthem, we're having our salad course, kind of waiting for the event to pick up once again. And then I, in the back of the room, heard the noises, the five shots. And then what happened was extremely eerie. Security busted in through the doors and again, because there were no aisles, began kind of clambering over chairs and tables to get to the front of the room and to extract members of the Cabinet. And I should say that was something that stood out to me from the get go. How many members of the Cabinet were there? The fact that Vice President Vance was there with President Trump was a surprise, I think, to everybody at my table. We weren't expecting that. And what I'll remember always after that is just the eerie quiet of that. And then how long we had to wait for any kind of indication of A, what had happened or B, what we should do next. So I think it took probably 15 minutes before finally security came in back where we were and urged us, told us to leave and we went back to the lobby just to wait. But then there was this kind of ambiguity about what had happened and speculation that the President wanted to come back and speak. So I'll remember the chaos of it. Of course, things could have been much worse than they were in the end. But as I think everyone here has seen, a lot of speculation about the merits of having this dinner and sort of what it means going forward. Of course, the President wants to do it again here within 30 days. I think that's unlikely. But a strange event from the get go and one that I think was incredibly sobering for a lot of us who were there by the end.

A (48:43)

And Juliet, is it newfangled in any way for you? There are a couple pieces in the Atlantic, one by you and one by a colleague saying this is a era of normie extremism, that we're changing the theme. What do you, in your particular professional focus make of this? And as you say, repeating your piece, there's no way people don't understand it. To get risk down to zero. What do you make of it in terms of prevention of attacks?

C (49:11)

Yeah, I mean, and so one would be sort of, you know, offense and prevention and the other would be sort of, can we set these things up so just quickly, like there's elements to him that are familiar. The sort of lost generation of men. I mean, in this way, sort of like the Killer eight Brown universe sort of had an expectation of how life would be. It's not that. Right. He's at home. He's getting more and more into gaming. That gaming just about 18 months ago, turns to political. He aligns with the left. The left, whatever he's listening to seems to encourage him or encourages his own radicalization that then moves to violence. I want to be very clear, those are distinct moments. It's not like you start reading leftist stuff and then you become a violent assassin. But there is that very, very short Runway in terms of his radicalization. That is news and that is the normalization that we talk about. That that movement towards violence is just so quick now and so almost impossible to interrupt unless family and friends come forward. And there's some reporting that at least one of the family members did. On the defense side, I'm much more, you know, what David described, it's very traumatic to people the vice president thing should not have been the case. I really think that's a week two story from. For any journalists who are listening, like, when was that decision made and did that change the security footprint? Because from my perspective, I know how the Secret Service works. If you notice, they move the vice President out first. That's because only the president has a protected exit out. So people say, why did they keep Trump? It is because they needed to secure the protected exit. That's fine. Once they're surrounding him in the room, he's safe. He was always safe. So I'm sort of curious about that from a security viewpoint. But look, I am not politicizing this by saying the White House's politicization of this vis a vis the ballroom, the Comey. I think these are all consistent. The Comey issue and Jimmy Kimmel, all three of those happened within four days of the event. That politicization of assassination totally on the White House is why assassination attempts can become normalized. Right. In other words, if the White House took them much more seriously, which I do, it's like I'm literally like, how could I be taking this more seriously than a White House is just trying to promote a ballroom out of this? I want to be clear here, though. He was. From my perspective, as I wrote, we have a security perimeter. At some stage, that security perimeter is going to be soft. Sadly for David, he was closer to the soft side than the hard side. But at some stage, it's going to be soft. You can close down a whole hotel. You got the streets nearby. As I wrote, you can fortify a nuclear facility, but you can't fortify all the skies. So, yes, we want to assess the security perimeter. Yes, we want to assess who's in that perimeter. Maybe there were too many folks, but I don't leave something like this saying, that's definitely a security failure. There's a lot of things that go into planning for this. And as Harry hinted, I am a big fan of events, of togetherness, of community. That's how I spend my time. Security is the easy part. Cause it's just like we call them the three GS, guns, gates and guards. Right. I know how to close something down very, very quickly. The challenge is, is that we live in a democracy. We live in a time that we want to have more engagement. Cause we're so isolated from each other. So those were just my thoughts. And we're now a week out. I think the New York Times and other. I think the video that was released today suggests that it was not friendly fire. He did get one. He did get one shot out.

A (52:57)

And that would make the six along with David. I just want to say, having been both there as a guest and lived very close to there when I was in D.C. yeah, a couple of things that are distinctive. First, he checked in the day before and they sort of missed that. And second, it seems to me, as you're saying, Julia, the you just did have been really at political extremes. And he's. Well, he's a very bizarre guy, I think. But there are ways in which he's certainly not at the very far left. It just makes the effort to try to prevent already daunting. It just seems, wow, how can law enforcement go about it? So much more to say about this, but we're about out of time, so I think we've got to leave it for the next week. We just have a minute for five words or fewer where we take a question and each has to answer in five words or fewer. So we had the big visit from the King this week and they had. He and Trump had a few sort of private moments. The question is, in these little tete a tetes, what did Trump say to the King? Anybody? Five words or fewer.

C (54:10)

Is that your first wife? Thank you.

D (54:16)

That's very good.

C (54:16)

Thank you to listeners. I was laughing at myself. Cause I never tell jokes and this came up and I was like, thank you all for laughing. I never get laugh lines.

D (54:27)

All right, I've got one. Charles. I prefer King Trump.

B (54:34)

Mine's along those lines. The man I'd like your job I

C (54:37)

think is the same.

A (54:38)

No elections. And I'm going with I never hung with. Andrew, thank you so much, David, Juliet and Tara. And thank you very much, listeners for tuning in to Talking Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review the show. Check us out on substack@harrylittman.substack.com where I'll be posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to code, constitutional norms and the rule of law. Paid Substack subscribers can now get Talking Feds episodes completely ad free. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube where we are posting full episodes and my daily takes on top legal stories. Talking Feds has joined forces with the contrarian. I'm a founding contributor to this bold new media venture committed to reviving driving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare. In today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Find out more@contrarian.substack.com thanks for tuning in, and don't worry, as long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Lou Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hamsam Hadrinathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers and production assistants by Akshaj Turbailu. Our music, as ever, is by the amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Deledo llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.