1081: Secret Podcast: Trump's $1.7b Friends and Family Fund

Summary

Podcast Summary: "The Next Level"

Episode: 1081: Secret Podcast: Trump’s $1.7b Friends and Family Fund
Date: May 15, 2026
Hosts: Sarah Longwell, Tim Miller (not present in this episode), Jonathan V. Last (JVL)

Overview

This episode centers on the explosive news that the Trump administration is moving to settle the former president’s $10 billion lawsuit against the DOJ and IRS with a deal that includes the creation of a $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded “compensation fund” for Trump allies and others who allege they were unjustly targeted by the Biden administration. The conversation walks through the details and implications of this proposal, exploring its corrupt underpinnings and potential to further undermine public faith in American democracy. The hosts debate the challenges of holding Trump and his associates accountable, the limits of legal and structural reforms, and the need for strategic, persuasive political communication.

---

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Breaking Down the Settlement News

• JVL reads breaking ABC News reporting detailing the settlement:
  • Trump drops $10B lawsuit in exchange for a $1.7B fund for Trump allies, including January 6 defendants (03:40).
  • Trump gets power to control the money: He can remove commission members at will and procedures/processes are secret, including the recipients of the funds (04:10).
  • The fund is a hybrid of “Deepwater Horizon victim compensation” and “truth and reconciliation” commissions but is, in effect, a slush fund for Trump’s allies (05:00).
• Quote, JVL (05:10):
  “This all sounds terrible, but this is the part which made me want to jam a pencil into my eye … I've said that when this was over, we were going to need a truth and reconciliation commission, and it turns out we're going to get one, and it's going to be against us.”
• The fund will sunset before Trump leaves office so no subsequent president can use it; Trump himself can’t receive cash, but his allies and “entities associated with him” are not excluded.

2. Corruption and Political Projection

• Sarah highlights the hypocrisy and the “projection” tactic:
  • “They always project” – accusing others of what they themselves are doing (05:26).
  • J.D. Vance is simultaneously on an anti-fraud tour while linked to a $1B taxpayer-funded project for Trump’s ballroom—lying about private funding (06:16).
• Sarah (07:11): “By the way, I don't know if you've been following the trajectory of these January 6th fine people, many of whom have been picked up for subsequent crimes, many of them sex crimes against children. Because as you can imagine, people who are trying to overturn our election are not very fine people.”

3. No Accountability, No Transparency

• The proposed commission:
  • No accountability, no transparency (08:12).
  • Identities of board and recipients are secret; process is secret; the fund vanishes as Trump leaves office.

4. Legal, Yet Outrageous: "Election Has Consequences"

• Sarah: The system allows for this legally because of Trump's exposure of institutional cracks (08:45).
• Accountability is missing; she wants “clawback” and reforms, but the current system makes it almost impossible (09:53).

5. Limits of Legal Reforms and the Supreme Court Debate

• The hosts debate whether legislation banning presidential lies about elections could work—or if the Supreme Court would gut it as a First Amendment issue.
• JVL (11:00): “Let's pretend that it's 2029. Congress passes a law to do what Andrew [Weissman] proposes... The Supreme Court 6:3 then says, no, sorry, can't do this First Amendment violation. Where are you on expansion of the Supreme Court?”
• Sarah, skeptical about feasibility, points out procedural roadblocks: need to kill the filibuster, win clear majorities, and surmount intra-party obstacles (11:27–16:00).

6. Political Realism: The Path to Reform

• Sarah cautions against “fantasy politics” and insists on building the political power first—through winning elections by larger margins and focusing strategy on what’s realistically doable, not just wish-list reforms (16:00–19:00).
• JVL remains pessimistic about the chances for a big enough mandate in a polarized country.

7. Corruption as a Political Argument

• JVL doubts that the specifics of the slush fund generate voter outrage or momentum for reform (20:46).
• Sarah: Corruption must be linked to voters’ daily struggles (grocery and gas prices, etc.)—make it tangible, not abstract (21:18).
• She describes the messaging strategy at Home of the Brave (her org): billboards with Trump’s face showing he cares more about “his ballroom” than voters’ pocketbook issues (21:19–24:00).
  • “The contrast is everything. Voters don't care about the slush fund per se, but ... you can take the corruption and show people that it has a direct cost to them.” (21:19)

8. Voter Persuasion vs. Voter Blame

• JVL jokes about billboards blaming voters (“If you voted for Trump, you did this,” 24:19).
• Sarah: Voter-blame is emotionally satisfying but not persuasive; must focus on showing how Trump’s actions harm ordinary Americans (25:13).
  • “Blaming voters might feel good, but what is the utility of it? What does that persuade them to do?” (26:33)

9. The Systemic Corruption Dilemma

• JVL doubts rules can “pre-legislate” against this kind of corruption (29:04).
  • Quote (31:06): “If people don't have revulsion about this and don't look at this and say this is no way to run a railroad … it really does mean that the whole system has started breaking apart because … our ability to fix that problem with laws is nothing but band aids.”
• Sarah is more optimistic about persuasion and rebuilding trust, cautioning against political fatalism (32:10–36:44).

10. Concluding Theme: Fight for The Future

• Sarah: America stands at a make-or-break moment for democracy. The focus should be on winning—retaking the House and Senate—and then pushing reforms (37:18).
  • “But we can get out of this. We just have to. But we do have to win first.” (37:18)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• JVL (05:10):
  “I've said that when this was over, we were going to need a truth and reconciliation commission, and it turns out we're going to get one, and it's going to be against us.”
• Sarah (07:11):
  “We're going to pay those people [January 6 defendants] out with our taxpayer dollars.”
• JVL (08:12):
  “No accountability and also no visibility... he personally can name the members... kept secret... kept secret... wound down before he leaves office.”
• Sarah (09:53):
  “They cannot be able to get away with this.”
• JVL (14:14):
  “They're not going to do any of this shit. They're going to be like, we got to do Medicare for All. We got to focus on kitchen. That's what they're going to spend all their political energy on.”
• Sarah (21:19):
  “The contrast is everything. Voters don't care about the slush fund per se, but ... you can take the corruption and show people that it has a direct cost to them.”
• JVL (26:30):
  “That's what I'm really focused on—right—is the utility, personally feeling.”
• Sarah (32:10):
  “Okay, so this is why I wrote the whole book. Because I, I do think there's a way out of this. I do think it involves persuasion. I do think it involves destroying Donald Trump's credibility.”
• JVL (34:05):
  “Only a virtuous society can do self government was essentially their argument. Right?”
• Sarah (36:44):
  “But we can get out of this. We just have to. But we do have to win first.”

---

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:15 – Show opens; hosts riff on last episode, in-person observations
• 01:31 – JVL recaps Trump lawsuit and context for the new settlement
• 03:40–05:26 – JVL reads explosive ABC News report on the $1.7B fund
• 06:16 – Sarah connects the fund to broader GOP corruption/projection
• 08:12 – Discussion over secrecy and lack of oversight for the fund
• 09:53 – Debate on the role of accountability and limits of “legality”
• 11:00–16:00 – Legal reform, Supreme Court, and feasibility debate
• 16:00–20:44 – Power-building and political realism/limits
• 20:46–27:31 – Corruption as campaign issue, messaging strategy, and persuasion vs. voter-blame
• 29:04 – JVL on systemic corruption and the futility of only legislative fixes
• 32:10–37:18 – The existential stakes for democracy and hope for civic mobilization

---

Tone and Style

The episode features the Bulwark team’s signature mix of sharp political commentary, gallows humor, irreverence, and passionate advocacy for democratic accountability. Sarah is both optimistic and urgent, focused on what is practically achievable. JVL is more fatalistic, skeptical that structural reform or voter persuasion is enough, but still searching for possible solutions and avenues for hope.

---

Summary Takeaway

The hosts warn that the Trump administration’s proposed $1.7B “compensation fund” is a textbook case of legalized, democracy-eroding corruption. While the legal system may allow such abuses, the real fight must be political: building enough power through persuading and mobilizing voters to reject Trump's brand of self-enriching politics—and then pushing through necessary (and feasible) reforms. The conversation is a call to action for both outrage and realistic strategy in defense of liberal democracy.

Transcript

[VRBOCare Advertiser]

A vacation rental shouldn't come with surprises. It should come with Verbocare and 24. 7 Life Support. If the hot tub's broken, that's a verbo care thing.

[Sarah Longwell]

If my teenager starts calling me Leslie,

[VRBOCare Advertiser]

that's a family thing. Leslie. VRBoCare and 24. 7 Life Support. If you know you're VRBO, terms apply. See vrbo.com trust for details.

[JVL]

Hello, everyone. This is JVL here with my best friend Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark, coming to you live. Not quite zero dark 30, but earlier than normal.

[Sarah Longwell]

So early.

[JVL]

We have to talk about an amazing development since. Since Wednesday. So on Wednesday, we sat and we talked about Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit, which was nearing settlement with the IRS.

[Sarah Longwell]

You mean in person? When I was putting my hands on you, do you know how many people were shocked by a, how tall you are and B, what you look like in a button down shirt?

[JVL]

I mean, I understand the first or the second part. Not the first part. I've always been this. This tall. I do not often wear button down shirts.

[Sarah Longwell]

I do think I got done dirty by the angle because I've. Did you watch it? I just like looked at the setup, but I look like a tiny little pocket person in the corner while you and Tim look like these giant trees.

[JVL]

Yeah. Having you in the middle. I did, I did think. Because I only saw a still from it and I thought, do we have to raise her her seat up or put some. Some phone books?

[Sarah Longwell]

I do need to sit on some phone books because otherw like I sit in the land of giants. You are both tall guys and I am not a tall person. But I. It's not that bad.

[JVL]

It's kind of much, much shorter than we are. All right, I just want to catch people up here on. We all knew that Trump had filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Justice Department and the IRS for having leaked the tax returns which he should have actually released because before him, every person who had run for president had released their tax returns. Donald Trump has never wanted to do that. He filed a lawsuit and was in the position of being the person to benefit from the payout of the lawsuit and also being the person who would direct the Department of Justice employees to determine whether or not to settle the lawsuit or fight it. We have new reporting this morning, mere moments before we sat down to tape from ABC News about what the new proposed settlement is.

[Sarah Longwell]

It was last night. I'm just gonna. It was last night.

[JVL]

Oh, it was the last night.

[Sarah Longwell]

It broke last night. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[JVL]

Okay. Well, I was already in bed because it. It took me a full 36 hours to recover from being down in person with everybody.

[Sarah Longwell]

Know that was hard for you, buddy.

[JVL]

I just want to read this to people. Okay, so I'm reading from ABC News. It's gonna take a minute because I want everybody to really bask in the full majesty. President Donald Trump is expected to drop his $10 billion lawsuit, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate allies who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration. The commission overseeing the compensation fund would have the total authority to hand out approximately 1.6 billion in taxpayer funds to settle claims brought by anyone who alleges they were harmed by the Biden administration's, quote, weaponization of the legal system, including the nearly 1600 individuals charged in connection with the January 6th Capitol attack, as well as, potentially, entities associated with President Trump himself. The settlement terms are expected to prohibit Trump from directly receiving payments related to those legal claims. However, entities associated with Trump are not explicitly barred from filing additional claims. Sources say under the terms of the potential settlement agreement, President Trump would have the authority to remove members of the commission running the fund without cause, and the commission would be under no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision making process for awarding more than a billion dollars. Hold on, it gets worse. Trump's proposed commission is expected to be composed of five members which, remember, he can remove any of them that he wants without cause, who would issue monetary awards based on a majority vote and the process for awarding money, and the identities of the recipients could be kept private. Any remaining funds would be turned back over to the government shortly before Trump leaves office because it would be important for this fund not to exist when a different president could hand things out. Here's the part which. This all sounds terrible, but this is the part which made me want to jam a pencil into my eye. While the exact terms of the settlement are still being finalized, sources have described the proposed compensation fund as a hybrid between a victim compensation fund, similar to the civil claims process that followed the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and a truth and reconciliation style commission for 10 years. Sarah, I have said that when this was over, we were going to need a truth and reconciliation commission, and it turns out we're going to get one, and it's going to be against us.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah. So I keep sitting here being like, is there a different word that that means more than corruption, Your hands on your face. Here's the way that they do this. It's, we've always talked about this. This has always been their MO Projection. Right. They project. But this, they do it now in such a way that it's almost like the irony is too deep to contemplate where J.D. vance right now is on a fraud tour they, they have launched at the same time that he's trying to take $1 billion for his ballroom, that he's taking 1.7 billion billion of taxpayer money. In both cases, taxpayer dollars lied about the ballroom being privately funded. Even then it was corrupt because people were just buying favors anyway.

[JVL]

Right. It seems like he's going to keep that.

[Sarah Longwell]

It'll be some blend of the two. Right. He'll get the corruption and the taxpayer dollars for his stupid ballroom. And then on top and his arch and his reflecting pool. I mean, while Americans gas prices are going up, while their food prices are going up, while the inflation continues to beat people and make the money that they're earning worth less and unable to keep up with the economy, this guy is spending taxpayer dollars, all this stuff. And now he's starting the slush fund that is specifically so he can give out money to the January6 perpetrators. By the way, I don't know if you've been following the trajectory of these January 6th fine people, many of whom have been picked up for subsequent crimes, many of them sex crimes against children. Because as you can imag imagine, people who are trying to overturn our election are not very fine people.

[JVL]

Oh, I thought they were all going to turn out to, you know, a couple of them and become nuns. Some others have become priests. They were working in soup kitchens and they'd know.

[Sarah Longwell]

No, we let them out and, and it's like the number of sort of subsequent crimes and again, just many of them sex crimes of the January six prisoners. We're going to pay those people out with our taxpayer dollars. All of this at the same time. And this is the contrast that I. It's not just that that prices are going up for all Americans while they fraudulently steal tax dollars for their own pet stuff to bribe their friends or give out. I mean, this weaponization stuff. Right. This is basically so Donald Trump himself. Right. Will of course claim weaponization from the Biden administration.

[JVL]

This is about organization. I'm sure we'll cover.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah.

[JVL]

The Trump organization itself can't. But Don Don Juan.

[Sarah Longwell]

That's right.

[JVL]

Right.

[Sarah Longwell]

Totally. This is it will absolutely. He will find a way into the family's pockets.

[JVL]

No accountability and also no visibility. Again, the idea that this is going to be Done like he personally can name the members of the board who do the voting and that the identities of the people who get the money get kept secret. The process and the votes are kept secret, and the whole thing gets wound down before he leaves office. Because God forbid another president had the discretion to hand out some of this money. It's unbelievable.

[Sarah Longwell]

It is unbelievable in the fact.

[JVL]

And it's legal. Yeah, well, that's the thing.

[Sarah Longwell]

This is the one. Well, this is the election has consequences side of it. Right. Which is. He is. He is. It's funny. It. This is. Again, I am living in this conversation right now that we are having about what comes next in the. In the. In the deep hope that we have a Democrat for president in 2028. And you're thinking about what can be done about this because, you know, I. I don't know why something resurfaced from you the other day, but it was the. When we were doing the live show, and you were like, we need to put all these motherfuckers in jail. And you know me in my process, loving institution, loving self. But part of the institution has to be accountability. Right? And so, like, I am somewhere, you know, I think sometimes you're like, full Nuremberg for everybody. And I'm always, you know, I'm always calibrating to jvl. I'd like to do more of making

[JVL]

you calibrate my attention with this Nuremberg talk.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah, I know. The thing is, is they cannot be able to get away with this. And I don't. Don't say that they will. I can see you. I can see your cynical wheel going,

[JVL]

oh, yeah, I'm gonna let you finish. I'm gonna let you finish. I'm gonna let you finish, Taylor.

[Sarah Longwell]

But, like, this is the stuff I want accountability for. This is the stuff I want. I want them to have to personally pay it back. I want to be able to. I want to go claw it back. The idea, when you say perfectly legal. And this is. This is the norms and the cracks that Trump exposes, because I've been having a parallel conversation with Andrew Weissman because he's got this new book out, Liars Kingdom, which is really about making it so that presidents cannot lie about elections being stolen. Do you know that in many other democracies, it is illegal to lie about saying an election that you want, an election that you didn't win, like in Germany, in France, in Brazil.

[JVL]

Question.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah.

[JVL]

Sidebar. Let's pretend that it's 2029.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah.

[JVL]

Congress passes a law to do what Andrew proposes A Democratic president signs that bill into law.

[Sarah Longwell]

I know where you're going with this.

[JVL]

And the Supreme Court 6:3 then says, no, sorry, can't do this First Amendment violation. Where are you then on expansion of the Supreme Court?

[Sarah Longwell]

Just out of curiosity, I don't the part of this, the court thing. If we're going to keep returning to this over and over again, we're going

[JVL]

to return to it until you break.

[Sarah Longwell]

No, I just, I think there are a lot of ways to get done what we want to get done. That doesn't also tell me how you're going to expand the court. So this is part of, part of what gets frustrating for me in these conversations. Then like people yell at me in the comments. And it's not that I recognize fully the problem we have with this court. I recognize it. I recognize all of the things that was dirty pool that Mitch McConnell played to get us this court. I'm as mad as anybody else about that.

[JVL]

Sure. Totally.

[Sarah Longwell]

Tell me how you. Tell me how you get. Tell me how you're expanding the court, buddy.

[JVL]

You add one justice so that there's a justice from each circuit.

[Sarah Longwell]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

[JVL]

Well, you got to kill the filibuster to get it. You got to kill the filibuster to get it. Right.

[Sarah Longwell]

Okay. And you.

[JVL]

Without killing the filibuster. Killing the filibuster comes first.

[Sarah Longwell]

Okay. So. So you're saying that first you need to win enough elections that Democrats control the Senate.

[JVL]

Yeah.

[Sarah Longwell]

Okay.

[JVL]

If you don't, you can't.

[Sarah Longwell]

When does that happen?

[JVL]

I mean, if it doesn't happen in 2028, it ain't going to happen.

[Sarah Longwell]

Well, I will tell you, this map is getting harder and harder. This is, this is just more, more. My point is that actually the scenario in which you have the opportunity to even expand the court is much less likely. And frankly. So right now, this is why.

[JVL]

This is the jbl. It's all in shit ified like the whole system is broken and can't be fixed. But there are, I'm saying in the unlikely event that you wind up with the opportunity to fix the system, you, you better take it.

[Sarah Longwell]

Sure.

[JVL]

And you're not going to get the chance.

[Sarah Longwell]

But let's prioritize what the reforms are. Right. And for me, that. Or not even prioritize the reforms, prioritize which reforms are likely to be able to get done. Right. Like I'm trying to. I keep trying to move us out of the space where because we're all so angry Right. This is, you know, this is me. This is me thinking, okay, okay. We can't rage without a plan. Doesn't get us anywhere. So we need a real plan for how you get these reforms instituted. And the. You are much more likely, like, I'm with you. Let's. Let's make D.C. a state. All right. D.C. statehood. That's.

[JVL]

Can't do that without killing the filibuster. Can't do it without killing the filibuster. So if you want to do that, you got to kill the filibuster.

[Sarah Longwell]

Are you sure about that? Also.

[JVL]

Yes, also. By the way, all of this is academic because I am telling you, I'm sorry, Democratic friends, if you get a Democratic president and a Democratic House and even a Democratic Senate, they're not going to do any of this shit. They're going to be like, we got to do Medicare for All. We got to focus on kitchen. That's what they're going to spend all their political energy on. Right or wrong. That's what they're going to do.

[Sarah Longwell]

Again, I'm not even sure about that. I do think you can get a mandate for reforms. And I. And here's where. Here's where you. You do get me jvl after years. Okay. I'm watching Mike Lee walk around talking about how they have to kill the filibuster right now. I hope Republicans kill the filibuster.

[JVL]

Same.

[Sarah Longwell]

I hope they do it so that I can spend the rest of my time blaming them for all of.

[JVL]

Please do it.

[Sarah Longwell]

But, like, you know, people will see that that is, that that brings with it its own insidifications. Different insidifications, but new ones. Okay, but. So let's say you kill the filib. I do think Democrats need to play constitutional hardball. I'm ready for constitutional hardball. And I think that a lot of it is you're gonna have to figure out places for it to be done at the state level where the states can do something about it. And so that's why. That's why I wish I looked at this. And so we have secret POD rules where we're not. Sure.

[JVL]

Yeah.

[Sarah Longwell]

But like.

[JVL]

But go back to your. I'm sorry. I derailed us. You were. You were in the midst of talking about the reforms that need to be done, and I derailed you with Supreme Court talk. And I'm sorry.

[Sarah Longwell]

That's okay.

[JVL]

I can't help myself.

[Sarah Longwell]

Well, it's just. It's. It's. I understand. I. Sometimes I. I don't know what to do when people are like, sarah's wrong. We have to do the Supreme Court. And I'm like, all right, give me a, Give me a path for that. Because I think there's a lot of other things we can do that are much more likely. Now, if Republicans kill the filibuster and Democrats take over the Senate, that would be good, but that has to happen first. Like, everything for me comes back to, you need political power first before you can do any of the reforms. And so when you say it's academic, it also, you not only have to win it, you have to win it by enough. Like, even if you, Even if the Democrats won the Senate this time, you'd still have John Fetterman sitting there. Who wouldn't vote for this. It's not even enough to win it this time. And so I'm just sort of begging people to live in the world that we live in, not the fantasy politics world, and think, okay, if you were so lucky to get a, a Democratic president in 2028, the chances that a Senate, because the map gets harder and harder for Democrats, until Democrats figure out how to start winning in redder places, you're not going to be able to get these majorities that you need to do these reforms. And so that is why I am 100% focused on the things that we can do to drive down Trump's approval rating to the point where people are so just. They're so mad at Trump, they're so mad at Republicans that you can build and then that Democrats nominate some people that do inspire enough, not just hatred of the other side, but active. Like, I want this person, I like this person, so that they can get a mandate to do something not possible.

[JVL]

I don't think. Okay, well, we'll find out.

[Sarah Longwell]

I disagree.

[JVL]

I really, I, I really think it's not possible. I think, I think the absolute ceiling where you have the best possible. Whoever you think the single best Democratic candidate is against the worst Republican candidate is probably like, seven points. Yeah, maybe you can't do. You. You can't. But it's just not a big enough mandate. We're too polarized. This is the, this is the JV on certification of all of it.

[Sarah Longwell]

This. But can I just say, like, this is why the, the grant we got. You know, sometimes we, we fall into the traps that we know we shouldn't. And one of them has been, like, really dissecting Graham Platners. The question of, you know, how do we grapple with our how? And I'm like, I, I was thinking about the other day and I was like, you know what, I don't care actually about the Graham Platner. Like, I care about candidates. I care. But like for me, Susan Collins has been on a descent from the Susan Collins who used to buck her party on gay marriage. That made me a Susan Collins fan over the years. She was always somebody that was the kind of Republican that I liked, the super moderate sort of socially liberal Republican. And she has over the last decade enabled Trump's fascism. And, and not only. And like, so, like there, then there's these key moments, right, where she does vote for impeachment, where I'm like, okay, you know, at least you got these. It's important to have people like Susan Collins there. But actually, no, I want to beat Susan Collins. I want Susan Collins out of the Senate because all she's going to do is rubber stamp what Trump is doing. She, she and Cassidy and even the people who voted for impeachment all tried to find a way to get the Republican Party back on side to, to, to endear themselves to the MAGA movement. Uh, they did just vote against the War Powers Act. But guess what, guess what then John Fetterman voted for it. So this is where we are with the Senate. So just, I am, I'm begging people to think about the cadence before we have a fight where everyone wants to yell at me about packing the Supreme Court or expanding the court. We're so far from that. We have to figure out how to build the political power necessary to do any of these.

[JVL]

We should be so lucky.

[Sarah Longwell]

We should be so lucky to get to have that argument.

[JVL]

Believe me when I say expand the court, that is me doing fantasy politics, because I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think Democrats are likely to accumulate the power to be able to do it. And if they did, I don't think they would spend their capital in that place. And maybe that would be right as a political matter. Right? Maybe, maybe. If you, if your choice is Medicare for all or Supreme Court expansion, I think it's a no brainer. You expand the Supreme Court, but maybe that's wrong. And maybe what Democratic constituents would really prefer is Medicare for All. I don't know. Let me ask you a question about the slush fund though.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah. Yeah.

[JVL]

My thesis is that There are probably 15 people in America who support Donald Trump who would look at this and say, no, this is bad. Like this is a classic, classic case of the type of bone deep democracy destroying corruption, which will have zero Resonance with actual voters.

[Sarah Longwell]

Can I tell you that I disagree with this?

[JVL]

Please. And I want you to convince me.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah.

[JVL]

Because I want to be convinced.

[Sarah Longwell]

Let me try. Let me try. I talk about this a lot, but so I don't know if I. So I, I do this work with Home of the Brave, which is. We're just starting to really kick up our advertising and public persuasion efforts going into the summer. And what our messaging is centered on is Trump is thinking about his ballroom. Like, we've got billboards up right now that are going up across the country, and it's Trump with a little bubble, you know, brain bubble. With the ballroom Trump is thinking about, he's focused on his ballroom, not you, not your grocery prices, not your gas prices. There's different versions of this. Trump is focused on his ballroom, not your gas prices, not. Not, you know, like, grocery prices, health care costs. And this is why I think I'm, I, I really want to. I'm trying to get my brain as focused on this as possible. The contrast is everything. Voters don't care about the slush fund per se, but to the extent that you can take the corruption and show people that it has a direct cost to them, because the people's frustration with the ballroom isn't that they care about the ballroom, it's that they care that Trump is focused on the ballroom instead of the economy for them. We saw Trump just recently come out and say, yeah, I'm not worried. I'm not thinking about people's affordability.

[JVL]

I'm not at all.

[Sarah Longwell]

I don't think about it at all. That doesn't matter to me. You need to hammer that with voters because to get to the things that you are talking about. Right, Eddie. So that we can even have a debate over which reforms we institute, over what accountability we can take from people who've done this, you have to win the political argument. And there is no, no better opportunity. This is the optimistic part. Here's optimistic, Sarah. Trump is dropping in real ways. He is now down in the mid-30s. We are starting to imagine what below the Bush line looks like and what that means in 2028. And I believe going into these summer months, as people are driving, you want them to remember that the reason that they are paying more for gas is because Trump launched a war of choice in Iran, which he lied about, that they are paying more for meat that they are to grill and the alcohol that they're going to drink because Donald Trump imposed tariffs on these things. Like, you have got to start doing that contrast all day long. So to your point, it is true that is difficult to get people to focus on the bespoke corruption, the contours of each thing. But broadly helping people understand that Donald Trump is using taxpayer dollars to enrich himself while they're all paying more is the contrast. His corruption, his elite cover up of the Epstein files, every single one of them can be an economic argument that goes right to people's pain points.

[JVL]

Okay, I'm interested.

[Sarah Longwell]

Okay, great.

[JVL]

I'm interested. I will say that, I mean I don't know if you are interested in, in having some creative inputs for your Home of the Brave campaign. One thing I might consider doing is a billboard that says something like was it expensive to fill your car up with gas? Well, if you voted for Donald Trump, you did that?

[Sarah Longwell]

Yes.

[JVL]

Would that. Or how about a billboard with a big mirror like whose fault is it that your gas is so expensive and it's a giant mirror that when drivers look up they see their own face in it. Okay with that. I understand there are some logistical problems with that. Like you could wind up blinding people as they drive. Right. The sun would be cooking, cooking people's eyeballs as they. But just as a. Again, just spitballing. No bad ideas in a brainstorm.

[Sarah Longwell]

No bad ideas in a brainstorm. I agree. I would say that there's a, there's a non specific element to what you're doing. So first of all, lots of people driving by perhaps aren't. It is not their fault. Also I think people are not going to. You're not gonna do the approval ratings for people's own like accountability. Like I understand and maybe I think what, what is at the core of the conversation you and I are having and I, because I really understand why people attach to you and what you say because I do think you embody both the rage and the frustration and the sense almost that like you feel like something can't be done right. Like grouchy jvl. Like I do think that that's one of the things that people are like, I'm with jvl. It's just like too frustrating. It's these voters faults and I get that because I feel it sometimes too. And it can drag you down because it can make you feel a little bit helpless. I try and stay. I am thinking all the time, okay, like what are the solutions? What are the ways we can move voters? What are the ways we can go on offense? And, and, and the, the thing is, is like blaming voters might feel good. Like it's, it Feels good.

[JVL]

That's what I'm really focused on. Right. Is the utility, personally feeling.

[Sarah Longwell]

What is the utility of it? Like, what does that persuade them to do? What? What?

[JVL]

Yeah.

[Sarah Longwell]

Whereas, because you can get to the same outcome by making them see, Trump did this, Trump conned them. People aren't getting their Trump phones. They're not getting their good gas prices. Mr. Businessman can't negotiate any deals, gets us into a war of choice with Iran and can't get us out of it. And now gas prices are high. Like, this is the opportunity here. Every opportunity. Trump is giving us a million hammers to hit him with a million. He's given us tariffs, a war of choice. Everything costs more. Everyone's mad. Attach that to Trump, attach that to Republicans, attach that to every candidate in 2026. Like they've got to win political power, which means you've gotta be making this offensive argument to get anywhere close to the other parts that you want to talk to. But to me, that is how you express your rage right now.

[JVL]

Yeah, no, I get it. I guess my, my, my hierarchy of needs here is based around the idea that I'm skeptical that the persuasion stuff can work. And so if we're, if we're not actually be able to persuade people in the, the quantities that we need to, to get to real reform, then we might as well feel good about ourselves.

[Sarah Longwell]

I just, we have a lot of opportunity here. And, and again, it's not just persuasion. Jbl, can I, can I just make

[JVL]

one point on persuasion, please?

[Sarah Longwell]

They are going to, we are never going to have a better opportunity like his, his poll numbers are dropping. People are feeling the negative personal consequences right now. His approval on the economy, he is negative. 70. Right. He is at like 70% of people disapprove of the Trump that, of the job Trump is doing on the economy. But the gap between his approval on inflation, on cost of living, on the economy is worse than his overall approval rating. We need to make those things match. Right? Like, there is work that we can do in here, and it can. Because last thing I'll say on this, persuasion is not about getting people to change their minds. Persuasion is about taking something people already feel and unlocking it. And people. So you are just saying to people, all that pinch you're feeling at the grocery store, all the, the, the, how pain you're feeling at the pump. Trump did that.

[JVL]

All right, so I want to bring us back to the slush fund, because where we started on this was the idea that the, the law simply wasn't prepared for something like this. This is where we started. And among the many things that I. The reason, the more I think about my like initiatification piece, which nobody read, I read it.

[Sarah Longwell]

It was so good.

[JVL]

Thank you. I appreciate that. Because it's right. This is one of the pieces, like two years from now I'm gonna come back to it. I'm like, why did this only get 900 likes? This was, this was like an important piece. I don't think it is possible in a liberal society to anticipate and pre legislate against things like this slush fund just staring at like, you know what I mean? Like, and this is a very founders aspect, right? I mean if you go back, there's a bunch of stuff written about how you know at the early parts that once virtue leaves the society, liberal governance really can't work. Right. And because, because you need virtue, you need shared ideas of virtue to do all the things that laws simply can't do. Because you can't make enough laws, right. You can't legislate everything. And this is the kind of. If people don't have revulsion about this and don't look at this and say this is no way to run a railroad, you can't do this. And they're not. Spoiler, they're not going to. It really does mean that the whole system has sort of started breaking apart because you can't. So what, we're gonna pass a law saying that the, the president can't sue his own government and then sit on the other side of the transaction and create unaccountable slots? I mean, I guess you could do something like that, but then he'll do things like the president will. Anybody who's running for president will preemptively launch libel suits without merit against all sorts of well to do companies so that if he wins, he is then sitting on what are vehicles to siphon off tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements? Right. I mean the corruption is so widespread that like, I just don't see a way out of this. Do you like? Because this is where we started. We started by talking about, with the Andrew Weissman, like, you know, Andrew says, like, hey, we can, we can do some things to reform the laws to head this off. And I think ultimately we can't. Like if you can do some things, but the corruption is always going to find. It's like water, right? It always seeks its own, finds its level. And if the, if the, if the, if voters aren't repelled by this Our ability to fix that problem with laws is, Is nothing but band aids.

[Sarah Longwell]

Okay, so this is why I wrote the whole book. Because I, I do think there's a way out of this. I do think it involves persuasion. I do think it involves destroying Donald Trump's credibility. I think that, Look, I'm sure that there was a moment going into the Civil War. Like, there's all kinds of moments in history where people are like, how are we going to get out of this? How are we going to find our way back after this? And I, I have the thoughts.

[JVL]

Please don't say there's a moment going into the Civil War, because there, the answer was we had to fight a civil war.

[Sarah Longwell]

No, I know, I know, I know. I'd like to not have, Just write. Didn't you just write a piece called the Cold Civil War or we're going into.

[JVL]

I think we're heading into a, A civil cold war. I wanted to break up.

[Sarah Longwell]

Thank you.

[JVL]

I wanted to break up. I very purposely chose that. Even though it isn't as felicitous a phrase. I wanted to break up the, the phrase Civil War.

[Sarah Longwell]

So, first of all, I don't want to have a political science conversation exactly. But I, I guess I somewhat disagree with your founder's framing. Right. Like the, the Federalist Papers talk a lot about how we want ambition to counteract ambition, like checks and balances. Now, I agree with you, though. This is part of the problem. Right. The founders understood if men were angels, we wouldn't need government, we wouldn't need laws. And so it's not that they were so sure that our shared virtue could save us. They envisioned a system in which people's, it would sort of pit people's negative impulses against each other and kind of come out in the wash. Right. They wanted an adversarial system, I think,

[JVL]

but that's at the system level. They, I mean, they. Again, it is in the, the Federalist Papers. The. I wish I could. Bill Kristol would have these, these quotes, fingertips, because he's Bill. But they were talking about, like, at the society level, just like the, you know, of only a virtuous society can do self government was essentially their argument. Right?

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah. And so I think the question is, human beings today are we are as we ever were. Right. Human beings who have been killing each other for millennia and also who have found ways to self govern and live peacefully, we are still those people. And so a lot of this has to do with what are we choosing? How are we choosing to be like what are we fighting for? Do we let it happen? And this is why I think. I still think it is not too late. But I do think, and I know it sounds like it's the most important election of our lifetime, but electing Donald Trump for a second time puts us in the most perilous position that we have been in in modern history around the ability to preserve our democracy, our liberal democracy, as a. As it is now. I don't mean defending all of its old, creaky institutions, because I think, like, we're at a. We're at a point of creative destruction and reimagining, which is why when you and I get in a fight about the Supreme Court and people sort of latch onto that, I'm like, we're doing a disservice to our audience by getting locked in on just like a particular reform fight, because the actual fight is about how are we going to think about the future of our government and our liberal democracy in a way that serves people. Now that we've been through this release, like, what are we gonna learn from it? Are we gonna be able to push through and we might not get all the reforms we want? But I certainly think that if we build political power at a time when Donald Trump is doing. Giving us every reason for him to become unpopular, like, now is the moment to be throwing everything at this. Which is why I think I've been really struggling with the conversation we've been having about, you know, the one we were having about political violence and protesting last week on tnl. Right. And I'm saying, why aren't people in the streets? Like, if the rage online was being matched in our physical bodies, it was actually the responses to that were pretty interesting because there was a lot of people who were like, well, look, the boomers can go out because they're retired. Like, I have to work two jobs, which is a really fair, fair point. But also it's probably going to. It's going to take kind of a revolutionary spirit here to. To save us in this moment. And I just want us to recognize that this moment is. Is that moment. But, like, we have not tipped over into not being able to save it. Like, if we can. If we could take back the House. Hold on.

[VRBOCare Advertiser]

This is.

[Sarah Longwell]

You take back the house in 2026. I would love to see us take back the Senate, too. But you need Sherrod Brown to win. You need a good candidate in Michigan. You know, you need Graham Platner. There's been a lot of, like, see. See where, you know, Graham Platner is the. Those kind of candidates of the future. And I'm like, can he win first? Like, he better beat Sue. I'll. I'll have a conversation with you about him better win type of future when he beats Susan Collins. And I hope he does, but, like, if he doesn't, it's a different conversation.

[JVL]

Yeah, totally agree.

[Sarah Longwell]

But. But. But we can get out of this. We just have to. But we do have to win first.

[JVL]

Okay. I want to move on to talk about the China summit, but I think we should do that behind the paywall.