Republicans downplay Medicaid cuts in budget bill

Summary

Podcast Summary: Republicans Downplay Medicaid Cuts in Budget Bill

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
• Host: Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC
• Episode: Republicans Downplay Medicaid Cuts in Budget Bill
• Release Date: June 21, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, host Lawrence O'Donnell delves into the contentious Republican budget bill that proposes significant cuts to Medicaid—a crucial social safety net program in the United States. Drawing from his extensive experience in political policy and media production, O'Donnell unpacks the implications of these budgetary decisions, the political maneuvers surrounding them, and the profound impact they have on vulnerable populations.

---

Republican Claims vs. Reality

Republican Defense of Medicaid Cuts

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson strongly denies that the budget bill includes Medicaid cuts, stating at [02:00], "Medicaid has never been on the chopping block. We are not cutting Medicaid in this package. Those 4.8 million people will not lose their Medicaid unless they choose to do so." However, these claims starkly contrast with the projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

CBO Findings

At [02:12], O'Donnell highlights the CBO's nonpartisan analysis, which estimates that the budget bill's work requirements could result in 4.8 million actual Medicaid losses and a total of 11 million Americans losing health coverage. The CBO further elaborates that the bill would exacerbate economic disparities, making "households at the bottom tenth by income about 4.4% poorer, and the typical household at the rich end of the income spectrum about 2.3% richer."

O'Donnell summarizes, "So to boil that down, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, all as a result of this GOP budget bill."

Republican Response to CBO Projections

When confronted with the CBO's grim forecasts, Republicans have chosen to discredit the agency. Senator Tim Scott, at [03:25], bluntly states, "They were wrong." O'Donnell exposes inaccuracies in Scott's claims, noting that the CBO was only established in the 1970s, making references to earlier tax cuts irrelevant. He remarks, "That entire 60 second clip, by the way, is still up on Tim Scott's social media."

---

Economic Implications

Expert Analysis with Betsy Stevenson

Economist Betsy Stevenson joins the discussion at [11:49] to elucidate the broader economic risks posed by slashing Medicaid and other safety nets:

1. Automatic Stabilizers: Stevenson explains that programs like Medicaid act as automatic stabilizers, supporting the economy during downturns by injecting money into the hands of those most likely to spend it. Cutting these programs diminishes this cushion, increasing the risk of deeper recessions. She states, "When we cut back these programs, what we're doing is we're reducing the amount of automatic stabilizers in the economy."

2. Labor Force Participation: The bill's work requirements are marketed as a means to boost labor force participation. However, Stevenson argues, "Taking health insurance away from people who are vulnerable, leaving them without the medical care they need to stay healthy enough to work, is not going to motivate them to get out there and get a job. It's actually gonna leave them less physically able to work."

3. Deficit Impact: The proposed $3.4 trillion addition to the deficit cannot be fully offset by the revenue gains from tax cuts aimed at the wealthy. Stevenson warns, "We're giving it to people at the top who don't actually need the money. And it's not clear what they're going to do with it."

---

Human Impact

Elena Hung's Advocacy

At [07:22], Elena Hung, executive director and co-founder of Little Lobbyists, shares a poignant account of how Medicaid cuts threaten families with medically complex children:

• Personal Story: Hung recounts her journey to Washington, D.C., advocating for her daughter Xiomara, who relies on Medicaid for essential home care. She emphasizes, "Without that, she and children like her would be forced into institutions like nursing homes and medical facilities."

• Impact on Education and Health: Xiomara attends school with a nurse who ensures her safety, a service funded by Medicaid. Cuts would jeopardize not only healthcare but also educational opportunities for children with medical needs.

• Direct Engagement with Lawmakers: Hung highlights the disconnect between Republican claims and the realities faced by families, noting, "Some truths, untruths, telling us that this won't harm our children when we know better."

Case Study: Landry Bell

O'Donnell shares the emotional scene outside Senator Mike Lee's office, where Landry Bell, a one-year-old with Down syndrome, appears with his mother. Bell's presence underscores the real-life consequences of policy decisions, as he "took a break from going office to office with his mother while she explained how cuts to Medicaid would devastate their family."

---

Political Maneuvers and Public Perception

Republican Strategy of Denial and Misinformation

Despite overwhelming evidence from the CBO, Republicans continue to deny the adverse effects of the budget bill. O'Donnell points out that polling shows the bill faces near 2 to 1 opposition among Americans, with a significant portion expressing no opinion. In response, Republicans are:

• Attacking CBO Credibility: By undermining the agency's reliability, Republicans aim to sow doubt about the severity of the proposed cuts.

• Spreading Misinformation: National Republican ads falsely claim that the bill includes tax cuts on Social Security benefits, a provision that cannot be included due to Senate parliamentary rules.

Lack of Republican Accountability

Senator Josh Hawley’s frustration is palpable at [04:16], as he admits, "I don't see anything in there to that effect. Nothing." His candid acknowledgment reflects internal Republican dissent and disbelief over the extent of Medicaid cuts.

O'Donnell criticizes the party's approach, stating, "If Republicans really believe in this bill, if they really want voters on board with this bill, why don't they defend it on the merits rather than dress it up and deny the real harm it will cause?"

---

Conclusion

In this episode, Lawrence O’Donnell effectively dissects the Republican budget bill's implications, exposing the discrepancy between party rhetoric and the harsh realities predicted by the CBO. Through expert economic analysis and heartfelt personal stories, O'Donnell illustrates the looming crisis for millions dependent on Medicaid. The episode underscores the urgent need for transparent policy discussions and accountability, highlighting the potential societal and economic fallout if these budgetary cuts proceed unchallenged.

Key Takeaways:

• The Republican budget bill threatens to cut Medicaid by nearly $800 billion, affecting millions.
• CBO projections reveal significant increases in poverty and loss of health coverage.
• Republicans are employing strategies to undermine CBO credibility and spread misinformation.
• Personal stories from affected families highlight the real-world consequences of these policy decisions.
• Economists warn of broader economic risks, including reduced automatic stabilizers and increased deficits.
• Internal Republican dissent suggests growing unease within the party regarding the bill's provisions.

Notable Quotes:

• Mike Johnson on Medicaid: "Medicaid has never been on the chopping block. We are not cutting Medicaid in this package. Those 4.8 million people will not lose their Medicaid unless they choose to do so." [02:00]
• Betsy Stevenson on economic impact: "Taking health insurance away from people who are vulnerable... is not going to motivate them to get out there and get a job. It's actually gonna leave them less physically able to work." [12:52]
• Elena Hung on personal impact: "A cut is a cut is a cut is a cut." [08:17]

---

This detailed summary encapsulates the critical discussions and perspectives presented in the episode, providing listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the complex issues surrounding Medicaid cuts in the Republican budget bill.

Transcript

[Purdue Global]

This is your moment, your time to shine your comeback. You're ready for the next step in your career. And you want an education, employer's respect. So you're not just going back to school. You're coming back with Purdue Global. Backed by Purdue University, one of the nation's most respected public universities. Purdue Global is built for people who bring their life experience into the online classroom. Purdue Global, Purdue's online university for working adults. Start your comeback today at purdueglobal Eduardo.

[Sam Sanders]

Hey, I'm journalist Sam Sanders.

[Saeed Jones]

I'm poet Saeed Jones.

[Zach Stafford]

And I'm producer Zach Stafford. And we are the hosts of a podcast called Vibe Check.

[Sam Sanders]

On Vibecheck, we talk about everything. News, culture and entertainment and how it all feels.

[Zach Stafford]

That's right, we talk about any and everything on our show, from real life issues like grief to music and movie critiques. And that barely scratches the surface.

[Saeed Jones]

Yes, indeed. And it doesn't stop there. We have got a lot to say, so join our group, chat, come to life, follow and listen to Vibe Check wherever you get your podcasts.

[Sam Sanders]

It's time for the Last Word with my friend Katherine Rampel in for Lawrence. Hey, Katherine. This isn't normally how I get to hang out with you, but I know usually we're a little closer together. A little closer. It's nice to see you through the screen and I look forward to hanging out with you tomorrow.

[Betsy Stevenson]

Same.

[Sam Sanders]

Have a great show. Thanks. So what do you do when your budget bill is cruel and unpopular? If you're a Republican politician, you might just lie about it. You lie about what your bill does to one of the most popular and important social safety net programs in the United States. Here's Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson lying about what is in that narrowly passed House budget bill, a bill that would cut nearly $800 billion from Medicaid.

[Mike Johnson]

Medicaid has never been on the chopping block. We are not cutting Medicaid in this package. Those 4.8 million people will not lose their Medicaid unless they choose to do so.

[Sam Sanders]

So that last statistic speaker Johnson cites, 4.8 million. That's the number of people that the Congressional Budget Office estimates would in fact lose their Medicaid coverage if the bill's work requirements are implemented. And the nonpartisan CBO also estimates that 11 million Americans will lose their health coverage as a direct result of this bill. When all of its measures are included, the CBO estimates quote, resources would decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the middle and top of the income distribution, those in the bottom tenth of households by income would become about 4.4percent poorer, and the typical household at the rich end of the income spectrum would become about 2.3% richer. So to boil that down, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, all as a result of this GOP budget bill. So how do Republicans respond to these frankly, devastating estimates from the cbo? Well, they attack the refs. They attack an agency that employs 275 people, made up mostly of economists and public policy analysts. Here's what Republican Senator Tim Scott had to say about the CBO just last week.

[Elena Hung]

They were wrong.

[Sam Sanders]

Now, this is not surprising.

[Katherine Rampel]

They were wrong on the Mellon tax cuts in the 1930s.

[Sam Sanders]

They were wrong on the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s. They were wrong about the Mellon tax cuts in the 1930s. They were wrong about the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s. Actually, it's Senator Tim Scott who happens to be wrong. And in my view, in kind of a funny way, the CBO didn't launch until the 1970s. One of those tax cuts that he mentioned, the Mellon tax cuts, were actually in the 1920s, which means he's railing about predictions the agency supposedly made a half century before it even existed. That entire 60 second clip, by the way, is still up on Tim Scott's social media. And now Republicans are pushing for even deeper cuts to Medicaid as it makes its way through the U.S. senate.

[Josh Hawley]

Well, I was surprised that the Senate has decided to completely depart from the House framework when it comes to Medicaid.

[Katherine Rampel]

And the provider taxes.

[Josh Hawley]

And what leadership told me over and over is we're working on a fix for rural hospitals.

[Sam Sanders]

I don't see anything in there to that effect. Nothing. That was Republican Senator Josh Hawley sharing his frustration, understandably, with reporters after effectively being lied to by his fellow fellow Republican colleagues. Not one Republican can defend these cuts to Medicaid or really most aspects of this legislation. So what do they do? They lie about it. Because polling shows that this legislative mashup of past Republican initiatives is wildly unpopular. According to a recent Washington Post Ipsos poll, the Republican bill faces nearly 2 to 1 opposition, with another third, 34% of Americans saying they have no opinion on the bill whatsoever. Meanwhile, a national Republican ad claims that the bill would cut taxes on Social Security benefits. I'm sorry to report, for those of you hoping for this, that it will not. That provision is not in the bill and actually cannot be in this bill. That's because Senate parliamentary rules make it hard to touch Social Security within a budget reconciliation bill, which is the arcane process that they are using. So if Republicans really believe in this bill, if they really want voters on board with this bill, why don't they defend it on the merits rather than dress it up and deny the real harm it will cause? Harm to families like Elena Hungs, her 10 year old daughter Xiomara relies on Medicaid for life sustaining care. Elena and Xiomara travel to Washington along with other parents and their children with medically complex conditions who rely on Medicaid. Just this week, Landry Bell, a one year old boy who was born with down syndrome, wriggled and smiled in his big sister's lap on the floor outside Republican Senator Mike Lee's office this week as he took a break from going office to office with his mother while she explained how cuts to Medicaid would devastate their family. Wearing a bright blue T shirt emblazoned with the words Little Lobbyists, Landry was among a group of children with serious medical needs who crisscrossed the Capitol with their parents urging senators to vote no on the spread sprawling Republican bill carrying President Trump's agenda. The legislation would cut deeply into Medicaid to help pay for large tax cuts that would benefit businesses and the richest Americans. Leading off our discussion tonight is Elena Hung, executive director and co founder of Little Lobbyists, which is a family led organization advocating for kids with complex medical needs and disabilities. Alaina, thanks so much for joining us. So so on June 20, 2017, you went to Washington for the first time to advocate for kids who rely on Medicaid like your own daughter Xiomara. And today, exactly eight years later, you're somehow back fighting the same battle. What has changed in that time and what hasn't?

[Elena Hung]

First, thank you so much for having me. Yes, it's been eight years and unfortunately not too much has changed. We had families come from all over the country, from Alaska and Maine and Ohio, Louisiana, Missouri, from all over for the same reason that I showed up eight years ago. We came with redemption in our hearts and grace in our messages and with a profound moral clarity to do right by our children. And that is to tell these personal stories and put a face on Medicaid. These are the children who will be directly affected by Medicaid cuts.

[Sam Sanders]

Can you clarify what in this bill might affect access to health care for your daughter or other children like like her? Is it the work requirements provisions? Is it something else in the bill? Help the public understand.

[Elena Hung]

Here's what I'll say. No cuts to Medicaid are acceptable because a cut is a cut is a cut is a cut. Medicaid pays for the kind of home care that private insurance doesn't. And home care enables medically complex kids like mine, like Xiomara, to live safely at home with their own families and grow up with their siblings and go to school. That's something that we don't talk enough about, that Medicaid is not just for health care, but also education. My daughter goes to school with her nurse who keeps her medically safe, and that is the only way she's able to access her education. Without that, she and children like her would be forced into institutions like nursing homes and medical facilities. So what's happened is that history has shown that when Medicaid budgets are cut, the first thing that goes, the first thing that's cut are the home and community based services, the home care that children like mine rely on.

[Sam Sanders]

Do you think lawmakers and Americans better understand today what's really at stake with these Medicaid cuts?

[Elena Hung]

Well, I sure hope so. And that's why families like mine are showing up, traveling all this way to speak with their members. And we'll be back and continue to tell our stories and put a face on Medicaid.

[Sam Sanders]

You've obviously had to focus your efforts on Republican lawmakers because Democrats are not really party to these negotiations. What kind of response have you been getting thus far from, from the Republicans that you've been meeting with?

[Elena Hung]

We've been getting what you said earlier, some truths, untruths, telling us that this won't harm our children when we know better. And so we keep emphasizing showing them, showing up and saying, these are the children who will be directly affected. Look my child in the eye. These are the children who will be affected.

[Sam Sanders]

Can you tell our audience a little bit more about your daughter? Yes.

[Elena Hung]

So Xiomara is the joy of my life. She just finished fourth grade and is about to celebrate her 11th birthday. And those are two milestones that were never, ever promised to a medically complex child like her. She was born with a number of serious medical conditions affecting her airway, lungs, heart and kidneys, and spent the first five months of her life in the neonatal intensive care unit. And it is because of Medicaid that she is thriving today. And children like her are thriving because.

[Sam Sanders]

Of Medicaid and lobbying in the halls of Congress, even. Yes, a precocious little girl, it sounds like. Elena Hung. Thank you so much for joining us. And now, now I will be joined by economist Betsy Stevenson, my friend, a professor of Economics and at the University of Michigan. She served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor, as well as a member of the Council of Economic Advisors in the Obama administration. So, Betsy, great to see you. We've heard some about these individual compelling stories. What happens when the safety net is cut, Medicaid or otherwise? I want to draw back a little bit. What's the risk to the broader economy if we go down this path of slashing safety nets?

[Betsy Stevenson]

Well, there's two ways to think about the risk to the broader economy. I'll start with the. The broadest aspect, since that affects everybody, even if you don't know anybody on Medicaid or don't know anybody relying on snap benefits. But those kind of benefits are things that provide a cushion for the economy if we start to enter some kind of recessionary period. Economists call these automatic stabilizers because Congress doesn't have to do anything. Nobody has to do anything. They automatically stabilize the economy by putting money in the hands of people who are most likely to spend it, who most desperately need it at a time when the economy is weakening. And what that does is help support the economy. It's like expansionary monetary policy or expansionary fiscal policy, but it's automatic and it's well targeted. It's hitting the people who need it most.

[Sam Sanders]

It's automatic. Just to clarify, because when people lose their jobs, they lose income, they become newly eligible for these programs. Right?

[Betsy Stevenson]

Exactly. Because as the economy gets worse, more people are able to qualify and Congress doesn't have to do anything to make it so that they'll qualify. So when we cut back these programs, what we're doing is we're reducing the amount of automatic stabilizers in the economy. And that means that as the economy weakens, there's less of a cushion and we're more likely to get into a deeper recession. So I think that's one aspect. I think another broad aspect is the idea that we are going to boost labor force participation by using all of these sticks. I just think it's wrong. And the data has shown time and time again that it's wrong. And taking health insurance away from people who are vulnerable, leaving them without the medical care they need to stay healthy enough to work, is not going to motivate them to get out there and get a job. It's actually gonna leave them less physically able to work. And there's a kind of irony in this bill that I don't know really gets me, which is that Trump has spent the first hundred days with Elon Musk at the head of doge trying to get rid of government workers because they wanna reduce the bureaucracy. But all of the changes to Medicaid are about bloating the bureaucracy of Medicaid and denying the healthcare aspect of it. So what are they doing? They're gonna ask people to certify their qualifications twice a year instead of once a year. I mean, I have the easiest health insurance out there, and I still find it a hassle to deal with. If I had to go out and provide all the paperwork showing that I' that I'm eligible, well, my income's been twice a year. There's gonna be people just fall off because of that. It's just too much paperwork. And even the work requirement, I think Americans hear work requirement and they're like, well, sure, you should work. But again, it's like, what is that actually accomplishing? It's increasing the bureaucracy, and it's not clear that it's gonna incentivize anyone to work. And it may make people actually less able to work. I mean, I put it all together and I think we're going to end up with more fragile people and we're not going to end up with higher labor force participation, and we're going to end up with a more, potentially more volatile economy with fewer automatic stabilizers.

[Sam Sanders]

Yeah, that's a great point. That this new set of provisions, these work requirements that are being billed as a way to increase the labor force by encouraging more people to get jobs, may in fact pull people out of the labor force if they can't get the health care that they need to support their ability to work. I want to ask you about the cost of the bill. So the budget bill adds something like $3.4 trillion to the deficit. What will that mean to economic resilience for the country going forward?

[Betsy Stevenson]

You know, I am still going to start on the, the, the distributional aspect because it's really cutting income for the bottom in order to give it to the top. And that's. That's kind of messy because people at the bottom, they're using that income for really important things. And that's out there, you know, supporting the economy today. We're giving it to people at the top who don't actually need the money. And it's not clear what they're going to do with it. One of the things they might do with it is starting to save it for their kids in the next generation, building generational wealth, exacerbating inequality. And then basically what we're gonna be asking them to do with all the money we give back to them is to invest in government debt because they're gonna be the only ones with any money that can afford to buy the treasury bills that we need to sell in order to fund the debt that we're using to give them the money. So we're gonna give them their money and then they're gonna give it back to the government and we're gonna have to pay them lots of interest for them to do that, right?

[Sam Sanders]

Yeah. So there's a dist aspect, you know, redistributing wealth from the poor to the wealthy, but then it still costs a bunch of money because it's the amount taken away from the poor doesn't fully offset the amount being given to the rich. So you have all of this bloated additional deficit spending. Betsey Stevenson, thank you so much for your time this evening. Always great to see you.

[Betsy Stevenson]

It's great to see you.

[Sam Sanders]

Coming up, political theater expert JD Vance has some thoughts about his former Senate colleague and Alex Padilla being handcuffed during a Homeland Security press conference. And he shared them tonight in his own press conference, which JD Vance held on his way to a Republican fundraiser in the peaceful city of LA tonight. That's up next.

[Purdue Global]

This is your moment, your time to shine your comeback. You're ready for the next step in your career and you want an education employers respect. So you're not just going back to school. You're coming back with Purdue Global. Backed by Purdue University, one of the nation's most respected public universities, Purdue Global is built for people who bring their life experience into the online classroom. Purdue Global, Purdue's online university for working adults. Start your comeback today at purdueglobal. Edu.

[Sam Sanders]

Hey, I'm journalist Sam Sanders.

[Saeed Jones]

I'm poet Saeed Jones.

[Zach Stafford]

And I'm producer Zach Stafford. And we are the hosts of a podcast called Vibe Check.

[Saeed Jones]

On Vibe Check, we talk about everything.

[Sam Sanders]

News, culture and entertainment and how it all feels.

[Zach Stafford]

That's right. We talk about any and everything on our show, from real life issues like grief to music and movie critiques. And that barely scratches the surface.

[Saeed Jones]

Yes, indeed. And it doesn't stop there. We have got a lot to say, so join our group, chat, come to life, follow and listen to Vibe Check wherever you get your podcasts.

[Katherine Rampel]

Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance and keep an eye on your kids spending with real time notifications, kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money. With guardrails in place, sign up for Greenlight [e-mail] podcast.

[Sam Sanders]

In another political stunt designed to draw attention away from other disasters in Trump's second term, Vice President J.D. vance traveled to LA today to tour a couple of command centers and hold a photo op, shaking hands with Marines Donald Trump had deployed to the city. J.D. vance then gave a press conference in which he falsely described L. A as a city that's being overrun, destroyed by widespread violent protests. He completely brushed off questions about hardworking people who have committed no crimes, who are now being swept up in haphazard ICE raids. And he baselessly attacked Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass. Then J.D. vance decided to drop the name of a convicted terrorist named Jose when he was asked about Democratic lawmakers who were being handcuffed. Democrat lawmakers who keep getting handcuffed. The New York Times just did a story, they keep getting handcuffed, suggesting that the Trump administration is cracking down on Democrats. Can you comment on that?

[Josh Hawley]

Well, I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question, but unfortunately, I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn't the theater. And that's all it is. You know, I think everybody realizes that's what this is. It's pure political theater. These guys show up, they want to be captured on camera doing something. They want to be able to go back to their far left groups and to say, look, me, I stood up against border enforcement, I stood up against Donald Trump, when all they're really standing up for is for drug cartels to run rampant over our country and sex traffickers to be able to continue to traffic little kids into our country. That's what you're doing when you stand against border enforcement. So I think these guys, we ought to laugh them out of the building.

[Sam Sanders]

Yeah, you heard that right. The vice President of the United States could not correctly name the first US Senator in history to be handcuffed and forcibly removed for asking a Cabinet member a question. A senator who happened to be Vance's colleague, by the way. And he mocked other Democratic officials who have been handcuffed. There's not really any other word for this than disgraceful. Governor Gavin Newsom pointed out, quote, J.D. vance served with Alex Padilla in the United States Senate. Calling him Jose Padilla is not an accident. Louisiana Mayor Karen Bass responded to JD Vance this way today.

[Katherine Rampel]

The vice president of the United States spent three or four hours in LA before holding a press conference and spewing lies and utter nonsense sense in an attempt to provoke division and conflict in our city. This is consistent with the provocation from Washington that began two weeks ago when our city was calm and many millions of Angelenos were going about working and contributing to our city. The provocation has resulted in lives disrupted, terror and fear spread throughout our city.

[Sam Sanders]

Joining us now, Democratic Congresswoman Annette Barragan of California. She is co chair of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. Congresswoman, thanks for joining me. What was your reaction to Vance's visit and what he said during the few hours that he was in LA today?

[Annette Barragan]

Well, we know it wasn't a serious visit. I mean, you saw the 12 minute press conference was just full of lies, lies and more lies. I frankly think it was a way for him to come out here to try to convince people about something that's not happening. Because we've seen the President's approval ratings go down. We've seen people say they don't agree with this approach. This administration is going after regular folks. They're going after day laborers, they're going after cooks, they're not going after violent criminals. Something that J.D. vance said today. And of course, we know that this President is not about law and order. He's been for lawlessness, he's been for violence. Let's remember January 6th. So when you add the Vice President coming out today, I think it was a way of them trying to convince the American people through lies about what they're doing and what they're doing is wrong. It's a complete abuse of power. I can tell you that as somebody who's been in Los Angeles, and this started in Paramount on Saturday morning in my district. The local police department said it was under control. They got it under control that night. There was no need for the National Guard, there was no need for the Marines. They themselves told me, hey, we don't need anybody else. And we know that it was meant to escalate the situation and it did.

[Sam Sanders]

So Vance accused Senator Padilla of political theater. From what you have just described, it sounds like the administration themselves are trying to stoke some of this theater about potentially provoking protesters. How is that working out for Donald Trump? You mentioned that his approval ratings are not doing so well. Does this seem to be working in his favor?

[Annette Barragan]

I don't believe it is. I think it's backfiring. I think the American people are seeing this President out of control with the use of ice I mean, we have people who don't even know if people that are coming in mass and being abducted. They don't know if it's actually law enforcement or not. This is making us less safe, not more safe. When you take away resources from focusing on violent criminals and going after folks that have been here 10, 20 years and in some cases US citizens and detaining them, the public is saying, hold on a moment. This is not what we expected that you were going to do. Even people that supported the President who said he told us he was going to go after violent criminals. I didn't think he was going to go after my sister, my brother, my neighbor, and even US Citizens that are being detained. And so I think his approach has gone way too far. It's an abuse of power and we need to rein it in. And I think this is where you're seeing people come out in masses to protest these mass deportations and these workplace raids that people disagree with. Look, nobody disagrees with apprehending violent criminal offenders, but just take a look at, at the numbers, and the numbers don't lie. They're rounding up hundreds and hundreds of people. And most of those people have never had any encounter with law enforcement. Most of those people have no record at all. And they're not the people that this administration is telling the American public that they're going after. That makes us less safe.

[Sam Sanders]

So in addition to all of the masked ICE agents or other law enforcement agents who are out there rounding up people, regardless of their criminal history, you also, of course, still have the military in la despite the protests dying down. Here's what Vance had to say about why they're still there.

[Josh Hawley]

Unfortunately, a lot of these federal buildings were under very serious threat. I heard about a lot of that during my tour here today. And I think there's some good news. And the good news is the rioting has gotten a lot better. But the bad news is, as I heard from everybody, unfortunately, the soldiers and Marines are still very much a necessary part of what's going on here because they're worried that it's going to flare back up.

[Sam Sanders]

By that logic, I guess you could have troops stationed all across America. What do you make of this?

[Annette Barragan]

It's just more lies. It really is. And I have said from the beginning that if you removed the troops, if you removed the National Guard, that that would help de escalate the situation. Instead, on the same night that the mayor decided that the curfew would be lifted, the President announced he was going to send more troops not because the situation was worse, because they wanted political theater. They want to say that they're strong and they're powerful and they're militarizing our streets. People don't agree with it. And those of us here in Los angeles know that 99% of the city is business as usual. And it is this administration with the deployment of troops, with the deployment of folks that are not needed here that it's making the situation worse. I don't think the National Guard is necessary to protect federal buildings or to protect officers. Local law enforcement has done their job, can do their job. And I think this is their way of trying to also silence dissent. And in many cases, we've seen escalations in peaceful protests and that's of concern as well.

[Sam Sanders]

Representative Jeanette Barragan, thank you so much for giving me the on the ground view from California. Be glad to have you back sometime.

[Annette Barragan]

Thank you for having me.

[Sam Sanders]

When we come back, Donald Trump claims has always claimed to hate socialism. But his words and his actions don't always match up, as we've seen with Trump's latest attempt to make the United States a command and control economy. That's up next. Stick with us. Ever since Donald Trump came down that big beautiful golden escalator at Trump Tower in 2015 and decided to run for president, he has been accusing Democrats of socialism.

[Mike Johnson]

Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.

[Annette Barragan]

Many of you in the room know.

[Elena Hung]

What it feels like to be blessed with freedom after living under the oppression of socialism.

[Katherine Rampel]

Comrade Kamala announced that she wants to.

[Mike Johnson]

Institute socialist price controls. You saw that never worked before.

[Sam Sanders]

Never ever worked. Par for the course with Trump. Every accusation is an admission or at least a projection. There's plenty in his own agenda that looks a fair amount like a socialist style command and control economy. He is also trying to dictate how private companies set prices by bullying them to eat the cost of his across the board tariffs. He also said in an interview with Time magazine that the goal of his trade deals was to set American prices himself. Quote, I am this giant store. It's a giant beautiful store and everybody wants to go shopping there. And on behalf of the American people, I own the store and I set prices. And I'll say, if you want to shop here, this is what you have to pay, unquote. Conservative writer Kevin D. Williamson recently published an article in the Dispatch titled Trump Is a Socialist. In it, he writes, the thing about socialism is it stays socialism whether you like socialism or you dislike it. It is a word that means something. Socialism does not mean government funded education and retirement benefits and healthcare subsidies. Those things are simply welfare. And there are better and worse ways to go about doing such things. Socialism means a centrally planned economy, one that is dominated by state action, irrespective of whether it is dominated by formal state enterprises. The latest example of Trump's socialist impulses is a story we actually covered here last night about the golden share that was negotiated in the foreign acquisition of US Steel. It gives the Trump administration extraordinary influence over the company. My next guest, Scott Lincekom, wrote in the Dispatch, quote, the golden share's implications are significant and troubling. First, and obviously, it's beyond rich that the political party supposedly fighting American socialism today, and once highly critical of a socialist president's temporary bailout of Government Motors, is now championing the president's perpetual control of U.S. steel. The Trump administration's golden share control of a wide array of U.S. steel's domestic business activities should be seen as a de facto nationalization of the company, unquote. Then there's Trump's crypto, where he also has a heavy hand in regulatory policy. He wants to seize control of the money supply by taking away the Fed's independence. And there is the new Trump Fund phone that you may have heard about, which he is selling. While he can de facto set the price for his competitors in the phone space through tariffs, it is not a coincidence that in countries like Russia or China, where government officials are enriched by state control of the economy and where those officials therefore have a lot of control over the enrichment of others in the state, corruption often abounds. Here's Trump himself describing what happens when socialism ends.

[Mike Johnson]

Socialism is a sad and discredited ideology.

[Katherine Rampel]

Rooted in the total ignorance of history.

[Mike Johnson]

And human nature, which is why socialism eventually must always give rise to tyranny, which it does.

[Sam Sanders]

Joining me now is Scott Lincecomb, Vice President of Economics and Trade at the Cato Institute. Scott, thanks so much for joining me tonight. What do you think the reaction would have been from the conservative right if a Democratic president tried nationalizing a private business?

[Katherine Rampel]

Well, I would, I mean, hope that it was a gassed opposition. When you think of the traditional GOP and its views on government involvement in private business, you would again, you'd think they would be strongly opposed to a president doing such. And remember when the government took a temporary stake in General Motors several years ago under President Obama, they were aghast at that Government Motors. So I'd assume it'd be much the same.

[Sam Sanders]

Where have we seen some of Trump's socialist tendencies, assuming you agree with that characterization, outside of U.S. steel, like, how does this fit into the rest of his economic agenda?

[Katherine Rampel]

Right, well, you listed some of those things. You know, really there are two Trumps on some of the domestic and regulatory side. It's still pretty traditional Republican, but anything that touches the international space. It sounds a lot more like a Latin American strongman than a Republican president. And that is tariffs and import substitution industrial policy, these tacit price controls. There's again this nationalization, de facto nationalization of US Steel because it involves a foreign investment as well. Get anywhere near that international space, and it's a far different type of party we're talking about.

[Sam Sanders]

Can you walk through why these kinds of command and control policies are dangerous beyond, you know, socialism equals bad. Like, why should we care about this?

[Katherine Rampel]

Right. Well, the first issue is the government preferring one business or one industry over others inevitably skews the economy in ways that might benefit that loan preferred industry, but are going to harm all of the other industries. If you help the steel industry, you harm all of the businesses that consume steel, you end up harming the economy overall. The other big thing is, though, you actually end up in the long run, not breeding a strong, thriving domestic steel industry. But you get these kind of zombie companies that hang on not because they're lean and mean and efficient, but because they know the right guys in the government. And that gets to the last point, that there's always corruption and cronyism tied to this, and that fuels even more resources from the private sector towards the government sector, towards lobbying and securing preferential benefits. And that makes the economy even, even worse off. Slower growth and more distortions overall. Again, it's not what we've come to expect from the US Economy. It's more like something we'd see in a developing country, kind of tin pot authoritarianism.

[Sam Sanders]

Right. Every moment that a CEO or a board is thinking about how do we do something to placate the strongman president of the country, or at least not aggravate him, is a moment they're not thinking about how do they acquire customers, how do they become more productive, etc.

[Katherine Rampel]

Yeah, exactly.

[Sam Sanders]

How do you think that world leaders might be reacting to this US Steel deal if they're paying attention?

[Katherine Rampel]

Well, I would think that they would be concerned but also see an opening, you know, to the extent that Trump can be bought off with these types of transactions, that can maybe get lower tariffs for their constituents, exports, that can maybe get them out of Trump's crosshairs. Well, this is an advantage. That doesn't mean it's actually good for the US Economy and for the global economy, but it might provide them with some leverage. I'm really more concerned, though, with foreign companies and foreign investors. You know, the United States is the world's largest destination for foreign direct investment. That's a huge benefit for American workers in the US Economy. And if those types of investments start getting dinged with potential supposed national security issues, they start getting demands for their own golden shares and their business operations. Well, they're just not going to invest here as as much. And that's going to make us all a little worse off in the long run.

[Sam Sanders]

Scott Lindsecombe, thanks as always for your insights. Be glad to have you back sometime. Coming up, our next guest, John Harwood says Donald Trump is bad for America. And the American press needs to be clearer about that. That's up next. How many discounts does USAA Auto Insurance offer?

[Betsy Stevenson]

Too many to say here.

[Sam Sanders]

Multi vehicle discount, safe driver discount, new vehicle discount, storage discount, legacy? How many discounts will you stack up? Tap the banner or visit usaa.com autodiscounts restrictions apply.

[Purdue Global]

You know you've got a comeback in you. When you take the next step, you're going to make it count for your career, for your family, for your life. You can earn a degree you're proud of with Purdue Global. Purdue Global is backed by Purdue University, one of the nation's most respected and innovative public universities. This is your chance. This is your opportunity. This is your comeback. Purdue Global, Purdue's online university for working adults. Start your comeback today at purdueglobal Eduardo.

[Sam Sanders]

Hey, I'm journalist Sam Sanders.

[Saeed Jones]

I'm poet Saeed Jones.

[Zach Stafford]

And I'm producer Zach Stafford. And we are the hosts of a podcast called Vibe Check.

[Sam Sanders]

On Vibe Check, we talk about everything, news, culture and entertainment and how it all feels.

[Zach Stafford]

That's right, we talk about any and everything on our show, from real life issues like grief to music and movie critiques. And that barely scratches the surface.

[Saeed Jones]

Yes, indeed. And it doesn't stop there. We have got a lot to say. So join our group, chat, come to life, follow and listen to Vibe Check wherever you get your podcasts.

[Sam Sanders]

It cannot be overstated how important journalism and reporting is to the health of a democratic country. That's why the founders put freedom of the press right there in the First Amendment. But Donald Trump has made attacking the press a staple. Even his buddies over at Fox News for that matter. Donald Trump doesn't like the press because he wants to create his own reality, unencumbered by facts or any source of accountability. My own newspaper, the Washington Post, calculated that Donald Trump told 30,573 lies in his first term. But who's counting? Of course, that's an astonishing, unbelievable number. And it's a challenge to journalistic objectivity, because what does objectivity really mean in the face of this relentless, incessant lying? Longtime Washington reporter John Harwood, a veteran of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, cnbc, writes a credu coeur about the relationship between the press and Trump in his new piece for Zatteo titled Trump Is Objectively Bad for America. Why won't more journalists say so? I'd be derelict in my duty as a reporter if I obscured the truth. John explains how Trump is objectively bad. He says it's bad to relentlessly lie to your constituents. It's bad to corrupt government for your self enrichment. It's bad to damage the rule of law by denying due process, defying court orders, and seeking legal vengeance against political opponents. It's bad to appoint unqualified sycophants and kooks to run major departments of government. It's bad to fracture alliances with other democracies that help keep us prosperous and safe. It's bad to pursue your objectives with threats of force against people or organizations or friendly countries. It's bad to wreck planning by businesses with repeated capricious shifts in their terms of trade. It's bad to incite violence intended to thwart the will of voters and pardon it and further encourage it by pardoning people convicted of committing that violence. It's bad to upend the lives of civil servants with fabricated claims of fraud. It's bad to summarily terminate foreign aid approved by Congress on which poor, desperate people depend on for their lives. John concludes, my job in 2025 is reporting on what Donald Trump is doing to our country. And I would be derelict to obscure the objective reality that it's very, very bad. John Harwood, a distinguished fellow at Duke University's DeWitt Wallace center for Media and Democracy, joins us now. John, my friend, thanks so much for joining us.

[Mike Johnson]

You bet.

[Sam Sanders]

So I want to push back on one thing here. In my view, there's no shortage of people saying Trump is bad. All the things you laid out are bad. So who is it that you think is letting the public down? Like who or what is being subtweeted here in this piece?

[Mike Johnson]

Well, I really wasn't trying, Katherine, to subtweet Anyone in particular? We did have an event recently when Terry Moran, a very accomplished correspondent for ABC News, was fired by ABC for making an observation about Stephen Miller and Donald Trump and the animus behind their actions on immigration. That I think is true. It's all of our job to tell the truth as we see it. And the things that you read to me are objectively true. And they go right at the foundations of what has made this country the leading country in the world. The bounds of the Constitution checks and balances. A democratic system in which losers respect the outcome. The rule of law, which makes a prosperous economy possible and ensures people's civil rights. All those things are being directly assailed by Donald Trump. And I think that calling that out, we don't have to live in the reality that he's creating for himself. We can see the actual reality that people are living right now. And so I'm describing what I am compelled to do in describing it. Others will make different judgments. And I will say, if every single person in the press talked like I did or wrote like I did about Donald Trump, would that make a difference in our politics? I don't know the answer to that. We all know that journalistic audiences are fragmenting both on television and in print. But I have to tell the truths that I see. And I think these are incontrovertible truths.

[Sam Sanders]

Yeah, it's been interesting. I've been watching the Khirons on different news organizations coverage of la, and you can really see this fracturing or bifurcation of how they are being covered in the different reality that people, that consumers of news are absorbing. We actually also got a real life example of the bad faith of this administration tonight when Vice President J.D. vance went to Los Angeles and said the name of a convicted terrorist accidentally in place of the name of Senator who he served with and whose name he certainly knows. Take a listen.

[Josh Hawley]

I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question, but unfortunately, I guess he decided not to show up.

[Sam Sanders]

So what do you think is the best way for the press to respond to an act of what seems to be bad faith? In this example, it doesn't seem like he made a gaffe. I mean, we don't know, but it seems like Vance wanted the headline. Do we give it more attention or not? How do you cover something like this?

[Mike Johnson]

Well, I think we describe it as we see it. And I agree with you. I think it is a bad faith. I don't think it was an accident. Look, for a normal person who came out with a wrong name. You might give them the benefit of the doubt. But there are several reasons not to do that for J.D. vance. First of all, he served with Alex Padilla in the United States Senate. He presides over the United States Senate right now. He knows the California senator's name. Secondly, J.D. vance and the whole administration has a penchant for lying constantly. And JD Vance showed a taste for racist lies in the 2024 election when he went around saying that Haitian immigrants were eating the dogs and cats of people in Springfield, Ohio. We know that was false. It was preposterous. But he kept saying it anyway. And then finally it was confirmed by the statement of his press secretary tonight who said, well, he just mixed up the names of two people who broke the law. Well, Alex Padilla was removed from that press conference. He was not charged with the crime. And the person who broke the law, Jose Padilla, is a terrorist, as you indicated. That's not to have a kind of wisecrack like that from the press secretary does not give anyone any reason to think that it was a mistake.

[Sam Sanders]

John Harwood, thanks so much. Be well, my friend.

[Annette Barragan]

You bet.

[Sam Sanders]

We'll be right back. One programming note before we go. I will see you tomorrow evening from the studio. Across for me on the weekend primetime with my co hosts Antonia Hilton and Eamonn Mohidin. We will talk with LA based singer Neza, who you may have heard sang the national anthem in Spanish at Dodger Stadium after being warned not to. That starts at 6:00pm Eastern right here on MSNBC. Hey, I'm journalist Sam Sanders.

[Saeed Jones]

I'm poet Saeed Jones.

[Zach Stafford]

And I'm producer Zack Stafford. And we are the hosts of a podcast called Vibe Check.

[Sam Sanders]

On Vibecheck, we talk about everything, news, culture and entertainment and how it all feels.

[Zach Stafford]

That's right, we talk about any and everything on our show, from real life issues like grief to music and movie critiques. And that barely scratches the surface.

[Saeed Jones]

Yes, indeed. And it doesn't stop there. We have got a lot to say, so join our group, chat, come to life, Follow and listen to Vibe Check. Wherever you get your podcasts, it.