3570 - Nationalize the Defense Industry; GOP's War on Voting Rights w/ Julia Gledhill & Ari Berman

Summary

The Majority Report with Sam Seder – Episode 3570 Summary

Date: August 28, 2025
Host: Emma Vigeland (filling in for Sam Seder), with Sam Seder and guest hosts
Guests:

• Julia Gledhill (National Security Reform Program, Stimson Center; co-host, Undiplomatic podcast)
• Ari Berman (National Voting Rights Correspondent, Mother Jones)

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on two interlinked themes: reforming the U.S. defense industry—including the radical proposition of its nationalization—and the ongoing Republican attacks on voting rights and democratic mechanisms. Through detailed interviews with Julia Gledhill and Ari Berman, the show unpacks both the hidden inner workings of defense sector profiteering and the systematic assaults on election fairness, with both conversations situated in the rapidly shifting political context of Trump’s second term.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Mass Shooting in Minneapolis – Political Response and Right-wing Deflection

• The episode opens with coverage of another tragic mass shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis, resulting in child casualties and sparking renewed debate on gun policy.
• Emma Vigeland highlights broad patterns in mass shootings:

  “This is a policy choice… the numbers on mass shooting demographics: of the 172 individuals who engaged in public mass shootings… 97.7% were male… Trans individuals are not overrepresented in mass shootings as perpetrators at all.” (17:00)

• Detailed exploration of the right-wing media’s strategy to scapegoat marginalized groups (notably trans people) for America's gun violence, despite clear data to the contrary.
• Notable quote:

  “Other countries have trans people. They don’t have kids being slaughtered in schools. It’s because we allow people to buy this. This person had an AR-15. It shouldn’t be allowed. I don’t care about permits. Fuck you.” (10:36, Matt)

• Broader critique of political inertia despite clear polling in favor of gun reform.

---

2. Nationalizing the Defense Industry – Interview with Julia Gledhill

Segment starts: 24:27

The Setup

• The Trump administration’s moves to, in effect, transfer public funds to private defense contractors via stock “equity” purchases, described as “crony capitalism.”
• Howard Lutnick (quoted via CNBC) states:

  “Lockheed Martin makes 96% of their revenue from the US government. They are basically an arm of the US government…” (26:29)

Gledhill Interview Highlights

• Why Nationalize the Defense Industry?

  “The arms industry is so deeply ingrained in our government and corrupts our decision-making process around national security policy. And frankly, I think that we need fundamental institutional reform to throw a wrench in the war machine.” (27:51, Julia Gledhill)

• Comparing Nationalization Models

  • References partial nationalization in European countries like France, where government representation on boards and better oversight helps align defense policy with the public interest.
  • The U.S. spends over $1 trillion annually on defense, much of it unaccountable, driven as much by lobbying and private profit as strategic needs.

• Shareholder Profits & Waste

  “Ultimately they are private companies with private interests. If they can’t exist without the government, then I think that this deserves serious conversation about how we reorient that relationship.” (31:33, Gledhill)

• Intellectual Property and Right to Repair

  • Contractors maintain monopolies on maintenance and repair, leading to ballooning costs (e.g., the F-35 program).
  • They’re not required to provide substantiating cost data to the government, enabling rampant price gouging.

  “They have really successfully lobbied Congress to essentially gut contracting law and regulations so that they can sort of make up prices on military contracts...” (36:10, Gledhill)

• Partial vs. Full Nationalization

  • Partial: government stake/representation, more transparency, oversight.
  • Full: buy out (compensate) shareholders, government assumes control. Not considered likely but worth public debate, especially in crisis.
  • Historical precedent: U.S. government intervention in WWII; temporary nationalization of banks during crises.

  “If the government is the stabilizer here, even in a partial nationalization situation, then you have undercut the profit motive to a large degree...” (42:10, Emma)

• Ethics and Foreign Policy Impact

  “Imagine…if arms contractors were not lobbying Congress to the extent that they are, if they weren’t giving tens of millions of dollars… It could totally change the way that we talk about national security, particularly in Washington, D.C.” (42:19, Gledhill)

---

3. The Republican War on Voting Rights – Interview with Ari Berman

Segment starts: 44:36

Historical Background

• Since Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court has stripped crucial protections from the Voting Rights Act, eliminating pre-clearance for states with histories of discrimination.

  “That…was really the most important part of the Voting Rights Act because it stopped abuses before they even occurred…” (47:10, Berman)

• Post-2013: rapid resurgence of discriminatory voting policies in multiple states.

Present Attacks on Voting Rights

• Section 2’s Fate

  • Now the focus is on gutting Section 2 of the VRA, which allows private parties to bring voting rights lawsuits.
  • Only 15 successful Section 2 VRA lawsuits (of 182 since 1982) were brought solely by the DOJ; most were brought by private actors (51:20).

• Judicial Activism and Racial Gerrymandering

  “This is the idea that Section 2 shouldn’t be used to strike down racial gerrymandering. That is also an insane, totally ahistorical idea. Clarence Thomas has basically been arguing this for 30 years. And now it seems like there’s a majority on the court for this idea.” (56:48)

  • Supreme Court plans to revisit whether majority-minority districts violate the “colorblind Constitution,” a legal maneuver critics say directly undermines the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ intent.

• Conservative Justifications and Real-World Impact

  “They’ve been turned on its head… The interpretation that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth who were meant to prohibit racism, not the consideration of race, now are said to prohibit the consideration of race. That…would basically kill the Voting Rights Act.” (58:39)

• Gerrymandering Arms Race

  • Trump administration’s direct pressure on Republican states to redistrict mid-decade, seeking up to 12 extra GOP House seats. Unprecedented presidential intervention.

  “A president telling a state, you need to redistrict, you need to gerrymander mid decade to give me more seats… this is absolutely insane to see.” (69:28, Berman)

• Voter Roll Purges and DOJ Actions

  • DOJ requesting voter roll data from blue states to fuel a new wave of voter purges, echoing past efforts to falsely allege mass voter fraud.

• Broader Shift Toward Authoritarianism

  • Berman warns of the “flood the zone” tactic: increase the volume and speed of anti-democratic changes so opposition cannot keep up.

  “His push for authoritarianism is gaining speed every single day and has been remarkably effective and has been quicker and more aggressive and more successful than I think even many of his critics… expected.” (80:35)

  • Glaring lack of institutional resistance; higher education, corporations, and even law firms “caving” to the new status quo.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Right's Deflection After School Shootings:
  “They are professional scapegoat hunters, pointing at scapegoats at every single turn. And, you know, we gotta stop being stupid enough to fall for it.” (19:10, Matt)

• On Pentagon Waste and Cronyism:
  “Our national security budget is well over a trillion dollars. It is completely unmoored from any cohesive or realistic strategy to guide our foreign policy.” (32:48, Julia Gledhill)

• On the VRA’s Historical Importance:
  “The Voting Rights Act was a law that basically made America a multiracial democracy. And without it… some of the things that we thought we would never see again, those kind of things will start coming back.” (66:39, Ari Berman)

• On Trump 2.0’s Ruthlessness:
  “They have accomplished, in my estimation, a lot in just eight months. I mean, very bad things. And again, it’s been destructive and that’s a lot easier to do. But they have started to figure out how to work around the courts…” (78:32, Sam)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:18-07:00: Minneapolis mass shooting & right-wing response
• 24:27-43:21: Julia Gledhill on defense industry nationalization
• 44:36-86:25: Sam Seder interviews Ari Berman on voting rights (detailed historical and current analysis)
• 86:25-end: Show panel fun and lighter discussion (skip for core political content)

---

Episode Tone & Style

• Forthright, irreverent, occasionally expletive-laden analysis
• In-depth interviews with strong focus on policy detail and democratic principles
• Clear outrage at current political developments, tempered by moments of dark humor and camaraderie among the hosts

---

Conclusion

This episode is a must-listen for anyone wanting an accessible, strongly-argued account of how America’s twin crises—a captured defense economy and a sabotaged democracy—intersect under the current political regime. Both interviews serve as a call to action for more radical, structural solutions—be it nationalizing war profiteers or fighting for the very foundations of voting rights. The mood is urgent but never defeatist, consistently foregrounding data, real-world impact, and the imperative of public accountability.

Transcript

[A]

You are listening to a free version.

[B]

Of the Majority Report. Support this [e-mail] and get an extra hour of content daily.

[A]

It is Thursday, August 28, 2025. My name is Emma Vigeland in for Sam Cedar and this is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Julia Gledhill will be with us to talk about her piece arguing for nationalizing the defense industry. And later in the show, Ari Berman joins Sam for an interview that was recorded in the past, but you'll get to hear it through the magic of.

[C]

Time travel and is also about an article from the future.

[A]

Yes. Wow, that's. My head is spinning. That will be after my interview with Julia. Great conversation. Also on the program, In Minneapolis, a shooting at a Catholic school leaves at least two children dead and 17 injured as Republicans scramble to find a way to blame anything but guns. RFK Jr severely limits who is eligible for the COVID vaccine, narrowing it to people older than 65 or with proof of an underlying condition. And not so coincidentally, yesterday the CDC director was fired less than a month after being sworn in. In Chicago, Pritzker and Johnson's offices are closely coordinating to shield the city from Trump's deployment of the National Guard. Israel has a problem. Many IDF reservists are not showing up for duty, complicating Netanyahu's plan to call up 60,000 to invade Gaza City. In the North, Tony Blair is taking meetings with Trump to help craft post war plans for Gaza, you know, democratically, without the input of Palestinians. A new Quinnipiac poll finds that half of all voters in the US think Israel is committing genocide, including 77% of Democrats and 51% of independents. And that same poll finds that 56% of registered voters disapprove of Trump deploying the National Guard to D.C. including an overwhelming majority of independents. Maybe taking this on is good politics instead of hiding from it.

[C]

I don't know what something like 14 Democrats and one Republican call it a genocide.

[A]

The administration is testing a pilot program in six states, hiring private AI companies to screen Medicare patients to determine coverage for certain care like spinal surgeries. Alligator Alcatraz will be vacated even as they appeal the court order demanding they shut it down. That's some good news. Trump gives an army contract to build a concentration camp in Texas to a shady LLC with no experience running a correctional facility or a functioning website. It could be worth up to $1.2 billion. And lastly, over 600 workers of the United Auto Workers union at GE's aerospace facility in. I did not write this down correctly. We'll look it up in just a second. But they're going on strike. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome to the show, everybody. It is an M. Majority Report Thursday. Just want to make sure I have the correct location of that GE aerospace facility in the Evandale, Ohio plant and the Erlinger, Kentucky distribution facility. So 600 workers at those two facilities, they didn't reach a contract agreement. So all solidarity to the GE workers in Kentucky and Ohio. And hello to Matt, hello to Brian. We have a great show for you today. We'll start off with, you know, the biggest story really in the country yesterday was this horrific shooting yesterday morning at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It happened as the students were attending mass in the morning. The shooter reportedly shot through the stained glass and killed an 8 year old and a 10 year old in the pews and injured at least 17 other people. Here is a young boy who survived this horrific traumatizing ordeal recounting the events.

[B]

My friend got hit in the back.

[D]

Did he go to the hospital?

[B]

Yeah, he went to the hospital.

[E]

What went through your mind when you saw that?

[B]

I was super scared for him, but I think now he's okay. I was scared that I wasn't gonna see her because I didn't know what was happening really. I was just in shock. It was like right beside me. I was like two seats away from this stained glass windows. So they were like. The shots were like right next to me. The first one, I was like, what is that? I thought it was just something. Then I heard it again. I just ran under the pew and then I covered my head. My friend Victor, like saved me though, because he laid on top of me, but he got hit.

[E]

Your friend laid on top of you?

[B]

Yeah, and he got hit.

[D]

Is this something that you practiced before?

[B]

Yeah, we practice it like every month or. I. I don't know, but yeah, we've never practiced it in the, in the church, though, only in school, so it was way different.

[E]

What do you want to say to your friend who helped protect you?

[B]

He's really brave and I hope he's good in the hospital.

[F]

What do you want to say to.

[D]

Everyone that had to go to the hospital?

[B]

I hope you're okay and I'm praying for you.

[A]

That's just, it's. It's really the innocence of it. The fact that any student in this country has to go through that kind of thing. It is a choice, It's a policy choice. There's been analyses done and this is not news to anyone in this audience. But just for posterity's sake, we'll get to the demographic piece in a second because we know how the Republicans are running with this. But there was an analysis done by the Violence Project, which is really the most frequently cited database academically for these mass shootings. Their qualifications for a mass shooting mean four or more killed, excluding the shooter. So, you know, this wouldn't even qualify. But this data is, I think from 1966 to 2016. I believe it was over a 50 year period. But they analyzed that over the past 50 years. 20% of the 167 mass shootings in that period occurred in the last five years of the study period. More than half occurred after 2000, 33% occurred after 2010. So just think about that. 33% occurred in a fraction of that 50 year period. The study. Yeah. Oh, actually it was from 1966 to 2019, but that's still just 10 years where 33% of those shootings occur. And in 19, or in 2004, Congress let the federal assault weapons ban expire. It was enacted in 1994 and expired in 2004 under the Bush administration. Republicans let that happen and you see how the death toll has risen since that period. From 2010 to 2019, the end of the study period, the average was 51 deaths per year with these mass shooting events versus eight lives in the 1970s. And that's a result of magazine capacity, assault weapons, these weapons of war being on our streets. The shooter was clearly deeply disturbed, as you would have to be to commit this kind of horrific act. The shooter had anti Jewish, anti Latino, anti black slurs written on the magazine and weapons that the shooter used. The shooter had a rifle, a shotgun and a pistol and died of a self inflicted gunshot wound on the scene. This study also shows that suicidal ideation is one of the best predictors of this kind of act. And this shooter appeared to meet that criteria as well. What it seems, what seems to be the case is that the shooter may have been trans. We don't know this for sure, but the. And the data is still coming out. But that has not stopped Republicans from of course, running with this in a defensive manner. As you were saying before the show, Matt, they need to run cover for their amosexual cohort of support.

[C]

I mean, you have to scapegoat someone. I mean, that's the Problem with the defensiveness is like, I feel like it's almost running with this trans thing. Like other countries have trans people. They don't have kids being slaughtered in schools. It's because we allow people to buy this. This person had a AR15. Yeah, it shouldn't be allowed. I don't care about permits. Fuck you.

[A]

Kristi Noem confirms on Twitter, she says that the shooter, the 23 year old man, of course misgendering, I don't know what that serves. I mean you're already being explicitly transphobic with this rush to blaming someone's gender identity for this. But called the shooter a monster, of course. And kill Donald Trump was on one of the rifle magazines. But obviously Noem leaves out the anti Semitic, anti black, anti Latino slurs that were.

[C]

Yeah, like Reddit racism type stuff.

[A]

I mean this shooter was extremely online disturbed and had many, many contradictory viewpoints. But the grossest reaction might be Jesse Watters in his monologue last night. Tucker Carlson is embarrassing. I would say Jesse Waters who took over for him and Waters, Waters overgrown frat boy thing isn't breaking through, while Tucker is like a dog with a bone a bit with some of this Israel stuff and exploiting that within the base right now to make a new name for himself outside of Fox News. I guess this is how Jesse Waters is going to do it.

[G]

Transgender who hates Trump, Christians and Jews shoots up kids at a Catholic school and the media wants to take away your handgun. So how are we supposed to protect ourselves from trans shooters? The media is bad at pattern recognition.

[F]

We aren't.

[G]

Just two years ago, another trans 20 something walked into a Christian school in Nashville with a rifle and shot three kids and three adults. They buried the manifesto and locked down the case. We've seen trans shootings in Colorado and in Maryland. They even shot up an ICE facility in Texas. And it seems like half of Antifa's trans. A couple of they thems just got popped for firebombing Teslas. The mayor of Minneapolis says you can't.

[D]

Say that anybody who is using this.

[F]

As an using this as an opportunity.

[G]

To villainize our trans community or any other community out there has lost their.

[F]

Sense of common humanity. We should not be operating out of a place of hate for anyone.

[G]

We should be operating from a place.

[D]

Of love for our kids.

[G]

I don't hate anyone who thinks they're trans. I feel sorry for them. But statistically the trans population has been prone to violence. That's not villainizing, that's reality. And if you can't recognize Reality, you're in danger. We love the American people.

[E]

All right, American shooting, whatever.

[A]

I'm just trying to make sure that we have the facts straight here. He was referring to the Club Q Colorado Springs shooting. I believe that that shooter identified as non binary. The Trump assassination attempt was quickly blamed on a trans person, which was not the case. What was the other?

[C]

Uvalde.

[A]

They were Uvalde. But we know that the shooter was a CIS male and in fact there have been some lawsuits against prominent right wing media personalities for misidentifying somebody in that particular shooting.

[C]

There's. You mentioned Nashville as well. I'm not sure about the details of those because I mean I remember one. I don't know if it was in Nashville one or a different one where it was very clearly ironic that the person was posing as trans online.

[A]

Exactly. They're these, these neo Nazi, you know, or extremely online black pilled. I don't know if that's term school shooters. They will say things like that because they know that right wing media will run with it. It's a way to demonize trans people on their way out or it's a joke in their community.

[C]

But to zoom out, sickos. This is what the right wing does and any sort of tragedy that involves way too much access to guns. Look what happened in Minnesota. The lawmakers get shot and they're blaming Tim Walls. It's what can. How can we peg this on our political enemies? It's just a fascist playbook. How many schools, how many shootings do we have in this country?

[D]

Yep.

[C]

Like, I mean we have the numbers on this. We, I mean we have an insane amount of data, frankly. A huge sample size.

[A]

It's unequivocal. And the polling is is there on this issue. It's just that there is not the political will to change it. Because even if people in a vacuum say we support gun control measures, they're not in mass driving to the polls based on this particular issue. It's why orienting your political strategy around polling is so silly because say like polling on economic numbers are way more likely to drive someone to the polls versus say polling on like trans kids in sports or even an issue like this where there's broad consensus. But there is a both like political corruption angle to it. Although the NRA has been defanged to a degree. But now there's this constituency on the right that loves their guns and they call the shots as a very vocal and loud minority. We have the numbers on mass shooting Demographics of the 172 individuals who engaged in public mass shootings covered in the database, 97.7% were male. Ages range from 11 to 70, with a mean age of 34.1. The shootings were 52.3% white, 20.9% black, 8.1% Latino, 6.4% Asian, 4.2% Middle Eastern, and 1.8% Native American, which is. Is fairly close, I think, to demographic numbers, although not the maleness. Not exactly, except the maleness part. So if we're looking at what is an overwhelming variable of someone's identity that would cause them to be a mass shooter, over 97% of these mass shooters are male. Now, you don't hear them make that case, because it's time to demonize trans people. And we know that trans individuals are not overrepresented in mass shootings as perpetrators at all. Trans people are way more likely to be victims of violence. But just this, this written in the Reuters article at the end of last year. Transgender individuals represent less than 1% of perpetrators in all mass shootings over the past decades, and about 2% involved in school shootings specifically, according to the Gun.

[C]

Violence Archive, which, given the degree to which they're bullied.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Surprise.

[A]

Trans people are four times more likely than CIS people to experience violence, including rape, sexual assault, or just simple assault. The UCLA Williams Institute did that analysis a few years back. Trans Americans behind bars are 12 times more likely to experience sexual violence. And in May, the Trump administration basically stopped requiring that people's gender identity would be counted in reports about sexual violence or violence of any kind, because they want to cover up the fact that. That trans people are more likely to be victims of this kind of violence and this kind of crime than perpetrators. But this is what's being said on our biggest cable news show in prime time. So that's that. I mean, what else is there to say?

[C]

Yeah, I think they have to fill the air with something because people are really upset about this stuff, but the policy is not going to change if they have anything to do about it. So, yeah, have to fill the air with something. But, I mean, Jesse Waters said pattern recognition that we rush to, oh, this is some conspiracy about Tim Walls, like the earlier Minnesota shooting, or this is something about trans people. We can recognize a pattern here. These are professional scapegoat hunters pointing at scapegoats at every single turn. And, you know, we gotta be too stupid. We gotta stop being stupid enough to fall for it.

[A]

In a moment, we'll be talking to Julia Gludhill. But first, A word from one of our sponsors. Going online without ExpressVPN is like driving without car insurance. You might be a great driver, but with all the crazy people on the road these days, why would you take the risk? Thank you to ExpressVPN for sponsoring this episode and for protecting me online. Visit expressvpn.com majority and you can get up to four extra months free every time you connect to an unencrypted network in CAFES, hotels, airports, etc. Your online data is not secure. Any hacker on the same network can gain access to and steal your personal data, passwords, bank logins, credit cards, details and more. It does not take much technical knowledge to hack somebody. You can just use some cheap hardware and that's all you need. A smart 12 year old could do it. ExpressVPN stops hackers from stealing your data by creating a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and and the Internet. It's super secure. It would take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to get past ExpressVPN's encryption. And it's easy to use. You just fire up the app and click one button to get protected. It works on all devices, phones, laptops, tablets and more so you can stay secure on the go. ExpressVPN is essential if you are in those coffee shops. If you are in those airports, it's easy to use. As they mentioned, you just click the button and you're good to go. Secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com majority that's E X P R E S s v p n.com majority to find out how you can get up to four extra months. Free expressvpn.com majority links below in the YouTube and episode descriptions and a word from another one of our sponsors from Sam from the past and then we'll be back to talk to Julia Gladhill.

[D]

Hey folks, as you know, we've been reporting on the massive cuts that the Trump administration has imposed on usaid. The Lancet magazine, or I should say Journal, anticipates that nearly 14 million people may die by 2030 because of these cuts to USAID funding. It is hard to accept, hard to know what's happening, and hard to know how to help. Well, GiveWell doesn't claim to have all the answers, but over the past 18 years the nonprofit research organization has helped guide More than 130 and two and a half billion dollars to highly cost effective aid give Wells. Researchers are analyzing the impact of the cuts to USAID in real time. They are sharing what they're learning with everyone for free through research updates, grant write ups and candid podcast conversations. GiveWell has already committed tens of millions of dollars in response to this year's cuts and their researchers are working to forecast, find and fund other new cost effective needs. GiveWell is a service it's completely free that analyzes through very transparent research the most cost effective charities that you can give. Traditionally they recommend five or so. I'm not sure what's on there right now, but for years I've used GiveWell as a resource to find effective charities that I donate to and right now they're digging deep into seeing how they can help direct funds to make up for these USAID cuts. GiveWell takes no cut of any of this. Donors pay, separate donors pay for the functioning of this site. They're very transparent. You should check it out for trusted evidence backed insights into this evolving situation and information about how you can help. Follow [e-mail] USAID we'll put that in the podcast and YouTube description.

[E]

Foreign.

[A]

We are back and I'm so happy to be joined by Julia Gledhill, research Analyst for the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson center and co host of the Undiplomatic podcast with our friend Matt Duss. Her latest piece in the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft is entitled Is Nationalizing the Defense Industry Such a Bad Idea? Julia, thanks so much for coming on the show today.

[E]

Thanks for having me on. I am such a fan. So it's such a pleasure to be here.

[A]

Oh my gosh. Well that's great to hear. I'm so happy to have you on because I loved your piece. I loved that you're kind of taking this idea from the administration and running with it in a way that I'm not sure is their intention. But let's play this clip of Howard Lutnick that got this conversation kind of kicked off. Right? So we have the Trump administration converted some chips grants that were going to go to intel into basically an equity purchase to uplift their stock because they've been lagging behind technologically in certain areas. And you know, there are some centrist Democrats calling that socialism, but there's no ownership involved here. This is just instead of grants for research and manufacturing, this is a grant for a free giveaway for the stock to go up. So I just want to be clear about the crony capitalism vision here. And Lutnick, then in on cnbc said, hey, maybe we'll try this with the defense industry here. Were his remarks what about defense companies.

[F]

Secretary, why shouldn't the US Government say, you know what, we use Palantir services, we would like a piece of Palantir. We use Boeing services, we would like a piece of Boeing.

[G]

There are a lot of businesses that.

[F]

Do business with the US Government that benefit by doing business with the US Government. Where again, I guess the question is, where's the line?

[H]

Oh, there's a monstrous discussion about defense. I mean, Lockheed Martin makes 96 of their revenue from the US government. They are basically an arm of the US government. They make exquisite munitions, I mean, amazing things that can knock a missile out of the air when it's coming towards you. But what's the economics of that? I'm going to leave that to my secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of Defense. These guys are on it and they're thinking about it. But I tell you what, there's a lot of talking that needs to be had about how do we finance our munitions acquisitions. I think a lot of that is talking and now you have the right people in the jobs and Donald Trump at the head thinking about what is the right way to do it. I tell you, the way it has been done has been a giveaway.

[E]

Mr.

[A]

I mean, there he's correct that it's been a giveaway, but he's just suggesting a different kind of giveaway, at least in my estimation. However, it does present an opening here where, hey, if we're going to subsidize some of these industries, maybe it might make sense for that to come back to the American public in some way. Julia, take it from there. Your reaction to Lutnick?

[F]

Sure.

[E]

I was very surprised by this news by Lutnick. I think that many of us were, and in fact, I had just finished a paper coming out in September making the case for nationalization and he beat me to it. But I don't think that we should shy away from big ideas just because the conversation around them starts from a rather unexpected place. It is undeniable that the arms industry is so deeply ingrained in our government and corrupts our decision making process around national security policy. And frankly, I think that we need fundamental institutional reform to throw a wrench in the war machine.

[A]

And the fundamental institutional reform, what would that look like in your estimation? Because like, you know, right now we talk about Pentagon waste and how they keep getting audited over and over again and they keep failing because there's all this money that is unaccounted for. You then also have, as you write in your piece, the Arms industry just spending hand over fist on lobbying and in order to basically buy the politicians on high committees to favor them. There's just so much sloshing around and so much waste to borrow like the administration's language on this that I mean, it would be a drastic reorientation of how we conduct our foreign policy.

[E]

You know, in theory, yes, but I think the transition might be a little less dramatic in practice than it is in theory. Just because our primes, these five huge military contractors that take home most of our annual defense budget every single year, they've been rocking with the government in this way for a very long time. And they, like I say in my piece, have government completely wrapped around their finger. And so nationalization presents a whole host of its own risks. Institutionalized corruption, crony capitalism to your point. But I think that we've already seen kleptocrats use public office for private gain. And so I think that we can mitigate a lot of the risks of partial or full nationalization by filling board seats and establishing transparent dividend policies. I mean we have a few reference points for this. There are European countries like France that have partially nationalized their defense industries in exerting more overt or transparent government control over companies. You know, we would at least have policymakers who are more accountable to the American people than the faceless executives who are pocketing taxpayer dollars.

[A]

Well, it's almost like, I mean it may not be France, but there are other European governments that will have like a worker representative on the board. This would be like say hey, we're giving you billions and billions of dollars in contracts. We need to have a representative for the interests of the American public on in your decision making process. Because maybe if you don't mind giving people a sense of how much is being paid to shareholders right now, which like of these companies, that is money that's just being wasted where you know that, that there could be more oversight if there was somebody who was a government representative sitting in on that 100%.

[E]

I mean government officials are humans equally susceptible to corruption and the pursuit of, you know, financial gain. However, these industry executives only job is to deliver shareholder value. Regardless of what they say about protecting the American people or protecting national. Ultimately they are private companies with private interests. And if they can't exist without the government, then I think that this deserves serious conversation about how we reorient that relationship. More than that though, you know, there is this issue of Pentagon waste, but to my point about, you know, the arms industry corrupting our decision making process. Our national security budget is well over a trillion dollars. It is completely unmoored from any cohes more realistic strategy to guide our foreign policy. And I think that nationalization is worthy of serious consideration because it could help lawmakers actually justify their spending decisions with strategic considerations and public interest in paying the least amount possible on the military so that we can invest in other areas of our economy and our society.

[A]

These monopolistic basically defense industry companies, they can, they've found a way to almost like price gouge the government. There are only a handful of these companies that have the capacity to deliver on like the weapons system that the Pentagon is interested in. And now there's this massive influx in cash from the supposed anti war president Donald Trump, who wants to change the Department of Defense to the Department of War now and also increase our military budget by, and did by a crazy percentage prior to other ones. It feels to me though like the way that this is, they're approaching this from the Trump administration's perspective is similar to intel, where we are worried that our economic policies are gonna have a deleterious effect on the st stock market and the economy. So how do we protect ourselves against that? Basically give free money to these corporations that are such a pillar of our economy?

[E]

Absolutely. I mean the concerns that you lay out are extremely serious. And I can't say that I can co sign the Trump administration's particular approach to nationalizing defense contractors. But I don't think that we should throw away the, the bathwater with the baby here because Howard Lutnick is going to bring this up. Let's talk about it and think about how we can actually mitigate those challenges to nationalization. You know, obviously we already have examples from this administration of folks taking advantage of their government service for crony capitalist purposes. But I don't, I am very averse to having a reactive response to this kind of news where absolutely you can certainly take an equity stake in a company and leverage that for private profit and for shareholders. But there's another path as well and we should consider that, especially when we're on this unsustainable path of national security spending. I mean we are spending 2 trillion ish dollars on modernizing our nuclear arsenal in the next 30 years. And you know, people can't buy groceries. So I think that we need drastic, drastic change in the very near future in this country.

[A]

One thing you wrote about that I wasn't really aware of are the intellectual property rights that these military contractors have and that they also have like a monopoly over the Maintenance of a, like a weapon system during the duration of their, basically the cycle of that machinery. How is that used by these defense contractors to kind of continuously gouge? Because they're the only ones that can make this kind of weaponry. They're also apparently the only ones that can maintain and work on this kind of weaponry. And so that means even fatter contracts, I'd imagine.

[E]

Yeah, absolutely. You know, so contractors price gouge the government in a number of ways. They have really successfully lobbied Congress to essentially gut contracting law and regulations so that they can sort of make up prices on military contracts. And by that I mean, they're not required to give the government what's called certified cost and pricing data to substantiate prices on contracts that, you know, potentially no other company can fulfill for the government. So it's sort of a separate issue. There's the price gouging issue, wherein contractors have bent lawmakers to their will to better bilk the government, essentially. And then there's the issue of intellectual property, of right to repair. Right. And so the problem with that is that. Take, for example, the F35, the most expensive weapon program in United States history. Part of the reason that program is so expensive and so fraught with complications is not only because the design is overly complex, but also because it requires this software program called the Joint Simulation Environment to test it. And basically, the software for that program is never going to be complete, seemingly. And so you have a contractor that is sort of kicking the can down the road with programs like this one and really, really kicking up prices on the F35. And, you know, the DOD finds itself in a place where it sort of gets waist deep in the mud and, you know, falls into this cost fallacy. And so there are a number of ways that military contractors are able to maximize not just profits, but other financial returns as well. The defense industry far outperforms other commercial industries in terms of, you know, returns to their shareholders, for example, also in return on equity, on capital investment and things like that, because they are subsidized. And yet they're able to privatize the rewards of public investment and maintain IP to repair military equipment or to develop the technologies needed to maintain a program or run a program.

[A]

This was, this is literally what I think Apple was facing legal trouble over its right to repair. Not. And that they lost in court on that, I believe, monopolizing not just like the product, but the ability to repair that product if it's broken. And this is just happening to the tune of billions of dollars on the defense in the defense industry.

[E]

Right. I think that this is also an issue in farming. You know, I think that in the agricultural sector, this gets really tricky. I've heard conversation about right to repair with, with John Deere. But, you know, the top line here being that these are core government functions, the military, national defense is a core government function. And it is insane that private contractors are able to reap the financial rewards of, you know, research and development that's funded by the government.

[A]

Lastly, your piece, you know, you talk a little bit about both partial nationalization and full nationalization. What would both of those visions look like if we were to take that into the future? You mentioned the model in Europe, but that looks more like a partial nationalization. Right. What's the contours of this vision?

[E]

Yeah, I mean, look, the idea of full nationalization might not have a lot of legs in the United States, but the reason I put that in the piece is because I do think it's incredibly pernicious that private profit motive impacts the way that we budget for national security and the weapons that we buy. The benefit is to sever that relationship. Now, the actual details of how you go about nationalizing an industry, I mean, you have to make shareholders whole. There are plenty of Americans who might be unknowingly invested in defense companies as part of their retirement plans. And that is something that the United States government would have to address in order to take full control of a military contractor. I don't mean to say that this would be uncompensated nationalization, because that would impact a lot, a lot of Americans. But I do think that in thinking about full nationalization, you know, we really have to consider what it would look like to do this, even temporarily. There's historical precedent for this. And the reality is that in a moment of crisis, for example, World War II, you will always need government intervention to meet munitions capacity and production needs. And so, you know, it isn't unprecedented in the United States. Obviously, we've bailed out the banks. We've done all these things on a temporary basis. And whether nationalization would be a permanent or a temporary fix, I leave open to discussion. But there is precedent for the United States to take control of industries, you know, partially and potentially even fully and.

[A]

And truly. Lastly here, your contention, which we kind of talked around it, but is also that this would incentivize less brutality, less offensive action, less recklessness. And, you know, I mean, in many ways, the genocide in Gaza has been ongoing, and people have been getting really, really, really rich off of it. And that's never central in the discussion. If the government is the stabilizer here, even in a partial nationalization situation, then you have undercut the profit motive to a large degree, is your contention.

[E]

Yes, absolutely. I don't think that you can completely eradicate bureaucratic interests that might drive.

[A]

You.

[E]

Know, arms production, for example, you have military service services that are still going to compete for the bigger budgets. That's kind of the origin story of our nuclear triad. It's not a strategic analysis. It is the fact that the military services wanted to take home that slice of the nuclear pie. But yeah, absolutely. I mean, imagine what the discourse around national security would look like if the arms contractors were not lobbying Congress to the extent that they are, if they weren't giving tens of millions of dollars in political contributions every election year, and if they weren't funding private research in civil society, I think that it could totally change the way that talk about national security, particularly in Washington, D.C. julia.

[A]

Really appreciate your time today. Julia Gladhill, research analyst for the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson Center. And check out the Undiplomatic podcast if you don't already. Matt Dust, friend of the show. And you guys fighting the good fight over there. Julia, thanks so much for your time. Really appreciate it.

[E]

Thanks for having me on.

[A]

Of course, folks. With that, we will now play Sam's interview with Ari Berman about the Republican war on voting rights, which is unceasing but hitting a bit of a fever pitch at this current moment. Ari has a piece coming out soon. Let me just see if I have the details on that. We're not sure. It's coming out the beginning of September. Brian, is that correct?

[F]

That's what Sam told me.

[A]

Me. Okay, but we can't, we can't be sure. Just look out for it and enjoy the discussion.

[C]

You should give AR a follow.

[A]

Exactly.

[F]

You can tell his work at Mother Jones.

[A]

Yep. Ari Berman, voting rights correspondent for Mother Jones, author of Minority Rule, the Right Wing Attack on the Will of the People and the Fight to Resist It. Here is that interview.

[D]

We're back. Sam Cedar, Majority Report. Pleasure to welcome back to the program. All right, Berman, writer from Mother Jones. Do you have any other title there? Official title?

[F]

National Voting Correspondent. I got the longest possible title.

[D]

National Voting Correspondent.

[F]

Author, National Voting Rights Correspondent.

[D]

National Voting Rights Correspondent.

[F]

Good thing there's no national voting rights news.

[D]

And in due, I mean, and honestly, I don't know if anybody's written as much about the Voting Rights act over the past 10 years as you have. And Voting rights in general. And we got a couple of things to talk about. We're pre taping this and things are moving pretty fast, at least on the gerrymandering perspective. And we will get to gerrymandering, but there's a lot to talk about in the interim. It's also possible, I guess, as we talk about the Voting Rights act, and that's where I want to start that over the course of the next couple of weeks, I wouldn't put it past them. I don't know if the Supreme Court is in session. However, we have a question of section 2 of the Voting Rights act and specifically whether private individuals can bring suit or private entities can bring suit on behalf of people whose rights have been dispossessed under the. The Voting Rights Act, Section 2, whether you can have private action under these things. And there's a lot of reason to believe that the Supreme Court will roll that back. But, Ari, will you explain to people all of what I've just said, particularly. Let's start with. Let's go back a little bit. 2013 is the beginning of what very well may be essentially the end of the Voting Rights Act. We have a Supreme Court at that time, it was 5, 4. The chief justice, John Roberts cut his teeth in Ronald Reagan's DOJ with basically coming up with ideas how to get rid of the Voting Rights Act. And 20, 30 years later, he is in a position to do so. Just walk us through the history of the past 10, 11 years on the Voting Rights Act.

[F]

That's right. I mean, there's been this long standing movement to try to kill the Voting Rights act. And it's really taken shape and had success once there was this conservative majority on the Supreme Court led by John Roberts. So the first major blow against the Voting Rights act came in 2013 in the Shelby county versus Holder decision when Roberts wrote the majority opinion saying that states with a long history of discrimination no longer needed to approve their voting changes with the federal government. That was really the most important part of the Voting Rights act because it stopped abuses before they even occurred in states with long history of discrimination. So if Texas, for example, wanted to pass a new redistricting map or a new restriction on voting that was racially discriminatory, they had to get that approved from either the Department of Justice or a federal court. And so it was extremely effective. That part of it was basically gutted. Then the other part of the Voting Rights Act.

[D]

Let me just say one thing about that, is that you had a lot of the conservative justices I think all of them say one version or another of this is a special benefit we're giving to minorities, or you can't hold these people responsible. There's not telling that they're actually going to be discriminatory. Even though after, like, moments after Shelby county is resolved, you see all of these states go and actually break the Voting Rights Act. That was determined in subsequent cases. When we had a motivated DOJ to go after them, they went ahead and did it.

[F]

Yeah, exactly. I mean, Roberts, his whole argument was basically, he said, you know, things have changed in the south, that the south was dramatically different. The country had changed a lot since 1965, but the voting Rights act kept treating the country like it was still 1965, which I think both missed. The fact that a. A lot of the progress made since 1965 was because of the Voting Rights act, because states tried to discriminate and the Voting Rights act blocked them from doing so. But also that the Voting Rights act had been reauthorized four times by Congress in 1975 and 1982 and in 1970 and in 2006. So the Congress looked four different times and decided we should reauthorize this. It's still necessary, including in 2006, when the vote was 390 to 33 in the House and 90 to 0 in the Senate. Things you don't even see ever these days. Now, you can't even name a post office with that kind of vote now. So, I mean, there was such an overwhelming bipartisan support for this among the public. And in terms of the Congress and the Supreme Court just pushed all that aside because they had this vision of the country that they wanted to free these states from federal oversight. And then, of course, what happened is you had things like the Texas voter ID law, where you could vote with a gun permit but not a student ID immediately go into effect. And states like Texas and Alabama and Mississippi and North Carolina all reverted to doing the kinds of discriminatory things they had previously blocked from doing. So that, that then. So basically, they take one part of the Voting Rights act, the preclearance part, out. There's another part of the Voting Rights act section. It. It takes effect after, meaning that instead of blocking discrimination before it occurs, you can only challenge things after the fact. But Section 5 of the Voting Rights act of pre clearance part only applies to part of the country. Section two is nationwide. So that's the really important part of it. And you can still use section 2 to challenge discriminatory voting laws, to challenge discriminatory election maps, redistricting laws, that kind of thing. Then they start going after section two. They weaken it in 2021. They make it easier to be able to pass discriminatory voting laws. Now they're talking about going after it in a few really important ways. One way is what you talked about, not allowing private plaintiffs to file lawsuits under Section 2. That would basically destroy Section 2, because pretty much every voting rights lawsuit is filed by private groups, people like the ACLU or the NAACP. And if they.

[D]

182. My understanding is that over the past 40 years, there have been 182 successful lawsuits. These are successful ones. There may have been some that failed on the Voting Rights act, and only 15 of those suits were brought exclusively by the DOJ. Because it's a question of A, do we have a presidency that is interested in allowing everybody to vote? And B, do they have the resources available to pursue this case? So, I mean, that is. I don't know, less than 10% of the successful voting rights cases under Section 2 over the course of the past 40 years have been exclusively the DOJ.

[F]

Exactly. So what happens is that basically the federal government doesn't file a lot of voting lawsuits, either because in the case of someone like Trump, they don't want to, or they just are cautious. Even under someone like Biden, they're just cautious about doing this. And private groups are generally more aggressive in filing these lawsuits. So basically, some Republicans and conservatives realize this is the most effective way to kill the Voting Rights act is just to say that private groups can't file these lawsuits. This originated before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers seven states in the Midwest and the Great Plains. There was redistricting map in Arkansas. There was a distributing map in North Dakota. And a bunch of conservative judges, some of whom were appointed by Trump, said private groups can't file these lawsuits. So that basically made the Voting Rights Act a dead letter in those seven states. Now, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked this. Three justices essentially said they would allow this in circuit decision to move forward. Six said not so fast, but they're going to hear this case. So that's one major way that Section two is being challenged. The other major way, which I know you want to talk about, is this whole question of racial gerrymandering. Right? Because.

[D]

Well, I want to start. Let's start though, with this private action. Because you have 182 cases in 40 years that are brought by private actors, or I should say minus 15. So, you know, whatever 160 some odd cases brought by private actors that win. Never mind didn't. How do you then, 40 years later say that this right does not exist?

[F]

Well, it's the most like, wooden sense of textualism, where you say it doesn't explicitly say in the Voting Rights act that private groups can file these lawsuits. Therefore, we. We find that it's not inherent in the authority of the Voting Rights act, which is insane, because from the very minute the Voting Rights act was passed, private groups were filing these lawsuits. Yeah, the federal government was also filing a lot of lawsuits because they were interested at that point in time in enforcing the Voting Rights Act. But from the very beginning, you had groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights. I mean, I know a lot of the lawyers back then who were. They worked hand in hand with the Justice Department to file these lawsuits. And then the years later, when the Justice Department moved on to other things, it was these private groups that filed the bulk of the lawsuits. What happened was you would have places. You would have people in places that were being discriminated against. So let's say they want to destroy the only black city council district in a town in Alabama. Those kind of things happened all the time. Those people would approach the ACLU or the NAACP or the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, and those. Those groups would bring lawsuits. And that's how it works. So no one even considered the idea that private groups couldn't do this. I mean, it's just one of those things that came totally out of left field, or in this case, right field. And basically they found some judges to put it into law. And I mean, that's what's happening all over the place with so many different things where these crazy decisions happen. And these judges who would have otherwise never been on the bench. Right. Who are even more extreme than the likes of John Roberts or Bret Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett. They're sort of auditioning for the next Trump Supreme Court appointment, and they have these wild decisions, and that's how they get recognized. And so then what happens is even if the Supreme Court decides not to do this, then you say, oh, they finally did the reasonable thing. But all that does is restore a status quo that no one ever thought about challenging before. You know, Trump came on the scene in the first place.

[D]

Right. Four of those judges appointed by. On the. On the active judges on that bench. Four appointed by Trump, if I'm not mistaken. And I think four appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush. And then the first one, I mean, excuse me, George W. Bush, and then one or I said five by George W. Bush and then one by George Herbert Walker Bush and one by. Actually two by George Herbert Walker Bush and then one during the Obama administration. So, I mean, this is a very Republican court and tipped over by the, by the Trump people and also by Gorsuch, I think, sort of floating out there, this idea that there is a limited action that private people can take to enforce the laws of their own government. Which is absurd. Yeah.

[F]

I mean, and we're seeing that in general. We're seeing that in a lot of cases that even when the conservatives lose, which doesn't usually happen, there's always, generally speaking, a dissent. And then that dissent becomes the basis for a more extreme federal lower court decision, which then gets bounced back to the Supreme Court. And that's what's often happened in these voting cases is then more extreme things are before the court. Court like this gets to the point that I wanted to make about the other attack on Section two, which is the idea that Section two shouldn't be used to strike down racial gerrymandering. That is also an insane, totally ahistorical idea. Clarence Thomas has basically been arguing this for 30 years. And now it seems like there's a majority on the court for this idea because they were going to decide. This is the other major attack on Section two. They were going to decide this Louisiana reduced redistricting case, which seemed pretty straightforward. The idea that Louisiana, which is a third black, should have a second majority black congressional district. The Supreme Court essentially created this situation in another case from Alabama which said that you should have another second majority black congressional district. So Louisiana was just following what Alabama did then. Instead of deciding this case after all our arguments this year, they punted it. And they basically said they're going to rehear the case in the fall and they're going to look at whether this idea of drawing these majority minority districts districts violates the Constitution. Another thing that nobody ever contemplated but now seems to have close or majority support. So that would basically kill the Voting Rights act because essentially there would be. Even if private groups could file suits, there's no way you're actually going to win any of them.

[D]

I mean, just what is the theory behind out of the emanating out of the Voting Rights act of majority minority districts?

[F]

Well, it's essentially the idea. It's basically turning the 14th and 15th Amendment on its head. It's basically saying that laws that were meant to give rights to formerly enslaved people and Ultimately to bring a whole huge segment of formerly marginalized and disenfranchised people into the political process that those laws prohibit the consideration of race. Now, what those laws were meant to do was prohibit race racism, not the consideration of race, but they've been turned on its head. And this has been jurisprudence that in a lot of other cases. But it's the interpretation that the 14th and 15th amendment prohibit any consideration of race. So that creating these majority minority districts, therefore, would violate the quote, unquote, colorblind Constitution that was established under the 14th and 15th Amendment, when, in fact, the 14th and 15th Amendment were all about giving rights that were previously denied to previously enslaved people. One way you do that is to create these kind of districts that would allow people that were formerly enslaved and marginalized to elect their candidates of choice, which otherwise would be impossible in some cases without the protections of the Voting Rights act.

[D]

Okay, so there's two things here on the, on the, on the section two, I guess, rationale is that you could have 40%, just off the top my head, 40%, a black population in a given state, and they were gerrymandering these districts in such a way that you would get no black representation in Congress, which you have to literally, like, take one, you know, if there's 10 districts, we're going to take 1 10th and put it in one district, we're going to take 1 tenth to put in another district and just create these weird, weird lines that are clearly to disenfranchise black people. So they came up with a formula essentially. Right? Some type of, like, algorithm that says, like, if there's this amount of percentage of, of black people, Latino people, whatever it is, in a state, presumably they should have at least roughly some commensurate political representation.

[F]

Yeah, and it wasn't even that. I mean, it wasn't even anything close to proportionality. But the idea was it wasn't necessarily that there, but in places like Alabama, in places like Louisiana, what was happening is there was six or seven congressional districts, and African Americans were 30% or more of the population, but they were only getting one of the districts. And essentially you were packing all of the black voters into one district so that you could dilute their influence in the rest of the state, meaning that the vast majority of districts would not just only be controlled by white people, but white Republicans that were hostile to the views of most black voters in those states. And so what civil rights groups and others showed was that you could create these cohesive districts where blacks were a majority of the population, and they were concentrated in such a way that they could have another district. And this started in Alabama. I mean, there's a long history of the court ruling this. But the thing that was surprising was in 2022, the Supreme Court said that Alabama should create a second majority Black district, which was surprising because the Supreme Court has been so hostile to voting rights. And it was authored by John Roberts, who has been very hostile to voting rights. And it was joined by Brett Kavanaugh, who's also been very hostile to voting rights. Kavanaugh, though, in that opinion in Alabama, said maybe there should be a limit on how long you can create these kind of districts, which, again, was kind of shocking because nowhere in the Voting Rights act does it say there should be a limit. Like the. The other part of the Voting Rights act that we talked about earlier, the pre clearance part that did have to be reauthorized by Congress. So you could theoretically argue there should be a limit on that at some point in time. But this other part, Section 2, was meant to be permanent. So this idea that there was a limit on it, that was really something only Clarence Thomas had argued. And then suddenly Kavanaugh floats this idea. In the Alabama case, it seems like Louisiana is very similar to Alabama, has a cohesive population, has a majority black population, should draw majority black congressional district. In fact, Louisiana legislature, which is Republican, already did that. So it seems like this is pretty much settled. And then the court, instead of deciding this case, says, no, we want to look at it again. And we don't just want to look at this instance. We want to look if these districts are protected in the first place. And if they were to do this, it would basically not just kill what was left to the Voting Rights act, it would basically kill the protections that remain against gerrymandering. Because remember, the Supreme Court has already said you can't challenge partisan gerrymandering in federal courts. That if a place like Texas says, yeah, we're rigging the maps, but we're rigging them because Trump wants to do it. And by the way, there's nothing illegal about that. If you can. If they can show that they didn't actually discriminate while doing it, which, by the way, is going to be hard. But if they can show that, the Supreme Court says, okay, we're okay with that, but you could still bring claims under the Voting Rights Act. But if they were to do this, if they were to basically say you can't challenge partisan gerrymandering and you also can't challenge racial Gerrymandering. Well, then you basically can't challenge gerrymandering at all.

[D]

Right. And we should say, getting back to the sort of negative argument against Section two, it's that like we're supposed to be race blind because of the 13th, 14th, 15th amendment. And for us to believe that those amendments were race blind in the way that some of these conservatives would argue it's just a coincidence that it happened in the wake of freeing slaves. Right. I mean, it's just like it's a total coincidence that that's what had happened.

[F]

Well, you could. The only way you can read them as race blind is because textually they wanted African Americans to have the same rights as whites. Right. So it was arguing for a colorblind society, but in the context of giving black people the same rights as white people. But it was the most race conscious part of the Constitution and that that's what it was specifically meant to do. So there's no way that you can read the 14th and 15th amendment in a colorblind way to say that it discriminates against whites and advantages blacks, which is basically what people are arguing in the Louisiana case. This whole district, this whole second majority black district is being argued by a group of quote unquote non African American plaintiffs who are basically saying the Voting Rights act discriminates against white people. Which I think sort of misreads the whole purpose of why there's a Voting Rights act in the first place.

[D]

Okay, so. And we don't really have a sense of what the timing of this is. Right?

[F]

I mean, well, they're going to re argue it next term and they're going to decide at some time, I would imagine the summer, so months before the midterm elections. And I think it's quite likely that Supreme Court rejects the private plaintiff argument we were arguing earlier. But I think they're basically just going to say, yeah, you can file suits, but they're just going to kill the Voting Rights act to such an extent that doesn't matter if you can bring suits, because there'll be no claims that you can functionally win under the Voting Rights Act. There will still be a law that says the Voting Rights act of 1965, but it'll be be so toothless as to basically be practically useless. And I think that that's, I mean, that's just a very hard future to think about. What is America without the Voting Rights Act? Because the Voting Rights act was a law that basically made America a multiracial democracy. And without it, I think that Democracy would suffer in a lot of different ways. And some of the things that we thought we would never see again, those kind of things will start coming back.

[D]

And we should just say, just for the sake of clarity, it's not just Southern states. There are multiple counties in New York State that are subject to. Well, that were subject to the preclearance that were, I guess, was reversed. And so we should just be clear on that. When we had talked about the preclearance earlier.

[F]

Yeah, not only that. Not only that, but, I mean, yeah, it covered northern places, it covered western places, it covered Southern places, but not only that. I mean, the other part of the Voting Rights act applies nationwide. Right. So, I mean, you could challenge discriminatory voting laws, you could challenge discriminatory election maps anywhere. I mean, it could be Arkansas, could be North Dakota, it could be New York, it could be Texas. I mean, these laws are filed all around the country. So it really is a nationwide problem. We tend to think of it as one of those things that just applies to the south and just applies to black people, but it's much bigger than that.

[D]

All right, I want to pivot. You got a piece coming out in the beginning of September in Mother Jones, and it is entitled Project 2026, Trump's plan to Hijack the Next Election. And we're seeing it right. Like, I mean, we're, you know, the ink was probably not dry, and you already had to probably go back in. I would imagine you're going to have to do that at one point. It's in the magazine. So it's, it's, it's locked in. But they are moving so quickly, this Texas situation. And we should say, you know, we're, we're doing this interview in the second week of August. By the time the third week of August or the fourth week of August comes, when we play this, somewhere around there, the, the Texas situation could be changed. And this is a prime example of what you were talking about earlier. We have. Texas wants to go to special session. They want to essentially do gerrymandering, so they pick up five seats. It will shrink the margin in which a lot of these Republican districts have a majority of Republicans in a wave that could expose them to some electoral danger, but probably not. It'd have to be a pretty big wave. But it will also dispossess a significant portion of Latino voters in some way. Walk us through this. But walk us through it with an eye to your larger piece, which is basically that Trump has a quiver full of arrows to help sort of rig the election. It's very important for them to retain the House. And he's just now starting to like, bing, bing, bing, shooting all of them at the same time.

[F]

Yeah, I mean, I like to think that I was a little bit ahead of the curve with this whole Trump rigging the election idea because as I was writing it, things are really started blowing up on that front and there's gonna have to be a lot of updates when it finally goes online. But I think the mid decade gerrymandering we're seeing, it's just the most concrete way, but not the, the only way Trump is trying to rig the midterms. And we should say, Sam, that mid decade redistricting in and of itself is extremely unusual. Generally speaking, restricting happens at the beginning of the decade after the census and that's it. And yes, gerrymandering happens, but it still usually happens at the beginning of the decade. The idea that a state would just redraw its districts mid decade and then the fact that it would come from the White House, that is totally unprecedented. A president telling a state, you need to redistrict, you need to gerrymander mid decade to give me more seats. And it's not just happening in one place. Cuz, yeah, Texas did this before under Tom Delay in 2003. We remember this, right, that was a mid decade redistricting that came from Washington, but this is coming from the President. And it's coming not just in Texas, but now they're saying they want a dozen seats because Trump doesn't want to have to deal with a Democratic Congress, especially a Democratic House. Meaning that they're not just pushing Texas, but they're pushing Florida and Indiana and Missouri. I mean, this is absolutely insane to see. And it's basically the quasi legal version of stop the steal. But instead of trying to overturn the election after the fact, they're just trying to rig the election ahead of the fact, ahead of time. So Democrats just don't have enough places that they can pick up seats to flip the House. Now Democrats are gonna respond and we'll see what happens. But I basically think if there's a gerrymandering arms race, Republicans are gonna win because they control more states. They're just more ruthless in general, but they control more states, even if every state was as ruthless as California. And they said, well, if Texas is gonna pick up five seats, we're gonna fight back with five seats. Like that can only happen in so many Democratic states because Democrats both have moved to ban gerrymandering. In ways that Republicans haven't. But also there's fewer states under Democratic control than there are states under Republican control. So Republicans are going to win this fight. And then, of course, there's all sorts of other things the president is doing, from passing a national voter suppression bill. They're trying to still get through the courts and in other states to killing protections against election security, to going after their political opponents, to taking over the courts and not just as a US Supreme Court, but lower courts. I mean, there's so many different parts of this strategy that gerrymandering, just the most concrete, discreet way it's playing out right now.

[D]

Do you have a sense of why the Department of Justice is requesting voter rolls from a lot of blue states like Massachusetts and, and others? I mean, what, what is your take on what they're doing there?

[F]

Well, it's, I think it's pretty similar to what they tried to do when Trump had his first, if you remember, quote, unquote, Election Integrity Commission after the 2016 election when he claimed 3 million people voted illegally in California and cost him the popular vote. It was, it was headed by Mike Pence, but the functional head of it was Vice Chair Kris Kobach, who was Secretary of State of Kansas, someone who I wrote a lot about. And they requested voter data on all 50 states. They got very negative responses from the states. The Secretary of State of Mississippi most famously told him to jump in the Gulf of Mass Mexico, when it was still called the Gulf of Mexico. And that's when you still had some elements of the Republican Party willing to stand up to the Trump administration. But I think the end goal there was to try to get this massive database to try to prove that there was some kind of fraud on a massive scale. And there then to file lawsuits that would both try to remove people from the rolls, but also to further this narrative of fraud. And I think that's what the Justice Department is trying to, trying to do. They're trying to get this data so they can run it through all these federal databases to say, hey, see, we finally have the evidence that non citizens are voting, that this isn't a hoax, it's real. Even though everyone knows it's an incredibly small, if not minuscule problem, that it makes no rational sense why someone who is here illegally would want to vote and risk deportation and worse just to cast a ballot. But nonetheless, I think they're trying to do this. And I also think they're going to try to, to file these lawsuits and say states need to more aggressively purge their voter rolls. And so that will lead to people being removed from the rolls. But I think ultimately it's going to be more of a PR tactic. So Trump can further do things to not just restrict voting, but also boost his immigration crackdown as well.

[D]

I was going to say, we saw them purge voter rolls with names of convicted felons. And if, you know, Eliezer Rodriguez went to prison, they would say, well, Edward Rodriguez, we're going to challenge your vote, your right to vote. If, you know, Ben Smith went to prison and they see that, like, oh, you know, Brian Smith. Well, it's bp different address, but we're going to challenge your right to vote. I mean, that's what they would go ahead and do.

[F]

Exactly. I mean, people get removed from the voting rolls all the time. If they've died, if they've moved, if there's good, solid data on it. The problem with the kind of voter purges that, that the Trump administration wants to do is they want to do it based on bad data, and they're sloppy as they can, as softly as they can. And they're running it through databases that are not designed for this purpose. So they're taking Homeland Security databases that are not meant to be used for voting purposes. They're taking these databases, they're running people through it. And the problem with these databases is they're not accurate. They don't often say whether someone has naturalized. So this happened in Texas, for example. Texas claimed all these people a few years back were illegally on the voting rolls and needed to be purged. And then when people took a closer look at it, turned out it was full of naturalized citizens who at one point in time had told the state they were non citizens. They were, most of them were legal non citizens, but they had then become, in the process, they'd become naturalized citizens. But the Texas data didn't have that. So being able to say, being able to go on Fox News, being able to go on X, being able to push this lie that non citizens are voting has a lot of benefits for the Trump administration. It allows them to push for states to remove people from the voter rolls, and it also allows them to further this crackdown on immigration. And they clearly want to make this a central issue in the midterms, this idea that Democrats are defending people who are here illegally in all sorts of different ways, and Republicans are trying to remove them. Now, I think Trump's general handling of immigration has become a lot more popular than it was at the beginning of his presidency. But I still think they feel like, they want to make this. Remember in 2018, there was a caravan of people that were coming. They want to do this, and they want to do this on as many fronts as they can. And this is part of the larger strategy here, the larger nativist strategy they have. And so that's one of the things the Justice Department is doing. And I think that what we're going to see as the midterms get closer is that the Justice Department is basically going to be the weaponization arm of the Trump administration. It already has become that, that, But I think it's going to be that with regards to elections, that so many of the things they want to do vis a vis elections to interfere in the midterms, they're going to do through the Justice Department. Even the gerrymandering in Texas was kicked off by a Justice Department letter which, which is sort of gone under the radar a little bit. But Texas Republicans weren't going to call this special session, and I think Trump convinced them to do so, but they needed some sort of pretext to do it. And the pretext that they came up with was the Justice Department sent this letter, letter saying that four districts that were all represented by black or Hispanic Democrats violated the Voting Rights act, making the kind of argument against the Voting Rights act that we were talking about earlier. Now, it was a laughable letter, but then it was cited as by the governor of Texas as the reason to call this special session. Now, of course, lots of Republicans have come out and said subsequently, we're doing this to help Trump. Trump has himself said we're entitled to five seats. So that letter has been totally discredited. But that is nonetheless the legal pretext they use to kick this whole gerrymandering spree off. And so I would imagine you're going to see that kind of election interference on steroids by the Justice Department as we get closer to the midterms.

[D]

Let's just, you know, as we wrap this up, I'm curious as to your take, because I don't know that we've talked, certainly not in a couple of months. And Trump number two is much more, in my perspective, like, well, certainly far more planned out. I mean, you allude to it in your, in your piece of Mother Jones. I mean, the Project 2026, Project 2025 was multiple years in the making by people who, despite their disdain for government, had at least some. And it's still not a great grasp on how sort of the bureaucracy works, but enough that when you're going in just with a Wrecking ball. You don't need to have the specific knowledge you might if you were trying to build something. But I'm curious as to your take on how it's going for them, because I have to say the, the pace of authoritarianism and it does feel like Trump is very, very desperate to be able to have more than just the two years. They have accomplished, in my estimation, a lot in just eight months. I mean, very bad things. And again, it's been destructive and that's a lot easier to do. But they have started to figure out how to you work around the courts. It feels like the Supreme Court is now sort of like gaining the confidence to be able to sort of like unleash this. Then there's an awareness. We have a special opportunity right now to really, in our perspective, probably derail the, the country. But this is sort of like, you know, the great deconstruction in many respects. And, and what's your, what are your thoughts more broadly speaking on this?

[F]

Well, I think that two things can be true, which is whatever Trump wanted to do is falling apart. And I think the pace that we thought it would, meaning he is becoming more personally unpopular, his policies are unpopular, his handling of every major issue is underwater. That is not that surprising. But on the flip side, his push for authoritarianism is gaining speed every single day and has been remarkably effective and has been quicker and more aggressive and more successful than I think even many of his critics, including myself maybe expected that. We went into thinking, oh man, like Trump too is going to be bad. And like, it's even worse than I think a lot of us thought it would be. And I think because it's been such a flood the zone strategy that even if the Supreme Court, let's say they, I still think they agree. Let's say they, they agree with 9 out of 10 things or 8 of the 10 things that Trump does, which I think is probably about the ratio. If you looked at it, they, even if they lose on two or three things, they're winning on so many things that it's hard to keep track of. And I think that's kind of like where we're at with elections right now. Is that like, yeah, they might lose in court here, they might fail to do this, but, but they're succeeding on so many fronts and they're opening. I started this article, right, And I started in the summer and I looked, there's a section on gerrymandering and like I said, it's be updated online, but in the magazine there's A section on gerrymandering and we said, Ohio's gonna redistrict. And the White House is putting pressure on Texas. Right? That's where things were at in June of 2026. Well, now it's August and about half a dozen Republican controlled states are being told explicitly by the White House, you need to read redistrict. So like, in the span of two months, we went to like one or two states that were considering this, to more than half a dozen. And that's just how it is for everything, it seems. And it's just, it's really difficult to try to figure out how to counteract things when you feel like you've won one battle and then a million other fronts emerge. And that's that, that's my worry here, is that everyone says, oh, wait until the elections, right, wait until November. And it's like, well, what if, well.

[D]

Wait, what if for a year from November, I mean, it was this like.

[F]

Okay, well, what if, what if because of all these things that happen, there is no accountability in November and they say, wait till 2028, well, then what happens in 2028? I mean, like, I, I do think that it's, it's basically impossible for Trump to remain in office absent changing the Constitution. But then you start to see how all these things are normalized and it's like, will he leave? What will they do? All this kind of stuff. And even like, let's say he does leave and let's say there is a Democrat who takes over, like, what will America look like at that point, like, for a Democrat to be able to get in and do anything about it? And so, yeah, I mean, it's very chilling to, to where we're at. The only thing that gives me a little bit of hope is that it seems like so obvious what he's doing. And it also seems unpopular what he's doing. So maybe there's some kind of resistance to it. But I feel like the whole project of that that they have is how do we insulate ourselves from whatever kind of political backlash we might face?

[D]

It may be a personal predisposition of mine, but when the law firms caved and we've seen a lot of universities cave and businesses cave to Trump, I mean, that there was no, a lot of, that was pretty frictionless, relatively speaking, and also indicative of like sort of the party discipline within the House. I mean, to me, that is the most important thing about 2026. I don't know if Democrats are going to be able to actually do anything but the indication that they can lose, I think is very important by following Trump is an important sort of lesson for a lot of these people to learn, at least in terms of slowing the roll. But what happens if Democrats get into power in 2028 is a completely different ball game. And what is going to be necessary for them to do to. I think it's going to have to be a fairly radical change. There is no going back to what the status quo was. I think, think, you know, eight months out, it already looks like a distant blip on the horizon. One can only imagine where we're going to be in twice the amount of time that's already passed. So we'll see. But this, this is a great piece. I encourage everybody to, to read it. It's going to come out in probably a week or two from when we're talking now. But keep your eyes open in that Mother Jones for Ari Berman's piece entitled Project 2026. Trump's plan to hack the next election or hijack the next election. And of course, we'll, we'll find out more about their assault on the Voting Rights Act. Ari Berman, always a pleasure.

[F]

Thanks, man. I appreciate the conversation.

[A]

We are back and we have Brandon Sutton about to head into the fun half. Hello, Brandon. How are you?

[I]

I'm doing well, Emma. How are you doing?

[A]

I am doing well. What's happening over on the Discourse?

[I]

Well, this week we started a new segment on the discourse that I've been calling DUI Hard, where we watch the body cam footage of cops being arrested by other cops for drunk driving.

[A]

Oh, that's great.

[I]

And if you haven't watched these videos, I would highly recommend watching them either through my stream master vehicle or on your own because there are tons of them and they all hit. They all hit pretty hard.

[C]

Did you say DUI hard?

[I]

Yeah, DUI Hard because it's.

[C]

Is it mainly for, like, cops with DUIs?

[I]

No, it's cops arresting other cops. One body cam, like live. Because Exclusively.

[C]

Right.

[I]

Yeah. And let me tell you, they, they can get pretty drunk and get behind the wheel.

[D]

A cup.

[A]

No.

[I]

Yeah.

[A]

And wait, how much, how many different clips can you find of this kind of thing? Like, I guess there would. It's pretty voluminous.

[I]

But I had to stop. I had to stop. I had to stop because we had like, just multiple streams full of clips. The part where they're forced to do like the. The part where they're forced to do like the sobriety test where they walk like a line. Those are extra special. I enjoy those. So yeah, definitely check those out on your own if you're having a hard day, if you're feeling like, you know, feeling a little stressed about the times we I would definitely recommend checking out the Discourse with Brandon Sutton on YouTube or on Twitch or you know, just like googling DUI cop arrest, body cam and like, you know, getting yourself a glass of wine and having a good evening.

[A]

That sounds like the perfect evening.

[I]

Just don't drive after because you're not a police officer.

[D]

Yeah.

[I]

So you don't know how to do it safely. Allegedly.

[A]

Good point.

[C]

Don't watch when you're driving either.

[A]

Exactly.

[I]

A lot of good points.

[A]

We have Matt Bender. Hello, Mapinder, muted.

[D]

Hey, how are you?

[A]

There we go. How are you? What's happening in your neck of the woods?

[D]

Sure.

[F]

So Tonight, Leftist Mafia, 8:30pm Eastern Time.

[D]

At YouTube.com mattbinder Also, if you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe to the newsletter at Disruption.

[A]

All right, Matt, what's happening on Left Reckoning?

[C]

Yeah, Left Reckoning. We had a talk on Nordic socialism and they talk on different types of poisonings you can get if you sign up to be a member of America's enlisted service. Check that out and we'll have a Sunday show maybe talking about some of this dark money floating around Dem partisan independent and media space. David Pakman, patreon.com left reckoning to get that on for our Sunday show.

[A]

All right, we will head into the fun half in just a second. Leftist rage though, says DUI heart has been an absolute joy to my life. Brandon, so you're bringing, you're bringing joy to people. How does that feel?

[I]

I mean, look, I don't think I'm bringing joy to people. I think this is sort of like a bizarro situation where police officers are, you know, hurting themselves to bring joy to the American people. Which, you know, I like to think like, and this might, this might sound like anti revolutionary, but if I were allowed like to have my cop beat, only arresting and administering sobriety tests to other drunk driving cops, I think I would also be seduced into the badge. So I mean, I guess it's really, it's helping us develop empathy for police officers. Maybe I can't. I'll figure it out.

[D]

Yeah, they're never.

[C]

So is there a reason they're never arrested other cops for like domestic violence? Is that just like allowed?

[I]

Well, I, so I think what happens a lot with the DUIs is that they get calls from other people about like a car acting erratically and the way that body cameras and dash cams work now on police vehicles, because they oftentimes get up to a lot of, like, untoward things when they're not being recorded is that, like, when the car siren goes on, the dash cam comes on. And it's also able to record, like, prior, in some cases, prior to even being turned on by nature of how it works, and also keeps recording after it's turned off. And so a lot of times, they start chasing the cop that's driving erratically without realizing their cop, and then they confront them with the body cam on before they realize they're a police officer. And then, you know, then it's you versus me. And the police officers are not going to, like, put themselves out for another police officer in that case, because, you know, it's not like shooting a black person.

[A]

It's pretty amazing. Yeah, right?

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Who cares? Who cares then? All right, we'll check it out. Check out the discourse and all the good stuff here. We will head into the fun half. Don't think we'll take calls today because I gotta jump a little bit early for an appointment. But don't worry, barely early. We'll read your IMs, and we will have some. Some fun with clips. I mean, everyone's begging us to get into the Freedland thing. Maybe we'll just kick off the fun half with that. See you on the other side.

[F]

Okay. Emma, please.

[A]

Well, I just. I feel that my voice is sorely lacking on the majority report.

[F]

Wait, look, Sam is unpopular.

[D]

I do deserve a vacation at Disney World, so. Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome Emma to the show.

[A]

It is Thursday.

[C]

Yeah, I think you need to improve it for Sam.

[D]

Yes, please. No, no, no, no.

[F]

I'm. I'm.

[J]

I'm gonna pause you right there.

[D]

Wait, what?

[J]

You can't encourage Emma to live like.

[F]

This, and I'll tell you why.

[J]

So was offered a tour, sushi and poker with the boys. Tour sushi and poker with the boys. Who was offered a tour? Yeah, sushi and poker with the boys.

[F]

What?

[J]

Tour sushi and poker.

[A]

Tim's upset.

[J]

Sushi and poker with turtle boys was offered with twerk sushi and that's what we call biz. Sushi and poker with tin boys.

[A]

Right.

[J]

Twerk sushi and.

[A]

Oh, we're gonna get demonetized.

[D]

I just think that what you did to Tim Pool was mean.

[E]

Free speech.

[D]

That's not what we're about here. Look at how sad he's become now. You shouldn't even talk about it. I Think you're responsible?

[A]

I probably am in a certain way. Way. But let's get to the meltdown here.

[J]

Sushi and poker with the boys.

[F]

Oh, my God.

[J]

Wow. Sushi. I'm sorry. I'm losing my mind. Someone's offered a tour. Sushi and poker with the boys. Sushi and poker with the boys. I think I'm like a little kid. Think I'm like a little kid. Think I'm like a kid. I think I'm like a little kid. Think I'm like a little kid.

[D]

Had this debate 7,000 times.

[J]

A little kid. Think I'm like a little kid.

[F]

Understand?

[J]

So I'm not trying to be a dick right now, but, like, I absolutely think the us should be combining me.

[F]

With a wife and kids.

[A]

That's not what we're talking about here.

[E]

All right?

[F]

It's not a fun job tour.

[J]

That's a real thing. That's real thing. Real thing. Willie Walker. That's a real thing. That's real thing. What's that offer? That's a real thing. That's real thing. Real thing. That's a real thing. That's real thing.

[D]

Ladies and gentlemen, Joe Rogan has done it again.

[J]

Offer. That's a real thing. That's poker with.

[I]

I think he might be blowing it out of proportion.

[J]

Real thing. That's poker with the boys. Offer torque. That's a real thing. That's poker. Let's go, Joey. Twerk, sushi and poker with. Boy. Take it easy. Twerk, sushi and poker.

[D]

Things have really gotten out of hand.

[J]

Sushi and poker. Sushi.

[D]

You don't have a clue as to what's going on live YouTube.

[A]

Sam has the weight of the world on his shoulders. Sam doesn't want to do this show anymore.

[D]

Anymore.

[A]

It was so much easier when the majority report was just you.

[J]

Let's change the subject.

[F]

Rangers and Knicks are doing great now. Shut up.

[A]

Don't want people saying reckless those things on your program.

[F]

That's one of the most difficult parts about this show.

[A]

This is a pro killing podcast.

[D]

I'm thinking maybe it's time we bury the hatchet.

[A]

Left his best trump. Pilot twerk.

[F]

Don't be foolish and don't tweet at me. And don't the way Emma has all.

[J]

Of these people love it.

[A]

That's where my heart is. So I wrote my honors thesis about it.

[D]

Wrote an honest thesis.

[F]

Guess I should hand the main mic to you now.

[J]

You are to the right of the UN policy.

[A]

We already fund Israel.

[J]

Dude.

[A]

Are you against us?

[J]

That's a tougher question I have an answer to. Incredible theme song I Bumbler.

[F]

Emma Viland. Absolutely one of my favorite people, actually.

[J]

Not just in the game like period.