Trump 2.0: A Whiplash on Federal Spending

Summary

Trump 2.0: A Whiplash on Federal Spending – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Trump 2.0: A Whiplash on Federal Spending
Release Date: January 31, 2025
Hosts: Ryan Knutson and Molly Ball
Guests: Damian Poletta, Washington D.C. Coverage Chief

---

Introduction

In the January 31, 2025 episode of The Journal produced by The Wall Street Journal and Gimlet, hosts Ryan Knutson and Molly Ball dissect the tumultuous first 11 days of Donald Trump’s presidency, dubbed "Trump 2.0." The episode delves into Trump's aggressive strategies, including a controversial freeze on federal spending, contentious cabinet nominations, and responses to national tragedies. The discussion is further enriched by insights from Damian Poletta, the show’s Washington D.C. coverage chief.

---

Trump’s Early Presidential Strategy

Rapid Initiatives and Mixed Reactions

Ryan Knutson opens the conversation by noting the frenetic pace of Trump’s initial actions in office:

Ryan Knutsen [00:11]: “Donald Trump has been president for 11 days. Is it just me or does it feel like he's trying to do everything.”

Molly Ball humorously likens Trump’s multitasking to the movie “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” highlighting the President's tendency to tackle numerous initiatives simultaneously.

Molly Ball [00:20]: “Everywhere all at once, just like the movie? Which means we're also gonna get a proliferation of like, clones with weird appendages.”

Ball assesses the administration's strategy as having a mixed reception:

Molly Ball [00:44]: “I would say mixed. I mean, Republicans and people in the administration are pretty thrilled with how it's going. They feel like he's racking up wins. Democrats are also sort of getting their moxie back because they see him as doing too much too fast. And they feel like this is gonna cause a backlash that's going to bring them back to relevance.”

---

Controversial Cabinet Nominations

Battling Confirmation Hurdles

One of the first major tasks for the Trump administration has been assembling the cabinet. With seven positions confirmed, the focus shifted to more controversial nominees such as Keshe Patel for FBI Director, Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Health Secretary.

Molly Ball [02:18]: “We heard them pressing RFK, for example, not just for his views on issues important to them, like abortion, like agriculture, but also just his basic knowledge of the way the department works that he's going to be tasked to run.”

The confirmation hearings have been rocky, with both Democrats and some Republicans expressing doubts about the nominees' qualifications and understanding of their prospective roles.

Molly Ball [03:41]: “I think there's a real sense on Capitol Hill that these are sort of going down to the wire and could really go either way.”

Specifically, Republican senators like Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Mitch McConnell have shown hesitancy, potentially blocking the nominees from advancing without bipartisan support.

---

Firing of Inspectors General

House Cleaning or Undermining Oversight?

Late in Trump's first week, the administration fired 17 inspectors general, the internal watchdogs tasked with ensuring federal agencies comply with laws and prevent misuse of funds.

Molly Ball [05:00]: “This idea that the whole federal bureaucracy is sort of rotten and has to be cleaned out, sort of root and branch.”

The move has sparked bipartisan concern, with critics arguing that removing these watchdogs could pave the way for increased corruption and decreased accountability within federal agencies.

Molly Ball [05:10]: “It's about enabling corruption and malfeasance by, you know, taking off the proverbial cop on the beat who would be overseeing these agencies and making sure, as you said, that they don't violate the law.”

The administration has yet to appoint replacements, leaving these critical oversight positions vacant and raising questions about the long-term impact on government transparency.

---

Trump’s Response to D.C. Plane Crash

Politicizing a Tragedy

A tragic plane crash in Washington, D.C., resulting in over 60 presumed deaths, marked the first major disaster of Trump's second term. The administration’s response, particularly Trump’s remarks, drew significant attention.

Molly Ball [07:09]: “Trump was president before for four years. He has been on the political scene for a decade. He has never hesitated to point to his enemies and point to scapegoats for whatever is happening on his watch.”

Instead of offering a non-political condolence, Trump linked the tragedy to diversity initiatives within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a move that critics saw as an attempt to shift blame prematurely without evidence.

Molly Ball [07:43]: “We don't know if the diversity initiatives, while real, had anything to do with any of the staff who were involved in this.”

This approach aligns with Trump's historical pattern of politicizing events to attack opponents, reinforcing his reputation among supporters while alienating critics.

---

Freeze of Federal Spending

Ambitious but Flawed Fiscal Maneuver

The centerpiece of the episode is the Trump administration's attempt to implement a temporary freeze on $3 trillion in federal grants and loans. This bold move aimed to reduce the federal budget from $7 trillion amid Trump’s broader agenda to slash government spending.

Damian Poletta [10:40]: “There's a $10 trillion budget, which is not true. There's a 7 trillion dollar budget... they're going to freeze it and it's going to be frozen effective tomorrow at 5:00.”

The initial memo issued on Monday contained significant inaccuracies, including an overstated budget figure and a vague rationale blaming "woke" expenditures. This led to immediate operational disruptions, notably the freezing of Medicaid systems within 24 hours.

Damian Poletta [12:35]: “This doesn't seem like necessarily the highest priority.”

The administration’s hasty execution resulted in confusion and backlash, prompting a second memo that attempted to clarify exemptions for Medicaid and food assistance programs. Nevertheless, legal challenges quickly followed, culminating in a federal judge halting the freeze and the administration issuing a rescindment memo.

Damian Poletta [12:42]: “This is a tale of three memos... It shows that moving too fast in some key spaces like this could actually backfire on them.”

Molly Ball raises concerns about a potential constitutional crisis if the administration continues to bypass Congressional authority over federal spending.

Molly Ball [15:04]: “And what if the administration just goes ahead and does it anyway when the courts have said that they can't?”

Damian Poletta explains the administration’s strategy to challenge existing laws, such as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, aiming to redefine executive authority over federal budgets in the courts.

Damian Poletta [15:29]: “They want to get this into the courts so that if a friendly Supreme Court rules on it, then they get everything they want.”

---

Federal Employee Buyouts

Unprecedented Offers and Confusion

In an effort to further reduce federal spending, the administration introduced buyout offers for over 2 million federal employees. These offers mirror strategies seen in the private sector and Elon Musk’s approach when acquiring Twitter.

Damian Poletta [18:23]: “Democrats immediately said, whoa, whoa, this seems like kind of a trick, a rope, a dope.”

The offers have been met with skepticism and confusion due to the lack of clear communication and absence of funding to support the buyouts. With only Congress authorized to pay federal employees through March 14, the buyouts raise concerns about job security and the legality of the process.

Damian Poletta [18:39]: “Congress is only authorized to pay employees through March 14... there's actually no money to pay people through September 30th.”

The lack of official press releases and explanations has fueled paranoia and uncertainty among federal workers regarding their future and the administration’s true intentions.

---

Listener Question: Trump’s Use of Political Capital

Balancing Aggression with Party Unity

A listener from Seattle, Bill, posed a question regarding whether Trump is depleting his political capital too quickly, potentially putting Republicans in a difficult position during upcoming midterms.

Molly Ball [20:03]: “Trump now is a lame duck and he's doing a lot of things that are not necessarily popular on an individual basis.”

Ball elaborates that while many Republicans fear the backlash seen in the 2018 midterms, others remain fiercely loyal, especially those in secure districts. However, with Trump’s approval ratings declining, there is growing concern among some GOP members about the sustainability of his aggressive tactics.

Damian Poletta [21:26]: “He wants to do a trade war this year. He wants to do tax reform this year. He's got to kind of empty the tank in 2025.”

Damian suggests that Trump’s approach is consistent with his established political persona, prioritizing swift and impactful actions over cautious, incremental changes.

---

Conclusion

The episode of The Journal’s Trump 2.0 presents a critical examination of Donald Trump's inaugural actions in his second term, highlighting both strategic ambitions and significant missteps. From contentious cabinet nominations to unprecedented budgetary freezes and employee buyouts, Trump's administration is reshaping the federal landscape in ways that may have far-reaching political and legal implications. The hosts underscore the delicate balance Trump must maintain between pushing aggressive policies and maintaining party unity, especially as midterm elections loom.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Molly Ball [00:44]: “I would say mixed. I mean, Republicans and people in the administration are pretty thrilled with how it's going. They feel like he's racking up wins. Democrats are also sort of getting their moxie back because they see him as doing too much too fast.”

• Molly Ball [05:00]: “This idea that the whole federal bureaucracy is sort of rotten and has to be cleaned out, sort of root and branch.”

• Molly Ball [07:09]: “Trump was president before for four years. He has been on the political scene for a decade. He has never hesitated to point to his enemies and point to scapegoats for whatever is happening on his watch.”

• Damian Poletta [10:40]: “There's a $10 trillion budget, which is not true. There's a 7 trillion dollar budget... they're going to freeze it and it's going to be frozen effective tomorrow at 5:00.”

• Damian Poletta [12:35]: “This is a great example of the Trump administration kind of coming out guns blazing, following this Silicon Valley ethos of move fast and break things. And it shows. It doesn't quite work that way in Washington.”

• Molly Ball [15:04]: “And what if the administration just goes ahead and does it anyway when the courts have said that they can't?”

• Damian Poletta [18:23]: “Democrats immediately said, whoa, whoa, this seems like kind of a trick, a rope, a dope.”

• Molly Ball [20:03]: “Trump now is a lame duck and he's doing a lot of things that are not necessarily popular on an individual basis.”

• Damian Poletta [21:26]: “He wants to do a trade war this year. He wants to do tax reform this year. He's got to kind of empty the tank in 2025.”

---

This comprehensive summary captures the essence of the episode, providing a detailed overview of the key topics discussed, enriched with notable quotes and proper attributions for context.

Transcript

[Ryan Knudsen]

Molly Ball, senior political correspondent. How are you?

[Molly Ball]

Pretty good, Ryan. How you doing?

[Ryan Knudsen]

Great. So Donald Trump has been president for 11 days. Is it just me or does it feel like he's trying to do everything.

[Molly Ball]

Everywhere all at once, just like the movie? Which means we're also gonna get a proliferation of like, clones with weird appendages. Is that how this is gonna go?

[Ryan Knudsen]

Yeah, with hot hot dog fingers. Is that coming soon?

[Molly Ball]

That's right, the hot dogs. Uh huh. That must be the next executive order we should all look out for.

[Ryan Knudsen]

How would you say overall that things are going for him so far with this strategy?

[Molly Ball]

I would say mixed. I mean, Republicans and people in the administration are pretty thrilled with how it's going. They feel like he's racking up wins. Democrats are also sort of getting their moxie back because they see him as doing too much too fast. And they feel like this is gonna cause a backlash that's going to bring them back to relevance.

[Ryan Knudsen]

All right, well, there is a lot to cover here on the show today, so let's get right to it.

[Molly Ball]

Let's do it.

[Ryan Knudsen]

From the Journal, this is Trump 2.0. I'm Ryan Knudsen.

[Molly Ball]

And I'm Molly Ball.

[Ryan Knudsen]

It's Friday, January 31st. Coming up, Trump tries to freeze federal spending. And it doesn't quite go as planned. Or does it? Hey, I'm Ryan Reynolds. Recently I asked Mint Mobile's legal team if big wireless companies are allowed to raise prices due to inflation. They said yes. And then when I asked if raising prices technically violates those onerous two year contracts, they said, well, what the are you talking about? You insane Hollywood. So to recap, we're cutting the price of mint unlimited from $30 a month to just $15 a month. Give it a [e-mail] Switch $45 up.

[Molly Ball]

Front, payment equivalent to $15 per month. New customers on first three month plan only taxes and fees, extra Speed slower above 40GB. Details.

[Ryan Knudsen]

All right, so before we get into this temporary freeze in federal spending, there are a few other things I want to talk about. First, Trump is putting his cabinet together. There are seven positions now confirmed. And this week, a few of his more controversial nominees had their Senate confirmation hearings. There's Keshe Patel for FBI Director, Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. For health secretary. How big of a battle do you think lies ahead for the administration and these nominees?

[Molly Ball]

Well, it's been a bit of a battle on Capitol Hill this week. These nomination hearings were pretty rocky. These Nominees got grilled pretty hard, particularly by Democrats, of course. But there was some skepticism from Republicans as well. And you can tell that while these Republicans want to be loyal and give the president his team, some of them have misgivings. And you heard them pressing rfk, for example, not just for his views on issues important to them, like abortion, like agriculture, but also just his basic knowledge of the way the department works that he's going to be tasked to run. And he stumbled over things like understanding what Medicaid does and how it relates to Medicare. And that, of course, is something he would be tasked with overseeing. So I think there's a real sense on Capitol Hill that these are sort of going down to the wire and could really go either way.

[Ryan Knudsen]

It seems like from the hearing so far that most Democrats are most likely to oppose these nominees. But what Republicans do you think might present the biggest hurdles? We saw a few of them flip on Pete Hegseth, the defense Secretary who barely cleared his nomination, needing a tie breaking vote from Vice President J.D. vance.

[Molly Ball]

So I think what we saw with Hegseth is there are Republican senators who feel relatively impervious to Trump's threats. There are at least three. Lisa Murkowski, who has survived a primary challenge before, Susan Collins, who represents a very blue state, and Mitch McConnell, who's not running for reelection again and has strong views, particularly on defense. So that's three. And if there is one more senator who feels that one of these nominees is a bridge too far, that's it. They're not going to get through.

[Ryan Knudsen]

All right, we'll keep our eyes on that. Meanwhile, late last Friday night, Trump fired 17 inspectors general. And if you are not a governmental nerd like Molly and I, inspectors general are the internal government watchdogs who are supposed to make sure federal agencies comply with the law and don't misuse their authority or taxpayer money. So, Molly, why do you think Trump did this?

[Molly Ball]

Well, he was asked about this on Air Force One, and he said some.

[Damian Poletta]

People thought that some were unfair or some were not doing the job. And it's a very standard thing.

[Molly Ball]

We don't really know a lot about what was behind this, but it's a sort of part of this general house cleaning that we're going to talk more about today. This idea that the whole federal bureaucracy is sort of rotten and has to be cleaned out, sort of root and branch. To critics, of course, it's not a way to make the government more effective or efficient or take out potential, you know, internal dissent. It's about enabling corruption and malfeasance by, you know, taking off the proverbial cop on the beat who would be overseeing these agencies and making sure, as you said, that they don't violate the law. So I think there's still more to know about why this has happened, and there's some concern about this that is somewhat bipartisan.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Is there any indication that these inspectors general will be replaced quickly, or are these jobs just going to be vacant now for the foreseeable future?

[Molly Ball]

I don't think we know yet. They haven't appointed new people to these positions yet. And as we said at the beginning, they're doing a lot very fast. They're still trying to confirm the Cabinet. So this doesn't seem like necessarily the highest priority.

[Ryan Knudsen]

All right, so I also want to talk to you about this deadly plane crash that happened late Wednesday night in D.C. more than 60 people are presumed dead. This is the first tragedy in Trump's second term. And it's actually not something that I would expect that we would be talking about on this podcast. But President Trump weighed in on it in a press conference on Thursday morning in a way that has drawn a lot of attention.

[Damian Poletta]

It's all under investigation.

[Molly Ball]

I understand that. That's why I'm trying to figure out how you can come to the conclusion.

[Damian Poletta]

Right now that diversity had something to.

[Molly Ball]

Do with this crash. Because I have common sense.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Okay.

[Molly Ball]

And unfortunately, a lot of people don't. We want brilliant people doing this. This is a major change.

[Ryan Knudsen]

What did you make of what the president had to say about this?

[Molly Ball]

Well, it was certainly striking how political the president immediately chose to make this. I think the normal thing to do in these situations is to refrain from seeming to politicize a tragedy and to focus on the people dealing with the loss of their loved ones. Just a horrible tragedy. That does raise a lot of potential policy questions. It raises questions about the crowding of the D.C. airspace, about the staffing levels and the funding and the personnel in the Federal Aviation Administration. And then there also have been questions for years about the diversity initiatives undertaken by the faa. Trump wasn't making that up. But, you know, he is not waiting for an investigation to say whose fault this actually is. Right. We don't know if it was the air traffic controller's fault at all. We don't know if it was, as Trump also said on social media, if it was the helicopter pilot's fault. We don't know if those diversity initiatives, while real, had anything to do with any of the staff who were involved in this. So I think it was shocking to a lot of people that the president didn't hold off on sort of casting blame for this, but also deeply familiar. You know, Trump was president before for four years. He has been on the political scene for a decade. He has never hesitated to point to his enemies and point to scapegoats for whatever is happening on his watch. And so in a lot of ways, I think this felt deeply familiar in Trump's political style. And I think some of his allies would say this is what people like about him, is that he's not politically correct, he's not pulling punches, he's not going to sort of be unifying and nice when what you need is actually a fighter.

[Ryan Knudsen]

All right, so one of the big stories of the week was the Trump administration's effort to temporarily freeze a big chunk of federal spending. And we are going to talk about that right after this break.

[Damian Poletta]

Oh, such a clutch off season pickup, Dave.

[Molly Ball]

I was worried we'd bring back the same team.

[Ryan Knudsen]

I meant those Blackout motorized shades.

[Damian Poletta]

Blinds.com made it crazy affordable to replace our old blinds.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Hard to install. No, it's easy.

[Damian Poletta]

I installed these and then got some from my mom.

[Molly Ball]

She talked to a design consultant for.

[Damian Poletta]

Free and scheduled a professional measure and install hall of fame son.

[Molly Ball]

They're the number one online retailer of.

[Damian Poletta]

Custom window coverings in the world. Blinds.com is the goat shop.

[Molly Ball]

Blinds.com right now. And get up to 45% off select styles plus a professional measure. Rules and restrictions may apply.

[Ryan Knudsen]

So on Monday, the Trump administration issued a memo that said it was going to pause a big chunk of federal spending. The ballpark of $3 trillion worth of federal grants and loans. And there has been a whole lot of development since then. So to help us understand it, we brought on Damian poletta, our Washington, D.C. coverage chief. Hi, Damian. Thank you so much for being here.

[Damian Poletta]

My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

[Molly Ball]

Hey, boss, thanks for being with us.

[Ryan Knudsen]

So can you walk us through what happened here? What is the Trump administration trying to do and why?

[Damian Poletta]

Sure. So when it's numbers, it's easy to unpack it a little bit if we just talk. We start with the numbers. So the Federal budget's about $7 trillion. We know that the Trump administration wants to cut the budget dramatically from 7 trillion down to who knows what. You know, Elon Musk said he wants to lop 2 trillion off the budget so that we could get it down maybe to 5 trillion. So we know they want to do this, but obviously spending stuff all runs through Congress. But what happened here is one week exactly one week after Trump was sworn in, they put out this memo, this two page memo, and it says, first of all, it says there's a $10 trillion budget, which is not true. There's a 7 trillion dollar budget, which is still a lot of money, but like every trillion counts. There's a $10 trillion budget. Three trillion of the 10 is used on woke stuff and this and that, financial assistance. And so we're going to freeze it and it's going to be frozen effective tomorrow at 5:00. The only thing they really said, the only exemptions that they offered in this memo and deep in the footnotes were Social Security and medic. For a lot of us who follow the budget closely, that said everything else was fair game.

[Ryan Knudsen]

And so what happens after this memo goes out?

[Damian Poletta]

Well, I mean, Head Start programs that get money for the children, community centers, states felt like their money was going to get frozen. And then so the memo went out on Monday. By Tuesday, it appeared that the Medicaid system in this country had completely frozen up and seized up. And so the system that paying the hospitals, paying the healthcare providers for all those people, completely seized. I've never seen anything like that before. That happened to less than 24 hours after this memo went out, there was a ton of questions. The White House couldn't answer the questions. And so they had to put out another memo on Tuesday, essentially blaming the media for the confusion and offering a few clarifications, essentially saying this would not apply to Medicaid and it would not apply to food stamps or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs.

[Ryan Knudsen]

So then a federal judge put a pause on this order, and then the Trump administration came out and said they were rescinding the memo.

[Damian Poletta]

Yeah, this is kind of a tale of three memos. The Monday memo that didn't make a ton of sense. The Tuesday memo, which tried to walk a little bit back. And then there's the Wednesday memo that said, we rescind the Monday memo. Let's just pretend this never happened. And then Caroline Levitt tweets out, well, we're not actually rescinding it, we're just doing something else. And the judge saw the tweet and said, wait a second, we're still gonna have a hearing on this. So I think this is a great example of the Trump administration kind of coming out guns blazing, following this Silicon Valley ethos of move fast and break things. And it shows. It doesn't quite work that way in Washington. I mean, obviously the Trump administration, Elon Musk, everyone wants to change the way Washington works. And there's a lot of bipartisan support for attacking the budget and attacking government spending in a much different way. But this way that they tried to completely claw back all power over government spending in a hastily written memo that obviously had some fact, actual errors in it, I think, shows that moving too fast in some key spaces like this could actually backfire on them.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Had they rolled it out differently, do you think that it might have had a different outcome?

[Molly Ball]

Well, I wonder, because I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, the whole move fast and break things idea is that if you try to go at these things slowly, deliberately, incrementally, they'll just never get done. Right. They'll get caught up in this bureaucratic black hole where everyone in the agency finds a reason to object to it. And, you know, you spend 10 years writing memos about something that never actually gets implemented. So the idea is you rip off the band aid, you go extreme all at once, and then you can always walk back the parts that people object to, and then whatever you do end up doing looks relatively moderate by comparison. I don't know if we're going to get to that point with this, given that the whole thing's been undone. Right. I mean, I think it's important to recognize that, like, this didn't actually affect anyone. Right. And even then, there's a question about whether the executive branch has the power to do this. Right. I mean, Damian, I wonder what you think about the potential for a constitutional crisis here. Right. If the courts are telling the administration they can't do something? You know, the Constitution says it's up to Congress. There's a law on the books that says presidents can't just do this. But what if the administration just goes ahead and does it anyway when the courts have said that they can't?

[Damian Poletta]

I mean, there's a clear strategy by the Trump administration to some of these things. Birthright citizenship is one, and this impoundment act of 1974 is another, and get them out into the courts as quickly as possible.

[Ryan Knudsen]

And the Impoundment act, just to say, is this idea that Congress controls the purse strings. They decide how much money should be spent. But there's a view that the executive branch should say, okay, that's a ceiling, but we'll set the floor. We're going to not spend money that you've allocated.

[Damian Poletta]

Exactly. The Impoundment act of the 1970s essentially puts restrictions around what the White House can do once the money has already been authorized by Congress and put into law. And Russ Vogt, who's Trump's nominee to be the budget director, and President Trump himself, both believe that that law is unconstitutional and that the commander in chief should have the power to do that. So what they want is to get this into the courts. They wanted a lawsuit about this, just like they wanted a lawsuit about the Birthright Citizenship Executive Order, which the Constitution appears to say should not go into effect. But if there's a lawsuit and it gets in the courts and they get in front of a friendly Supreme Court, and actually, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy wrote an op ed in the Journal saying exactly this. They want this into the courts so that if a friendly Supreme Court rules on it, then they get everything they want. They actually can't do these things without the court kind of ruling in their favor. So the sooner they can do it, even if it's kind of a messy memo, although that might not help them in the courts if they have a messy memo. But the sooner they can get the courts involved, the sooner they can kind of get down to business.

[Molly Ball]

But what I'm saying is you say they can't do it unless the court rules in their favor, but why not? Why don't they just. I mean, look at what they're doing with TikTok. The Supreme Court already unanimously said that the law of the land is that TikTok cannot operate, but it still is because the administration is just ignoring that. Right. I mean, the inspectors general, same thing. Right. Lindsey Graham was on television and was asked, wasn't this illegal? Because in the law it says they have to give 30 days notice before they fire these people. And he said, well, yeah, technically, very quickly, the law says he's supposed to give 30 days notice. He didn't do that. Do you think he violated the law?

[Damian Poletta]

Technically, yeah, but he has the authority to do it. So I'm not losing a whole lot of sleep that he wants to change the personnel out. I just want to make sure.

[Molly Ball]

And the idea is like, well, but who's going to do anything about it?

[Damian Poletta]

Great question. I mean, in the TikTok example, we believe that it's hard to find someone with standing to sue. So, yes, it does seem completely different from what the law says. A law that was overwhelmingly approved by Congress last year and signed by President Biden. But it's hard to find, like, who would have the standing to file a lawsuit to get it gummed up in the courts. And the same thing with the inspectors general. Yes. You have to notify Congress within 30 days before. And you have to give specific reasons. Trump did none of that. I suppose some of the inspectors generals could sue, but in this example, the spending example, many people would have the standing to sue because it would impact them. And that's what got this case in front of a federal judge so quickly.

[Ryan Knudsen]

So another thing that happened this week that sort of related to this idea of cutting back on government spending was these buyout offers for federal employees, which is not something that I recall seeing much happen in the federal government. You see in the private sector all the time. But what do you think is going on here? Is this just sort of like, let's cut back on government spending. Let's shake loose the people that are maybe not on board with the Trump administration's vision?

[Damian Poletta]

So it looks like this came right out of Elon Musk's shop and the Office of Personnel Management. And one of the issues with this. So the idea is they email this kind of buyout offer, although it has the same subject line that Elon Musk used in his sort of similar buyout offer when he took over Twitter in 2022.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Right, right. Fork in the road, it said.

[Damian Poletta]

Yeah. And so it goes out to over 2 million federal employees. Democrats immediately said, whoa, whoa, this seems like kind of a trick, a rope, a dope. You can, because you have to respond, resign in the email. And so what if you respond that? And this isn't a legally binding contract. Also, Congress is only author or the government's only authorized to Pay employees through March 14, because that's when a shutdown would happen if there's not a deal. And so there's no money. There's actually no money to pay people through September 30th. Now, Congress could do a new bill, but people would be agreeing to something when there's actually no money to pay them. And so there's a lot of questions that was done without real press releases, without an explanation, without any clarification, and even without a follow up, without real answers about how it's going to work. And so that's just led to confusion and even a little bit of paranoia about what the administration's really up to.

[Ryan Knudsen]

All right, well, before we go, we've got a question from one of our listeners. Hey, Molly and Ryan. I'm Bill from Seattle. And my question is, with the recent actions taken by President Trump, particularly around TikTok pardons and other executive actions, do you think Trump is using his political capital too quickly? Specifically, with some longtime Republicans already breaking party lines, could this put Republicans in a tough position as they defend these actions during midterms? Or do you think he's trying to expose anyone in his party who might not agree with his positions? Thanks.

[Molly Ball]

Yeah, thanks, Bill. That's such a great question. And I think it's something that people in Washington are thinking about a lot, particularly Republicans. You know, the entire House of Representatives is going to be on the ballot in less than two years. Most of the Republicans have to worry more about a primary than a general election, which is part of why you see them being so loyal to Trump. But there are some of them who are in swing districts, and they remember during Trump's first administration, when Republicans lost those 2018 midterms, they lost 40 seats and handed the House to the Democrats in part because of the backlash to what people saw as the chaos and dysfunction of that first Trump administration. Trump now is a lame duck and he's doing a lot of things that are not necessarily popular on an individual basis. His approval rating is underwater even in this so called honeymoon period. So this stuff starts to pile up and has the potential to drag down the administration. And I think a lot of Republicans, as they look forward to this giant mass of legislation and deadlines that they've got to take care of this year, are wondering if they really ought to be in lockstep with an administration that may be rapidly losing its political capital.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Damian, anything you'd like to add to that?

[Damian Poletta]

Yeah, I would just say to be, he's 78 years old. He's older than Biden was at the beginning of his term. And so I kind of understand why he's moving so quickly. He wants to do a trade war this year. He wants to do tax reform this year. He's got to kind of empty the tank in 2025. And, you know, who knows what an 80 year old Trump who's lost the midterms will be able to accomplish in 2027. So I think he's gonna go for broke. He doesn't really take advice to slow down and be cautious, you know, but I think this is what Americans knew was gonna happen. This is what they voted for. This is what they saw in his first term. This is the personality. He's very gregarious and energetic, and this is what Americans wanted. And so this is what they're getting.

[Ryan Knudsen]

They want disruption.

[Damian Poletta]

Mm.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Great. All right, well, thanks so much for your time, Molly, Damian, and we'll see you in a week.

[Molly Ball]

See you next next week.

[Damian Poletta]

Thanks a lot.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Thanks. Before we go, do you have any questions about what the Trump administration is doing? How is it affecting you? Email us and let us know. Please send a voice Note to the journalsj.com that's thejournalsj.com Trump 2.0 is part of the Journal, which is a co production of Spotify and the Wall Street Journal. This episode was produced by Piers Singhe and edited by Katherine Whelan with help from Tatiana Zamis. Molly Ball is the Wall Street Journal's senior political correspondent. I'm Ryan Knudsen. This episode was engineered by Griffin Tanner. Our theme music is by so Wiley and remixed by Peter Leonard. Additional music in this episode by Peter Leonard and Griffin Tanner. Fact checking by Kate Gallagher. Artwork by James Walton. Thanks for listening. Trump 2.0 will be back with a new episode next Friday morning. See you then.