DC National Guard Deployment Extended into 2026

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Beat with Ari Melber

Episode: DC National Guard Deployment Extended into 2026

Date: October 31, 2025
Host: Ari Melber

---

Overview

This episode focuses on the political and constitutional turmoil surrounding the Trump administration’s decision to extend the deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., and other states into 2026. Ari Melber investigates the public justification (or lack thereof) for the move, discusses the broader implications for civil liberties and democracy, and connects it to other Trump administration actions, including controversial pardons and financial entanglements. The episode features commentary from Rev. Al Sharpton, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, and voices from the National Guard, as well as a wider look at how dissent and protest remain crucial in this political moment.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. National Guard Deployment Extended Without Clear Basis

• Host Analysis (01:08–07:58)

  • Scope & Orders: Thousands of National Guard troops in DC have had their deployment extended “open-ended,” with Pentagon directives to create “quick reaction forces” across states, trained in crowd control.
  • Lack of Emergency: Melber clarifies there is no ongoing emergency, unrest, or apparent crisis to justify such presence.
  • Constitutional Violations: Emphasizes constitutional limits on military presence in civilian life:

    “It is un-American in the sense that our Constitution forbids quartering soldiers and having soldiers in our lives and cities indefinitely.” (03:29)

• Reported Excesses:

  • References video of an ICE agent assaulting a protester in Colorado, raising concerns about federal law enforcement overreach and inadequate training for civilian policing roles.

2. Political Analysis with Rev. Al Sharpton

• Commentary (07:58–12:49)
  • On Trump’s Motives:

    “Donald Trump is having his ultimate dream of having the trappings of a ruler slash dictator... feeding his self image that I am king.” (07:58)

  • Disconnected Justification:

    “There’s really no evidence that there’s a functional reason, for example, for Washington, D.C. for the military and the guards to stay there till next year.” (08:01)

  • Citizens Bear the Cost: The public is funding its own oppression.
  • On Protest and Democratic Pressure:

    “The more we turn the heat up, the more they'll sweat in Washington.” (12:49)

  • Role of Courts: The Supreme Court has temporarily blocked Chicago deployments, evidencing ongoing legal challenges.

3. Corruption, Profiteering, and Crypto Scandals

• Reporting (14:48–21:50)

  • Trump Family Business Entanglements:

    • Backroom deals between Trump’s family business and crypto giant Binance (whose founder was pardoned by Trump).
    • Allegations of “pay to play” deals, with The Journal reporting Trump’s family has profited nearly a billion dollars through crypto after these pardons and arrangements.
    • Lack of DOJ oversight or special counsel investigation despite clear conflicts of interest.

  • Partisan Double Standards:

    • Contrasts the aggressive congressional scrutiny of Hunter Biden’s business dealings with the lack of similar oversight for Trump’s family’s more egregious actions.
    • Quote from an Oversight Committee Republican:

      “The difference between the way the Trump family's operating and the Biden family is... they're admitting they're doing this... So as long as you disclose your income and disclose the sources, I think that's acceptable.”

    • Ari Melber fact-checks:

      “Fact check, false, it's not acceptable to the law. Disclosing, for example, corrupt activities or bribes or profiteering is not legally acceptable.” (18:40)

4. Trump’s Trade War and Economic Fallout

• Paul Krugman Segment (24:17–33:05)
  • Trade War Results:

    “We lost the trade war because the tariff policies inflicted three types of damage: higher prices... economic uncertainty... the global loss of American credibility.” (23:19)

  • Krugman’s Analysis:
    • The US “backed down” to China, trading away tech leverage for minimal concessions.
    • Tariff revenue claims are misleading:

      “A tariff is a tax… It’s a sales tax just on a selected set of goods... all of this is being borne by American consumers, partly by American businesses.” (28:31)

  • AI Tech Bubble?:
    • Krugman compares the current AI boom (Nvidia’s rise) to the dot-com bubble:

      “I've been around for a while and there is 1999 vibes here... It is scary just how much, I mean, depending upon exactly how you cut the numbers... basically, the US economy would be certainly borderline in recession if it wasn't for all of this AI spending.” (31:51)

5. On-the-Ground Troop Resistance: Voice from the National Guard

• Interview with Demi Palacek (35:16–37:22)
  • Speaking Out:

    “I've been in the military for 14 years. I didn't join for this. I joined to be a humanitarian and to help our country, not be against our neighbors...” (35:21)

  • Troop Sentiment:
    • Many National Guard members, especially those from immigrant backgrounds, feel uncomfortable being deployed against their own communities.
    • Palacek reports increased anxiety among her fellow soldiers and support for her decision to speak out, despite receiving threats.
  • Protest Matters:

    “That's how me as a woman got the right to vote. That's how gay marriage was passed. I think we have to keep protesting and pushing back on the administration...” (37:09)

6. Artistic Dissent & Expression in Troubled Times

• Conversation with Jeremy O. Harris & Jordan Tannehill (39:24–44:36)
  • On the Role of Art & Loud Opposition:

    “I should always be as loud and as proud and as complex as I am, no matter the audience…” (Jeremy O. Harris, 39:24)

  • Legal Threats to LGBTQ Rights:

    “They're trying to get rid of miscegenation and they're trying to get rid of gay marriage. To what ends? We still can't actually say, but we can feel what that might be… We cannot hide in the shadows and pretend as though we are not fighting an enemy who is going guns blazing at us and our personhood and our identity.” (Jeremy O. Harris, 41:12)

  • Playwright’s Intent (Tannehill):
    • Explores the concept of queer childhood and the importance of representation, even when discourse is inflammatory.
    • On Prince F:

      “It was more about trying to understand what it. How we give language, talk about the idea, even the idea of queer childhood, you know... That’s such a kind of inflammatory discourse, particularly for this moment that we’re in.” (44:13)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Ari Melber (on constitutional norms):

  "The Constitution does not view the military as the place for a president to bend the people to his will." (06:53)

• Rev. Al Sharpton (on protest):

  "Thermometers are politicians. They see what the temperature is. Thermostats change the temperature, we turn the heat up." (12:46)

• Paul Krugman (on trade war):

  "We have traded our reputation, our leverage in the world, and possibly the future of the technological race for a hill of beans." (26:10)

• Demi Palacek (National Guard member):

  "I didn't join for this. I joined to be a humanitarian and to help our country, not be against our neighbors, our culture, or anyone in our communities." (35:21)

• Jeremy O. Harris (on artistic dissent):

  “We cannot hide in the shadows and pretend as though we are not fighting an enemy who is going guns blazing at us and our personhood and our identity.” (41:12)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:08] – Ari Melber introduces the National Guard deployment extension and its constitutional implications.
• [07:58] – Rev. Al Sharpton discusses Trump’s motives and the deeper meaning of military deployment.
• [09:45] – Sharpton and Melber on the disconnect between stated emergencies and facts on the ground in D.C.
• [11:42] – Impact of protests and history of civil rights movements.
• [14:48] – Melber covers Trump’s family business deals, crypto profiteering, and double standards in political oversight.
• [24:17] – Paul Krugman on trade war outcomes, tariffs, and the shadow of a tech bubble.
• [35:16] – Interview with Demi Palacek, Illinois National Guard, on resisting orders to police fellow Americans.
• [39:24] – Jeremy O. Harris and Jordan Tannehill discuss artistic provocation, protest, and the political moment for queer artists.

---

Tone & Language

The episode combines Ari Melber’s sharp legal and journalistic analysis with candid, at times passionate, commentary from experienced guests. Direct, clear, and at moments urgent, the tone conveys a sense of constitutional crisis, the weight of historical precedent, and an insistence on holding leaders to account through both activism and informed discussion.

---

Summary

“The Beat with Ari Melber” delivers a comprehensive, urgent look at the Trump administration’s extended military deployments in American cities, analyzing their legality, political motivations, and real-world impacts. Through conversations with civil rights leaders, economists, National Guard members, and artists, the episode underscores the erosion of democratic norms, the dangers of unchecked executive power, and the critical role of protest and cultural dissent. Listeners are left with a multidimensional view of how policy, protest, art, and personal courage converge in moments of democratic strain.

Transcript

[Jenny Slate]

Hi, I'm Jenny Slate and believe it.

[Ari Melber]

Or not, someone is allowing us to have a podcast. I'm Gabe Liedman. I'm Max Silvestri and we've been friends for 20 years and we like to.

[Jordan Tannehill]

Reach out to kind of get advice.

[Ari Melber]

On how to live our lives. It's called I need you guys. Should I give my baby fresh vegetables?

[Jenny Slate]

Can I drink the water at the hospital?

[Ari Melber]

My landlord plays the trombone and I can't ask him to stop.

[Jenny Slate]

You should make sure that you subscribe.

[Ari Melber]

So that you never miss an episode. I need to go.

[On Deck / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

I like things my way. My coffee, my schedule, and my treatment. So I talked to my doctor about self injecting with the Vivgard Hytrulo pre filled syringe, which contains fgartegamide alpha and hyaluronidase qvfc. It's injected under your skin subcutaneously. It means I can inject in my space on my time. It's my treatment, my way. Visit vivgartmyway.com that's V Y V G A R T my way.com and talk to your doctor about Vivgard Hytrulo. Brought to you by Argenics.

[Ari Melber]

Welcome to the Beat. I'm Ari Melber and tonight, let's just start with what's actually happening. Indefinite, unending troops in the streets, military rule. If that sounds harsh, if it sounds even hyperbolic, and we all know the media sometimes can seem that way, that is the update to what Donald Trump is already doing, but what he now says quite clearly out in the open, he wants to continue to do, which is to have the troops in the streets through next year. So while you can debate whether this or that city has this or that problem, that could be fixed in a week or two or a month, now he's just saying no, he wants the troops out on the streets for a long time. I can't say indefinite. I mean, eventually this term comes to an end. He's a lame duck, second term president, but thousands of National Guard troops already patrolling Washington are receiving these formal extended orders and here's how they're reported, quote, open ended. I'm going to leave this up for a second because again, we live in a time where people debate each other and you say, well, was the news anchor, was he exaggerating? Is this against Trump? No, this is what they say they want. It is un American in the sense that our Constitution forbids quartering soldiers and having soldiers in our lives and cities indefinitely. But it is literally what the extension now is so Trump's National Guard DC Deployment extends into next year without any basis that we would know. There's not some ongoing occupation or terrorism or riots that we would normally use the Guard for. There's not some giant unrest, ongoing basis. But the extension is, quote, open ended until the mission is considered complete, which is up to the government. The Pentagon is ordering the Guard to also create what they're calling quick reaction forces. And this would be all over the place in every state where 500 soldiers and groups will get non lethal training and crowd control, handling of detainees, use of batons, stun guns and body shields. That, according to the Wall Street Journal's reporting, an outlet, of course, owned by Rupert Murdoch, part of the Fox News empire, also getting sued by Donald Trump right now. But that's the Journal's take. So even for those skeptical about where the sourcing is coming from and whether this is all as bad as it sounds, I can tell you, according to the Journal, it is as bad as it sounds. Because while training is generally a good thing and a lot of people advocate that anyone doing policing or crowd control should be trained, remember we're talking about the military and there are a bunch of other more fitting layers of government that are actually already trained to do that work. It's the local police, sometimes it's the state marshals, it's the people who report up locally to your local governor and representatives, which again is in the Constitution that policing power should first always be as close to the people as possible. There are federal crimes and they are of course investigated by the FBI. But when you deal with most crimes, it's your local police that you're dealing with in your local courts. That's how it's always been. So it is noticeably odd against the backdrop of the president also wanting an indefinite presence in the capital of the military, that now they want the military to be able to do more of this. How's it going? Well, we've had scenes of violence that raise the question of whether it is the presence of some of the agents themselves that are causing the danger in these local places they're patrolling. There is video surfacing of an ICE agent basically assaulting a 57 year old woman during lawful first amendment protected protests of what ICE was doing in Colorado, arresting another individual. And this eventually came to a head apparently because the woman was sort of, you might say, trolling or badgering the agent. Remember, whether you agree with how people talk to the police or the federal agents in this country, that's your right, your First Amendment right. You can criticize them, you can ask them questions. This is the exchange. So you think the woman you are. Oh, gee, I cannot take my phone. You cannot.

[Paul Krugman]

Oh, that's illegal, sir. That's.

[Rev Al Sharpton]

Hey, hey, hey, hey.

[Commercial Voice]

You need to get off of her right now.

[Ari Melber]

And you can see it go forward like that. It is a disturbing image. And while we always caution when we do reporting that you have to look at the before and after. This is a clip. If this were a court of law, you would need to know more before whether you could say whether the agent there had violated the law. It certainly doesn't look like responsible patrol and policing. And most of these federal agents aren't usually, as I reminded you, dealing with local policing. So maybe they're making more mistakes, violating policy, hurting people. And maybe this work should go back to the normal process of local policing. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker asking the dhs, as Nicole Wallace recently reported, to pause operations, at least during the Halloween celebration. I've sent a letter to Kristi Noem and to the Department of Homeland Security leadership asking them to pause all of their federal agent operations for the entirety of the Halloween weekend. I'm asking for basic human decency.

[Paul Krugman]

Show us this is about something other.

[Ari Melber]

Than you just causing mayhem. Governor there alleging that they are trying to cause mayhem. Now, a lot of these agents have a job. They work for the federal government and they're being sent these places. And some of them may just be trying to do the job and get by. It is a fact when you look at these situations, for every terrible video, there may be a hundred other agents honestly just trying to get through the day. But the policies are suspect to begin with. The Constitution does not view federal power as something that is the first resort for policing the public, nor the military, which is supposed to protect us from foreign enemies and protect the borders and protect us in war. Constitution does not view the military as the place for a president to bend the people to his will. I'm joined by Reverend Al Sharpton, who's the host of Politics Nation on msnbc. He's the founder of the National Action Network. He's of course, a longtime civil rights activist. And around New York he's known Donald Trump or all the different versions of Donald Trump. What do you see in this bending of military powers?

[Rev Al Sharpton]

I think that Donald Trump is having his ultimate dream of, of having the trappings of a ruler slash dictator. Because there's really no evidence that there's a functional reason, for example, for Washington D.C. for the military and the guards to Stay there till next year. There's not been any roundup of a lot of people there that should not have been there illegally. There have been incidents, as we saw in Colorado. There was another one in Chicago. So you have to say they're not doing this to stem a tide of crime or of illegal people there. So what are you doing? You're feeding his self image that I am king. That's why I wanted the military parade that nobody came to. That's why in the middle of a government shutdown and people losing snap, I'm going to spend $300 million on a ballroom because I am king. And that's what we're looking at. And the sickness of it is that these citizens are paying for themselves being the victims of this kind of delusional power.

[Ari Melber]

Yeah, these are your tax dollars. I wonder about the almost the. Whether you call it existential. That's a nice word, or absurdly hypocritical premise of all this for Trump, because they say it's an emergency, they say it's a rebellion, they say it's unrest. But if it were any of those things, why don't we see that? Why isn't there evidence of that? And in the case of dc, as emphasized, it can't just be an emergency forever unending into next year. If you go to D.C. and you and I are there all the time, we got reports from there. They got a lot of soldiers around, but it's a pretty quiet, peaceful streets.

[Rev Al Sharpton]

And when you look at the fact. Take D.C. for example. When I've been in and out of there, they're mostly in Georgetown and in other areas that there's not. Not only high crime, there's not a lot of, quote, illegal people there. So what emergency? When did the emergency start?

[Commercial Voice]

When?

[Rev Al Sharpton]

Where does it end? And how do you gauge the emergency? Oh, but we're really not there for an emergency. It's all kinds of window dressing. And again, it's to play to his ego that he's a military ruler and that he is in charge. And it's also to try and assuage the public that they're doing something. And I think that we really need to be more vocal about this, and taxpayers, particularly now, when we're seeing shutdowns and snap money, I mean, we're seeing real problems.

[Ari Melber]

Well, that goes to the protest, which is something you've done your whole life. Rachel's talked about the power of it. I've heard you say, do you want to be a thermometer or a thermostat Right, right. Because you can change the temperature. And the Supreme Court and these courts, they have rules, but everyone's noticed that. Sometimes they look around and they're trying to get a sense of where the country is. And the court right now is blocking Chicago. And they're not. Trump administration's not violating that. They're following that. And these troops have an obligation to follow that. But the Washington Post reports Supreme Court asked for more briefs on the Chicago deployment. The justices won't rule at least till mid November, which leaves Trump's troop deployment blocked until they rule, because that's what the lower courts have done. Where does that fit in that the protests, no kings, people saying this is not okay, this is not American. As the courts look around and figure out and what's the breaking point? And in fairness, I want to say, you don't just slap the president's hand the first day of a deployment. I don't care what party. If the president on day one does something with the military, throughout our history, you usually leave it. But on day 30 and day 60, the courts eventually are going to have to adjudicate.

[Rev Al Sharpton]

No. I think that the marches, the protests, whether it was no kings, where there's been other union protests, whether it's what we did on the Wall street protest that is necessary. If you look at American history, just the last half century civil rights movement, we got the Civil Rights act of 64, Civil Rights Voting Rights act of 65, by marching in Birmingham, by marching in Selma, Alabama. We didn't get it in the cloak room in the Capitol. The same thing with women's movements. Women's liberation movement in the streets is what changed the laws. Same thing we've seen in terms of war and poverty. So I think that it is the eruption of these movements of different races, different ages that will make the courts. And everybody has to say, wait a minute, we've got to look at this more fairly. And as you quoted, which I always use thermometers or thermostats. Thermometers are politicians. They see what the temperature is. Thermostats change the temperature, we turn the heat up. And the more we turn the heat up, the more they'll sweat in Washington.

[Ari Melber]

Hmm, well put. And that's what I wanted, your view on the, on the dynamics here. Thank you to Rev Al, as always, Politics Nation, 5pm weekends Eastern. You can check that out by the.

[Jeremy O. Harris]

End of the hour.

[Ari Melber]

We have a National Guard member who is protesting exactly what Trump is demanding they do. Policing neighbors, that'd be an interesting perspective, we think. Also Republicans rebuking Donald Trump, at least on trade. The Nobel winner Paul Krugman is here tonight with his wisdom and candor. I'm looking forward to that. But after this 90 second break, I'm going to give you my takedown and breakdown of the profiteering the Crypto the BS that's next.

[Pandora Advertiser]

Pandora makes it easy for you to find your favorite music, discover new artists and genres by selecting any song or album, and we'll make you a personalized station for free download on the Apple App Store or Google Play and enjoy the soundtrack to your life.

[Ari Melber]

It's Cybersecurity awareness month and LifeLock is here with tips to help protect your identity. Use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication and report phishing scams. And for comprehensive identity protection, LifeLock is your best choice. LifeLock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected with a 30 day free trial at lifelock.com Special offer terms apply Cash Flow.

[Commercial Voice]

Crunch On Deck Small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it, cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment. Get funded quickly and confidently. Apply [e-mail] funds could be available as soon as tomor depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by On Deck or Celtic Bank On Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans in amount subject to lender approval.

[Ari Melber]

Let's turn to the profiteering Donald Trump is doing many things differently in the second term, and while he's made many pledges to disassociate from business during office, saying he would be hands off and a lot of other vows, it is far worse now in the first year, the second term, than his first term. There's a backroom deal between the Trump family and a crypto figure that has been pardoned, the founder of the crypto giant Binance the Journal reporting that around the time of the election, associates there who'd been convicted of money laundering began discussions with Trump allies, saying they wanted to, quote, find a solution to Binance's legal troubles in the US and offering a deal with the Trump family business. Now that is sorted. It sounds like pay to play. It sounds like a conflict of interest. Whether legally it meets the definition of quid pro quo, bribery would have to be investigated. There are no signs that the doj is doing that. Indeed, in a traditional era or a time where a different party controlled Congress, you might hear a lot more demands to have a special counsel appointed to independently investigate whether the president or people around him are compromised. Again, we don't know the answers, but we can see the problems following Trump's win. The Binance folks reportedly helped build the Trump family's crypto, which they're currently using not to make thousands or hundreds of thousands, not to make millions, but allegedly billions. There's a lot of secrecy around exactly how much they're striking business deals that according to some estimates, are over a billion dollars in total. And then you have, of course, that pardon. And this comes at a time where a lot of Republicans are still criticizing Biden's pardons because of how he signed them. Apparently, they don't have concerns about this one, at least not publicly. Reuters reporting that the Trump family's crypto profits are also approaching a billion. You see right here. That's again, not even the year done. 800 million coming from Trump crypto ventures, including these so called tokens. Now, some of this, to be clear and fair, relates to Trump's family. We don't know whether all of the family money would go back to him. That's why it might be a conflict of interest. You remember there was talk about whether Hunter Biden should be on a board. Well, this dwarfs that by many, many, many scales of millions and hundreds of millions. Now, I want to show you from just recently the Biden era, where the top Republican on the Oversight Committee went on and on about whether the Hunter Biden business operations compromised President Biden. The President's son and his brother have definitely committed the Foreign Agents Registration act violation. That's a felony. Any American who has a fraction of the violations of the law that Hunter Biden has would have already been indicted. You're politically connected to elected officials at the highest level, then you're going to get by. Now, those were the criticisms as for how the system was working. Well, Hunter Biden was not actually convicted of anything related to corruption and he was thoroughly investigated. He was ultimately investigated and indicted on those charges around gun paperwork and some other personal problems he'd had. But remember, that's because the DOJ under that administration had independent probes. Your name or being the same party's administration did not excuse you from investigation and oversight. Now listen to the same Congressman, while Trump does this stuff with his family that is obviously worse. I showed you the Journal reporting and there's no suggestion that the DOJ or anyone is doing oversight to protect you, the taxpayer from this kind of corruption. But suddenly he says it's okay. And wait till you hear the reason. The difference between the way the Trump family's operating in the and the Biden family is you. They're admitting they're doing this. The president campaigned as a business guy. So as long as you disclose your income and disclose the sources, I think that's acceptable. Fact check, false, it's not acceptable to the law. Disclosing, for example, corrupt activities or bribes or profiteering is not legally acceptable. Now, he may say that politically he just doesn't want to apply the same standards to his side as the other side. And remember, we've seen that type of double talk from both parties. For sure in the Biden era. The process worked. But the president did ultimately use his power to pardon his son. You may recall it was near the end of the tenure. And that itself was a controversial and debatable thing. Big picture, that DOJ and that administration still followed ethics rules and allowed and stood by the independent process to play out, which is important whether you think someone should end up in jail or not, because it protects the taxpayer. You have investigations whether someone's pardoned or not. You can break up these other criminals problems if they exist. Here we have the opposite, basically open season announcement from the person who's supposed to claim the Republica there that he's against corruption. That's what he was against last term. Now saying disclose it and it's fine, whatever it is. And a DOJ that is closed for business when it comes to protecting you, the taxpayer from the politicians potential corruption. Now we have a lot coming up. A National Guard member who is speaking out against President Trump and the Chicago deployment orders. That guest joins me later. Heat on the shutdown issues and Mitch McConnell and other top Republicans getting into it. And of all the issues you might disagree with Trump right now on, for them it's trade. Why does that matter? As we see more cracks in this lame duck president's first term. Well, Paul Krugman, the Nobel winning economist is next. Is Donald Trump's trade war working? Well, he returned to the US following this summit with the Chinese presidency, claiming wins. The Times reports China was actually practicing, quote, the art of letting Trump claim a win while walking away stronger. They get the benefits, according to the Times, while the US Gets the spin. Withholding soybean purchases and rare earth exports. China actually extracted relief from the US Tariffs without conceding much in return. Part of the deal or something else? Trump retreated on the strongest tariffs. Politico reports on the fact that this seemed to be more about headlines than results for Americans. Quote, as ever, Politico reports Trump's rhetoric is strong, but the detail is somewhat lacking. Some criticism.

[Jeremy O. Harris]

It appears to most reasonable observers that.

[Paul Krugman]

Donald Trump was punked on the world.

[Ari Melber]

Stage by the Chinese Communist Party. The notion that Donald Trump has created all of this trouble for the American people, which he has.

[Jeremy O. Harris]

The Trump tariffs are raising costs on everyday Americans by thousands of dollars per year.

[Ari Melber]

So we showed you the evidence and the Times reporting and we showed you the top Democrats criticism. You might say, okay, well wait a minute. What about the like minded Republicans? Well, it's rare to criticize Trump in this gop, but there are high level defections in the Senate including actually doing something about it. Republicans voting to block Trump's tariffs, saying basically they don't make sense and trying to restore congressional authority over some parts of trade. House Republicans are expected to join what is a rare effort to actually use their power to stop Trump. On something interesting that it's something revolving around immediate economics which can be harder to spin than some of the other debates we've had lately. Paul Krugman, the Nobel economist I mentioned, writes, we lost the trade war because the tariff policies inflicted three types of damage, higher prices for American producers and consumers. That's you if you're watching this inside the US Economic uncertainty, he writes, and quote, the global loss of American credibility. All that against a shutdown that continues when the Republicans control both political branches. Health care costs will go up under Trump policies. Many now working without their federal paychecks and food benefits running out.

[Jenny Slate]

I'm only down to one pack of.

[Paul Krugman]

Chicken and I don't even know what.

[Ari Melber]

I'm going to do for the next months.

[Jordan Tannehill]

One word to describe how you're feeling right now.

[Paul Krugman]

Stressful. That's what it feels like is that we're being punished for needing the assistance or needing the help.

[Jenny Slate]

I just hope and pray that they.

[Ari Melber]

Don'T shut it down because a lot.

[Jenny Slate]

Of people and I and a lot of mothers that are really dependent on the SNAP benefits.

[Ari Melber]

My son won't have his milk and we won't have food.

[Jenny Slate]

I'll go without eating or anything as long as my kids eat.

[Ari Melber]

This is about real people. It's not just numbers or policy debates in D.C. paul Krugman has been writing clearly about this. The expert here is our guest. When we come back, do you think that we will have a crash or not?

[On Deck / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

The answer is we will have a crash.

[Ari Melber]

I Just can't tell you when, and I can't tell you how deep, but I can assure you, unfortunately, I wish I wasn't saying this. We will have a crash. We will have a crash and we may lose a trade war that's already lost, according to some. Paul Krugman is the Nobel winning economist, longtime author of textbooks, New York Times columns, and now the Paul Krugman substack where he has confronted this second term Trump administration with clarity and candor. The latest piece, how we lost the trade war. Welcome back, Professor. You're better at the complex economics. I, as you know, can read. So I noticed that it says loss, not losing. Let's start there. Why is this, in your view, factually already lost?

[Paul Krugman]

Okay, Think of this as a contest of will's contest of leverage. United States versus China. Who backed down, really? And the answer is America backed down or Trump backed down? Because it turned out that, yeah, the Trump tariffs were a problem for China, but China cutting off our access to rare earths was a bigger deal. And also the Chinese kind of have a idea of what they want. And it's kind of, you know, under Biden, lots of criticism, but we were pretty serious about confronting China, trying to deny them the most advanced technology. Trump is apparently gonna let them buy advanced chips, and in return, they say they're gonna buy some soybeans. So we have traded our reputation, our leverage in the world, and possibly the future of the technological race for a hill of beans.

[Ari Melber]

Hill of beans. Did China have better cards or is Trump bad at playing this card game?

[Paul Krugman]

Well, China did have better cards. The fact of the matter, which Trump should have understood, somebody should have understood, which is that, look, losing some access to the US Market is hard, but the Chinese can turn to other sources. Conjuring up a strategic industry like rare earths from a standing start is not something you can do right away. So we entered this in a weak position, but also there was just no clarity. And Trump never had a clear goal in these tariffs. And one of the big strengths of the United States has always been that we have allies, that we were the leader of the free world in a very real sense. But we have now alienated, I guess technical term is pissed off everybody who should be on our side here. I mean, as all of this was going on, Trump was slapping tariffs on Canada because the Canadian province of Ontario ran a TV ad that made him feel bad. I mean, we've really lost our credibility on the world stage completely over this.

[Ari Melber]

Yeah, it sounds like you're saying he he was very emotional, which is no way to lead, we're told. I want to show you what the Trump officials are saying. And professor, as you know, we follow the evidence here and we fact check and we have a lot of people on. So in this second term, which, which has been rocky for the reasons you mentioned, among others, I've had several Trump officials on. This is Peter Navarro, who's a White House trade official, and he said on this program that there is revenue from the tariffs that they've been doing. I want to play this for you and have you walk us through the actual economic data and facts. Take a look. The beautiful things that we've learned about.

[Rev Al Sharpton]

Tariffs is they actually raise substantial revenues. And we're turning what looked like to be a fiscal cliff and a deficit that was going to go out of.

[Ari Melber]

Control into something we're going to be.

[Rev Al Sharpton]

Able to pay down to the 2 and 3 and $4 billion trillion dollars.

[Ari Melber]

So you feel like this is working for the even though you didn't get all the deals that you vowed. I mean, we don't have 90 deals. Wait a minute. I think we've done beautifully. Professor.

[Paul Krugman]

Okay. A tariff is a tax. Taxes raise revenue. Big surprise. You know, incredible accomplishment. If someone, some president imposed a national sales tax and it raised some revenue, would Republicans be pronouncing that as a policy triumph? And that's basically what this is. It's a sales tax just on a selected set of goods which are ones we happen to buy from abroad. We know that foreigners haven't paid the tariffs because we can look at the prices that foreigners are charging there. It's a readily available series of import prices, and it has not gone down. Foreigners have not cut prices to offset the tariffs. So all of this is being borne partly by American consumers, partly by American businesses which have absorbed some of the tariffs, although that won't go on for very long because they can't afford to. This is, you know, the idea that there's some magical thing that saying we raised taxes and we got some revenue out of it, as if that was a victory on the world stage. You know, it would be funny except that these are the people actually running the country.

[Ari Melber]

Yeah. And you make the point clearly turning away from government policy and even the politics just generally, AI has become a giant part of, of the expectations on Wall Street. The AI chips which power all these things, ChatGPT and other programs people are familiar with are produced by one of the big companies, Nvidia, which is the first company in world history to reach $5 trillion, I mean it's hard to even understand what that means to most of us. $5 trillion on the actual stocks. Are they, is it possible to say that they are overvalued? Are you concerned? Nice cat there. Are you concerned? Walk us through how you think about this. Just in the dollars and cents of what's happening in these top tech stocks that are driving most of the current gains across the whole market.

[Paul Krugman]

Okay. The way I think of Nvidia is, you know, there's a gold rush on and they are basically selling picks and shovels to the gold miners. They're not actually selling AI, they're selling the gear that you use to produce AI, which is a little bit better. The fact of the matter, we have seen very little evidence that people are willing to pay a lot for AI. The technology there's a lot of nobody knows just how much it's going to do. But so far it's hard to see how this ends up producing remotely enough revenue now that eventually blows back. Nvidia chips won't be worth as much if people decide, oops, we've been building too many data centers. So we don't know that. It's almost always impossible to be sure that something is a bubble. Housing bubble was obviously a bubble and the dot com bubble, this one is a little more complicated but there's definitely. I've been around for a while and there is 1999 vibes here. Clear sense that we have a genuinely impressive technology. But it's really hard to see how this justifies the valuations. I could be wrong, but that's.

[Ari Melber]

Well, I know you a little bit, Professor. So you're not talking about Prince party like it's 99, you're talking about 99 pre crash vibe.

[Paul Krugman]

Yeah, I'm talking about Quest, Ride the light and pets.com and all that. But the really big stuff was the telecommunications companies which like, like the AI sector now were pouring huge amounts of money into infrastructure to use this wonderful new technology, the Internet, which was in fact a wonderful new technology. But most of them went bust because it was a great technology. But the profits took years to materialize and other companies ended up making a lot of money off it. And it is scary just how much I mean depending upon exactly how you cut the numbers. But basically the US economy would be certainly borderline in recession if it wasn't for all of this AI spending.

[Ari Melber]

Right. Which is concern some people. Now I'm over on time but Professor, I always love having you. We covered a lot of ground and I Hope you and your cat will come back on the beat.

[Paul Krugman]

We'll try to get him back on.

[Ari Melber]

All right. Our thanks to Paul Krugman. You can see there and you can check out his newsletter on substack. You can 6pm Tuesday we start special coverage. Jen joins me and Rachel and the gang come in at 7. So we want you to mark your calendar. There's elections in multiple places. We'll get into all of it when we come back. The Pushback Inside the Garden.

[Pandora Advertiser]

Pandora makes it easy for you to find your favorite music, discover new artists and genres by selecting any song or album, and we'll make you a personalized station for free download on the Apple App Store or Google Play and enjoy the soundtrack to your life.

[On Deck / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team or bridging cash flow gaps, Ondeck's loans up to $250,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star Trustpilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in [e-mail] depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by On Deck or Celtic Bank. On Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless and if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should 1. It's $15 a month.

[Paul Krugman]

2.

[On Deck / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Seriously, it's $15 a month. 3. No big contracts.

[Paul Krugman]

4.

[On Deck / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

I use it. 5. My mom uses it. Are you, are you playing me off?

[Paul Krugman]

That's what's happening.

[On Deck / Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Happening, right? Okay, give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront.

[Commercial Voice]

Payment of $45 for three month plan $15 per month equivalent required. New customer offer first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.

[Ari Melber]

The Trump administration wants to militarize how we live in America and they're getting pushback. We've seen it in the courts and now some National Guard troops themselves basically saying they protest the orders to police fellow citizens. I won't turn out against my neighbors and that is not historically what they've ever been asked to do. I'm joined now by Demi Palacek, a member of the Illinois National Guard, speaking out against the deployments. She's a 14 year veteran of the US Armed Forces, also running for state representative in Illinois. Thank you for your service. Welcome.

[Jenny Slate]

Thank you so much for having me.

[Ari Melber]

Tell us your position.

[Jenny Slate]

Yeah, so I Want to start off by saying that I'm speaking on behalf of myself, not the doj, dod, anyone in the military, solely on just myself. But I think what is happening right now is really upsetting and disgusting. You know, I've been in the military for 14 years. I didn't join for this. I joined to be a humanitarian and to help our country, not be against our neighbors, our culture, or anyone in our communities.

[Ari Melber]

And what happens if. If you're called upon to act and you resist this federal order?

[Jenny Slate]

I don't think they even know what they would want to do. But regardless, at the end of the day, I would still say no.

[Ari Melber]

What is your sense of how the troops feel? Because we've reported on this, and there's diversity there in every way, where people are what they think, how political they may or may not be. And so many of them seem to be being asked to be in a tough position. Can you enlighten us on that?

[Rev Al Sharpton]

Right.

[Jenny Slate]

The military is much like our country, super divided in how they feel about what's going on. Unfortunately, a lot of my soldiers, though, have reached out that they, you know, a lot of us are Mexican. We have used the military to get out of poverty and to get papers. It's actually a recruiting tool that the military uses. And so, I mean, my soldiers are very nervous. They don't want to be activated against their own community. And a lot of people in my inbox, you know, are thanking me for stepping up and being so vocal about what's going on.

[Paul Krugman]

Yeah.

[Jenny Slate]

That is to say that I don't get death threats from other people.

[Ari Melber]

Well, and finally, in 30 seconds, we have left, what do you say to people who do turn out or hold these protests? How do you think they should approach the guard? And do protests matter?

[Jenny Slate]

I think protests definitely matter. I mean, that's how me as a woman got the right to vote. That's how gay marriage was passed. I think we have to keep protesting and pushing back on the administration, and I think we need to be on the right side of history.

[Ari Melber]

Demi Palacek, thank you for joining us. And interesting to learn your view and your background of service. I wanna tell folks what's coming up. It's related because we just heard why protest matters. Well, take a look at some of what we're seeing out there. It is artistic. It is sometimes fun, even in serious times. And that's because there is a big role for artistic dissent right now. And so I invite you to stay with me. We're about to hear from two very special guests about why this matters and what you can do. People are finding many ways to protest and express themselves right now as the government attacks free speech and art. It's a dynamic we've discussed with Jeremy O. Harris, the acclaimed playwright and sometime actor who brought his opus, Slave Play to Broadway, which led to a record breaking 12th Tony nominations. The unusual play confronts us, history, race, sexual identity. It became a controversial phenomenon that launched Harris Vanity Fair, rights to fame before he even graduated from the Yale School of Drama. This new profile dubs him playwright, producer, provocateur, dandy, bon vivant, and, depending who you ask, a genius. Harris returns to the Beat tonight with Jordan Tannehill, the author of two novels, Liminal and the Listeners, and seven plays, including a new one, Prince F, produced by Harris. Welcome to both of you. You are what they used to call a public intellectual. I don't know what we call it today, but influencer. Exactly. But if there was a woke moment. I don't know if there was, but if there was, it was brief. Yes. And whatever it was, and however wide it went, the anti woke moment has proved to be stronger and angrier than the woke one. How does that fit into your role either in plays or as a public intellectual? Or do you try to tune that out and say you're doing what you're doing? Let them respond.

[Jeremy O. Harris]

I think that, like, you know, for me this is like. I think people can look at my career as something that like, might have benefited from this, like, quote, unquote, woke moment. I think that maybe I was like a precursor to it, if you, like, look at the timelines and those things. But I think the biggest thing is that much like he says in the play about queerness, like, and like there being like this, like, you know, continuum of being from the child that, like, you know, like a person like me who's like taking a picture with a basketball like this, to being like the person who's like, throwing his wrist around on MSNBC right now. There's an unbroken continuum of being of that person, an unbroken, continual being of, like, this woke person, this, like political person who is saying, no matter what, I should not temper my voice or my politics, depending on who I'm around, right? Like, I think I should always be as loud and as proud and as complex as I, as I am, no matter the audience, right? Even if I'm talking to a child.

[Ari Melber]

Which ironically is the, I think, largely bankrupt or fake promise of what was the anti cancel culture right wing moment. Hey, we should all be loud. Well, if we are Going to be loud. The people that you happen to disagree with or don't live, like they're going to be just as loud. Great. And now that they're in charge of the government, we're seeing some of them not only don't want you to be loud, they don't want you to legally exist.

[Jeremy O. Harris]

Exactly. I mean, you know, I'm engaged right now, which is very exciting. Good ring. And Jordan is married. And both you also get a pound.

[Ari Melber]

Just later in the process.

[Jeremy O. Harris]

And I think that like, you know, one of the things that is very much at risk is like, you know, our relationships. I believe it was the guy from Indiana who was saying we should look at on a state level like the Loving versus Virginia.

[Rev Al Sharpton]

Right.

[Jeremy O. Harris]

Because in Ogle failed. I'm not a lawyer. You are in the Supreme Court. The precedent that allowed gay marriage to happen in the Supreme Court was Loving Reed, Virginia.

[Ari Melber]

Right.

[Jeremy O. Harris]

So if you want.

[Ari Melber]

Which finally said that you're not allowed to ban interracial marriage in the United States, which pretty recently was state law.

[Jeremy O. Harris]

Exactly. So I think that like if they're openly saying right now, like shouldn't we look at that one. They're trying to get rid of. They're trying to get rid of miscegenation and they're trying to get rid of gay marriage. To what ends? We still don't. We can't actually say, but we can feel what that might be. And I think that like with that knowledge, with that knowingness, we cannot hide in the shadows and pretend as though we are not fighting an enemy who is going guns blazing at us and our personhood and our identity. We need to tell them no, we're not gonna be polite about it. Yeah, you wanna call us the F. Slur on your little tele, like group chats that like, you know, the Young Republicans apparently have. You want to like make laws that say that like people that look like us can't get married, people that look like our friends, like the actresses in our play can't exist at all, can't get the medical care they need. Then what we're gonna say to you is that like we are just as human as you are. In just the simple radical act of performing as the full bodied humans we are every night on a stage in New York City. Right. And I think that is the radicality of this play that like is accurate, is that like there actually is nothing that provocative that happens inside. The most provocative thing about the play is the title. And once you're there, you are being provoked by the simple majesty of watching six queer performers perform their asses off for you every night in a very human drama.

[Ari Melber]

The Times review of this says that it is thrilling, inflammatory, no thumbing explicit to the point of pornography. Something else we don't show on the news. Wild and undisciplined, however objectionably conjectural. It's real. Jordan. Thank you.

[Jordan Tannehill]

I mean, I definitely try to go to the theater to be provoked and to leave with a sense of understanding myself in a different way. I mean, with this play, Prince F. Its origin really is a photograph that I saw back in 2017, I think.

[Rev Al Sharpton]

Of.

[Jordan Tannehill]

The future heir to the British throne, Prince George. And I was so struck in this moment of this photograph. He had this very kind of unguarded pose, this kind of gleeful look on his face as he was watching this ascending helicopter. And I was fascinated by the sort of online discourse that I was reading around this photograph. People were like, oh, you know, calling him this gay icon for this kind of adorably fae pose, this very unguarded pose. I really wanted to kind of get under the skin of that. I also had this powerful instance of self identification with this photo. Like, I also have those photographs of myself as a young gay kid. I have no idea what, you know, the Prince's future sexuality will be. And that's kind of, in some ways beside the point. It was more about trying to understand what it.

[Ari Melber]

How we.

[Jordan Tannehill]

How we give language, talk about the idea, even the idea of queer childhood, you know, is. Was my identity a kind of a flip that. A switch that was flipped. And, you know, at 13 or 14, I don't know, I look at those photographs of myself as a kid and I. I see this kind of queer child. And that's such a kind of inflammatory discourse, particularly for this moment that we're in.

[Ari Melber]

Jeremy O. Harris and Jordan Tannehill, thanks for being here.

[Jordan Tannehill]

Thank you so much.

[Ari Melber]

And people can Google your names to find the play. There it is. Something transgressive. To end the show. You can always connect with me@ari melber.com. just put the URL into your browser and we can connect. Or on social media, finding the music.

[Pandora Advertiser]

You love shouldn't be hard. That's why Pandora makes it easy to explore all your favorites and discover new artists and genres you'll love. Enjoy a personalized listening experience simply by selecting any song or album, and we'll make a station crafted just for you. Best of all, you can listen for free, download Pandora on the Apple App Store or Google Play and start hearing the soundtrack to your life.