Why Democrats have little leverage to reform ICE

Summary

---

The NPR Politics Podcast – "Why Democrats Have Little Leverage to Reform ICE"

Date: April 17, 2026
Host: Miles Parks
Reporters: Sam Greenglass, Ximena Bustillo, Danielle Kurtzleben
Main Theme:
An in-depth discussion about the ongoing funding stalemate at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—particularly why Democrats are unable to use their leverage to enact reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and related agencies. The conversation situates this issue in the wider context of Congress’s diminishing power over executive authority, with further segments on the War Powers Resolution, recent White House actions, and how these constitutional themes connect.

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the Congressional impasse over DHS and ICE funding, exploring why Democrats have struggled to push through oversight or reforms despite withholding funding. The hosts analyze the practical impacts of the shutdown, the unusual pre-funding of ICE with minimal oversight, and how this episode fits into a pattern of Congress ceding power to the executive branch. The latter half of the episode connects these themes to US involvement in the war in Iran and the fight over Trump’s tariffs, highlighting the broader constitutional stakes.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. DHS Funding Stalemate

• Ongoing Shutdown:

  • DHS has been underfunded for over 60 days ([00:45]), with only partial funding agreed upon in the Senate for non-immigration enforcement arms. The House is holding out, especially GOP members opposed to splitting off ICE/CBP funding for separate debate.
  • Sam Greenglass: “There was an agreement in the Senate… but it has been sitting in the House for the last three weeks amid pushback from inside the House Republican caucus…” ([00:45])

• Agency Impact:

  • Amidst the shutdown, some TSA agents were unpaid, but executive actions restored their pay. Nevertheless, attrition and operational delays loom, with the Coast Guard reporting hundreds of unpaid utility bills threatening essential services ([01:36]).
  • Ximena Bustillo: “There are real lags in training, real lag in paycheck, real lag in just, like, programs operating with Homeland right now.” ([03:17])

2. Democrats’ Lack of Leverage Over ICE

• Democrats’ Strategy:

  • Democrats have withheld support for full DHS funding to pressure for immigration enforcement reform—particularly after high-profile incidents involving ICE and Border Patrol officers ([03:35]).
  • Leadership turnover (including the resignation of both the DHS Secretary and the head of ICE) reflects turmoil but not substantive policy change ([03:35]–[04:48]).
  • Ximena Bustillo: “We are seeing a lot of big leadership changes. That's not to say the policies have changed.” ([04:32])

• Huge Unregulated ICE Funding:

  • A key revelation: Republicans last year allocated $75 billion to ICE—roughly 7x its normal annual budget—with minimal restrictions, enabling ICE operations to run largely unaffected by the shutdown ([04:58], [05:55]).
  • As a result, Democrats’ traditional leverage—using appropriations to extract reforms—has evaporated.
  • Sam Greenglass: “Congressional Republicans gave ICE and other agencies within DHS a huge pot of money with very few strings attached… That has allowed that agency to continue their operations despite this shutdown without feeling a lot of the pressure that Democrats hoped that they would.” ([04:58])
  • John Sandwig, former acting ICE director: “You have created a real vulnerability to fraud or just misconduct.” ([06:37])

• Oversight & Accountability Gap:

  • Lack of annual appropriations erases the traditional annual oversight hearings and public explanations of agency spending ([09:04]).
  • Ximena Bustillo: “If you do not go through this process every single year… there's no reason for administration officials to come in and provide an explanation for... how they plan to spend future money.” ([09:04])

3. Constitutional Concerns: Congress Ceding Authority

• Unprecedented Pre-Funding:

  • The House plan to pre-fund ICE/CBP for three years without annual review further sidelines Congress’s "power of the purse."
  • Even some Republicans, notably Rep. Mark Amodei, voice alarm at this relinquishing of Article I responsibilities.
  • Rep. Mark Amodei: “You’d be dumber than hell to do that now.” ([08:11])

• Broader Trend:

  • Most Republicans blame Democrats for not funding law enforcement, while Democrats argue the lack of oversight only entrenches existing enforcement practices ([08:45]).

---

4. War Powers & Executive Branch Authority (Segment 2, with Danielle Kurtzleben)

• War Powers Resolution:

  • Congress has forced repeated votes under the War Powers Resolution as the conflict with Iran drags on ([11:36]).
  • Sam Greenglass: “The Constitution gives the president the power of being commander in chief, but also gives Congress the power to declare war... Fast forward… and the president has a lot more leeway...” ([11:36])
  • The latest House vote to curtail presidential action in Iran failed by one vote ([13:00]–[13:06]).
  • Democrats hope repeated votes may eventually erode GOP support for a blank check on executive warmaking ([13:06]).

• White House Emboldened:

  • The White House may read these failed votes as congressional acquiescence, emboldening further action—not just in Iran but potentially Cuba ([13:52]–[14:31]).
  • Danielle Kurtzleben: “…then that might make the White House feel even better and more emboldened about whatever they might be planning with regards to Cuba.” ([13:52])

• Historical context:

  • Past presidents (Clinton, Obama, Trump, Biden) have all bypassed Congress on military action, but historians argue Trump’s current actions represent an even greater constitutional leap ([14:35]).

5. Updates: Tariffs and Supreme Court Rulings

• Tariff Refunds & Executive Power:

  • Following the Supreme Court ruling that some Trump-era tariffs were unlawful, the administration is rolling out a process for companies to be refunded ([16:54]).
  • Treasury Secretary Scott Besant misleadingly claims tariff refunds go “back to China” ([19:00–19:17]).
  • Danielle Kurtzleben (fact-checking): “It is US Companies importing goods that have been paying the tariffs.” ([19:17])

• Bigger Picture:

  • The relinquishment of congressional power over tariffs, war, and appropriations all contribute to a broad shift of authority to the executive branch.
  • Sam Greenglass: “This is one more example of Congress relinquishing its constitutional powers to the executive branch… if Congress doesn't step back in… we have a really great risk of executive branch tyranny.” ([19:46])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On ICE Pre-funding:

  • John Sandwig (former ICE director): “You have created a real vulnerability to fraud or just misconduct.” ([06:37])

• On Congressional Power:

  • Rep. Mark Amodei: “You’d be dumber than hell to do that now.” ([08:11])
  • Sam Greenglass: “This is just a huge, huge bucket of money with very few strings attached to how it’s spent.” ([05:20])

• On Real-World Shutdown Impacts:

  • Ximena Bustillo: “There are real lags in training, real lag in paycheck, real lag in just like programs operating with Homeland right now.” ([03:17])

• On White House View of War Powers Votes:

  • Danielle Kurtzleben: “...that might make the White House feel even better and more emboldened about whatever they might be planning with regards to Cuba.” ([13:52])

• On Tariffs:

  • Scott Besant (Treasury Secretary): "Just to be clear, thanks to the Supreme Court, some of this money is going back to China." ([19:00])
  • Danielle Kurtzleben (debunking): "It is not China that pays the tariffs. It never has been. It is US companies..." ([19:17])

• On Congress's Diminishing Power:

  • Sam Greenglass: “If Congress doesn’t step back in to reclaim its prerogative in these spaces, then we have a really great risk of executive branch tyranny.” ([19:46])

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:45: DHS shutdown status and intra-GOP conflict over ICE/CBP funding
• 01:36: Shutdown impacts on TSA, Coast Guard, and broader DHS operations
• 04:58: How ICE can operate during the shutdown due to massive pre-funding
• 06:37: John Sandwig explains risk of fraud with ICE’s "blank check"
• 07:56: Rep. Mark Amodei rebukes multi-year, no-oversight ICE funding
• 09:04: Ximena Bustillo details loss of annual public oversight
• 11:36: War Powers Resolution explained in context of Iran conflict
• 13:06: Strategy behind repeated House votes to restrict Trump on Iran
• 13:52: Danielle Kurtzleben: White House emboldened by failed votes
• 16:54: New process for companies seeking refunds on unlawful tariffs
• 19:00: Treasury Secretary Scott Besant’s misleading statement on tariffs
• 19:46: Sam Greenglass connects all these trends as congressional loss of authority

---

Tone and Original Language

The discussion is brisk, analytical, and often self-aware. There’s a recurring recognition—sometimes laced with irony—of the institutions’ departures from their intended roles and the unintended consequences of Congressional inaction. The hosts keep the explanations accessible to listeners who may not follow budget negotiations or constitutional debates closely.

---

Concluding Themes

The episode delivers a robust, multi-faceted look at the mechanics and implications of the DHS budget battle, ICE’s unusual funding status, and Congress’s broader struggle to exert meaningful oversight over both immigration enforcement and foreign policy. The takeaway: without a restoration of Congressional assertiveness—whether in appropriations, war powers, or economic regulation—the executive branch continues to accumulate unchecked power, with lasting consequences for US governance and democracy.

---

For listeners seeking clarity on why ICE is insulated from Congressional leverage, or for anyone interested in how the dry mechanics of congressional funding debates spiral into broad issues of checks and balances, this episode is essential listening.

Transcript

[NPR Sponsor Announcer]

This message comes from NPR sponsor Carvana Making buying a car 100% online with real transparent pricing and customizable financing that fits your budget. Browse thousands of cars and get yours delivered. Visit Carvana.com today. Delivery fees and terms may apply.

[Miles Parks]

Hey there. It's the NPR Politics podcast. I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting.

[Sam Greenglass]

I'm Sam Greenglass. I cover Congress.

[Ximena Bustillo]

And I'm Ximena Bustillo. And I cover immigration.

[Miles Parks]

I'm and it's Friday, so let's catch up on some of the political news we haven't already talked about on the pod, starting with an ongoing fight over funding at the Department of Homeland Security. Sam, this is an agency that has been without funding for more than 60 days now. Can you give us the latest?

[Sam Greenglass]

Yeah, I feel like a lot of people maybe have forgotten that this agency is still shut down and that this fight is ongoing. And it very much is. So there was an agreement in the Senate at least to fund all of DHS except for for immigration enforcement agencies, ICE and Border Patrol. This passed the Senate, but it has been sitting in the House for the last three weeks amid pushback from inside the House Republican Caucus who don't like this idea of carving out the immigration enforcement agencies and handling them later in a party line vote and who also want to stick a lot of other stuff into that eventual party line vote. So there's conflict there. And three weeks after a supposed deal to end this thing, we are still in the middle of this fight.

[Miles Parks]

Jimena, you cover the Department of Homeland Security. Tell us a little bit more about the impacts that we're feeling at this point.

[Ximena Bustillo]

Yeah, I mean, it's probably very normal for the average person to, as Sam said, forgot that this was sort of happening. You can go to the airport and you still see TSA that's there. And then like maybe you remember that TSA is also a part of Homeland Security while you're doing that. But I think it's important to remember that for a while those TSA agents were not getting paid. And then President Trump signed a memo authorizing, you know, particular federal funds to get moved over to streamline the pay and then signed a separate memo to then start paying the rest of the department. And we're talking about 250,000 people that work for DHS. Now there are other potential impacts. So TSA is getting paid. But yesterday the TSA administrator testified that the agency is preparing to lose even more workers as the shutdown drags on. And attrition is something that TSA has particularly seen in the last six months, because there's not just this shutdown, but the one from the fall as well. And she said that shortages in TSA staffing could still lead to long delays at airports. But then separate from that, the US Coast Guard Admiral, Kevin Lundy, said that there were over 500 unpaid utility bills because of the shutdown, which is threatening to cut off electricity and water to Coast Guard stations. And so the average person might not be concerned about whether or not they're going to get their mail or be able to go to a national park like we talk about with other shutdowns. But there are real lags in training, real lag in paycheck, real lag in just like programs operating with Homeland right now.

[Miles Parks]

The reason that Democrats have not signed on to funding dhs, though, is to push for reforms to immigration enforcement. Have we seen, even though there hasn't been a funding deal that puts changes into law, have we still seen this have an impact on ICE enforcement at all?

[Ximena Bustillo]

I mean, there definitely is so much pressure on the agency and so much scrutiny on the agency, I think the last four months than we saw all of last year. I mean, right after two US Citizens were shot and killed by federal immigration officers that work for dhs, so Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol out of Minneapolis, we really saw Democratic senators suddenly shift their tone. And that's what kind of started this whole thing, is them saying, we're not gonna include funding DHS with the rest of the. Since then, there hasn't been anything on the legislative front, but we have seen the departure of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as the first Cabinet secretary to leave the Trump administration. And then as of last night, the head of ice, Todd Lyons, also handed in his resignation. And so we are seeing a lot of big leadership changes. That's not to say that the policies have changed. We are still seeing this administration take a very sharp, strong approach to not just curb illegal immigration, but legal migration. But, you know, we are kind of seeing some of the tone begin to waver, at least for now.

[Miles Parks]

Sam, you reported this week about the sort of, kind of limits of the leverage that Democrats have in terms of trying to force changes at ice. Can you explain that a little bit?

[Sam Greenglass]

Yeah. So one reason that Democrats have not been able to extract any of these demands that they have been asking for is that the agencies are really not being hemmed in by the appropriations process, which is one of the really big checks that Congress has on the executive branch to initiate reforms or request information or seek Policy changes. And that is because last year, congressional Republicans gave ICE and other agencies within DHS a huge pot of money with very few strings attached. $75 billion for immigration and Customs Enforcement. And that has allowed that agency to continue their operations despite this shutdown without feeling a lot of the pressure that Democrats hoped that they would. And just to put that $75 billion number in some context, usually that agency gets about $10 billion a year. So this is just a huge, huge bucket of money with very few strings attached to how it's spent.

[Ximena Bustillo]

And we don't fully know how it's being spent because on one hand it is allowing, for example, deportation officers to still get paid even when other employees at DHS and even within ICE are not getting paid. But then we're like seeing this argument from top officials that it's like, well, they can't just always use this money for, you know, like these World cup game trainings or something like that. And so there are a lot of questions and ultimately a lack of oversight is what it lands on.

[Sam Greenglass]

And, you know, and I talked about this with a former acting director of ice, his name is John Sandwig. And he basically described this $75 billion as a blank check.

[Guest Expert / Interviewee]

When you have tens and tens of billions of dollars with very limited oversight and no fear that you're gonna have problems in the next fiscal year with Congress, you have created a real vulnerability to fraud or just misconduct.

[Sam Greenglass]

And, you know, now Republicans are gearing up to give these agencies more money in this fashion. You know, at the top of this conversation, I mentioned that part of this deal to fund DHS is to carve out these immigration enforcement agencies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, and fund them separately in a party line maneuver for three years. That's gonna be another big pot of money without strings attached and without this annual appropriations process.

[Miles Parks]

Tell me a little bit more about that, because that does seem rare to fund an agency. I just having covered politics for the last decade, it's. I'm very used to every year you kind of are have this annual argument about like everything in everything that Congress funds, essentially. But this would exempt these agencies from that level of scrutiny. Is that in my understanding?

[Sam Greenglass]

Yeah, this is really unusual. And another example of Congress relinquishing its authority in regards to the existence executive branch and when it comes in this case to the power of the purse. You know, we've even heard some Republicans express frustrations about this, including Republican Representative Mark Amaday of Nevada.

[Mark Amodei]

But it's like saying, we're going to abolish Article 1 for three years. We want to give you your stuff in a consistent, predictable, sustainable way. That's our job. That's what we owe to you. Just pre fund me for three years.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Really?

[Mark Amodei]

Why don't you prepay me for three years? You'd be dumber than hell to do that now.

[Ximena Bustillo]

He is the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee in the House that funds dhs. And so those comments were made during yesterday's budget hearing where, you know, members on both sides of the aisle thought that it was silly that they were talking about the fiscal year 2027 budget when there is currently no fiscal year budget, 2026 budget at all. And so there really is this, like, broader question of how to actually move forward with this.

[Sam Greenglass]

And I should say that that is a minority position among Republicans that we just heard. And that when you talk to most Republicans, they accuse Democrats of subverting Congress's responsibility to fund the government and believe that we are in an era where Democrats may never again vote to fund ICE or Border Patrol and they are really left without any options here.

[Ximena Bustillo]

And the one other thing that I'll just add here is for people who don't follow regular appropriations, like essentially every year the president comes out with a budget and says, this is what I would like you to give all my federal agencies. And then every top official from every federal agency gets called into Congress to do what these eight officials did yesterday, which is the president is asking money for this and here's why. And congressional lawmakers get to ask questions about how money has been spent and then if they get this money, how it will be spent. That's the oversight. If you do not go through this process every single year and you just essentially prepay upfront three years, there's no reason for administration officials to come in and provide an explanation for not just how they've spent the money, but also like, how they plan to spend future money. Like there are other levels, like you can send letters and requests and stuff like that, but this is just a very public, regular form.

[Miles Parks]

All right. Well, Jimena, thank you so much for your time and for your reporting as always.

[Ximena Bustillo]

Thanks.

[Miles Parks]

Let's take a quick break. When we come back, how Congress is responding to the war in Iran.

[EZCATER Announcer]

This message comes from ezCater, the workplace food platform. EZCATER helps organizations order food from favorite restaurants, meet dietary needs and stay on budget with employee meal programs, flexible payment options, and 24. 7 customer support, all on one platform. Learn [e-mail] this message comes from IXL. Spring is here and school testing is just around the corner. IXL can help make an impact on your child's learning. Receive 20% off an IXL membership if you sign up [e-mail] NPR this message

[NPR Sponsor Announcer]

comes from NPR sponsor Carvana. Carvana believes selling your car should be refreshingly simple. Enter your license plate or vin, get a real offer down to the penny, and schedule a pickup on your time. No surprises. Sell your car [e-mail] pickup fees may apply.

[Miles Parks]

And we're back now, joined by NPR White House correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben. Hi, Danielle.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Always happy to be here.

[Miles Parks]

Always happy to have you. So let's stick with this theme of Congress's relationship with the executive branch, but this time looking at it through a different lens. Through the lens of the ongoing war in Iran, Congressional Democrats forced a vote on what's known as the Powers Resolution related to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Sam, get us up to speed there. What is the War Powers Resolution and why does this matter?

[Sam Greenglass]

Okay, so I want to start by going back just a little bit to the Constitution. The Constitution gives the president where we always go.

[Miles Parks]

It always comes back to the Constitution.

[Sam Greenglass]

The number of times that I've actually pulled out my pocket Constitution for stories about Congress in the last couple of months is more than once. So what I want to.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

It really says something, doesn't it?

[Sam Greenglass]

I think it does.

[Miles Parks]

It says a lot, honestly, about Sam, about Congress. It's a lot.

[Sam Greenglass]

So what I want to say here is that the Constitution gives the president the power of being commander in chief, but it also gives Congress the power to declare war. And in the founding era, the first century of this country, that didn't actually create a lot of tension. But on the outside Of World War II, the United States becomes this global superpower with nuclear weapons, and the president has a lot more leeway on their own to unilaterally get the United States involved in conflict. Fast forward to the Vietnam War, and President Nixon is carrying out a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia. There's a lot of congressional pushback when it becomes public. And that prompts Congress to pass something called the War Powers Resolution, which does a bunch of things, but two really important ones. One, it gives Congress the ability to pull back the president from conflict with a vote of Congress. And it also sets a 60 day timeline that the president has to pull back if Congress hasn't formally authorized the president to be engaged in this conflict. And these are the votes that we've been seeing in Congress over the last couple months about Iran, but also other things like Venezuela.

[Miles Parks]

Okay, so this vote failed in the House, I think by one vote. Right. Where does that leave things?

[Sam Greenglass]

So we keep seeing these votes happening again and again. And we know that this is part of the strategy of Democrats is to keep holding these votes, hoping that they can chip away Republicans as this conflict either widens or goes on, especially as we get to the 60 day mark that I've been talking about in the context of the War Powers Resolution. We even did hear from some Republicans in the early days of this conflict that if this conflict is going on at that point, that's when they're really going to start to have some more concerns. And so that will be a big point to take stock of where Republicans are on this conflict.

[Miles Parks]

How emboldened do you think the fact that these votes do keep failing, Danielle? How does the White House take that in terms of basically giving them a little bit of a blank check at

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

this point, even though this War Powers Resolution that Sam is talking about only applies to Iran? I do think that should hypothetical here, should it continue to fail or be rejected in Congress, then that might make the White House feel even better and more emboldened about whatever they might be planning with regards to Cuba. Trump has said several times, including this week, he has hinted at some sort of action in Cuba. He told USA Today this week, quote, we may stop by Cuba after we're finished with this, this being the conflict with Iran. So yeah, I would say that they might well decide that.

[Ximena Bustillo]

Cool.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

If Congress still isn't gonna stop us after Venezuela after this, then we're just

[Sam Greenglass]

gonna keep going, you know, without Congress. Strikes were ordered by President Clinton in the former Yugoslavia, President Obama in Libya, President Trump in Syria and President Biden in Yemen. So this is not just President Trump who is doing this, but if you talk to war powers historians, they say he is taking an additional constitutional leap here. When you look at the nature, the scope and the duration of this particular conflict. And so I think Danielle is right to. This continues to open that door for future presidents to take these bigger and bigger leaps.

[Miles Parks]

And there have been some new developments in recent days that we haven't talked about on the pod yet. Danielle, can you get us up to speed on the latest in the war?

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Yes, absolutely. So there have been a couple of things. One is that there has been a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. That is a 10 day ceasefire. But crucially, what we should point out here is that Hezbollah, which is Iran backed and which Israel has been attacking in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is not Lebanon. So there is this ongoing question of exactly how Hezbollah will act in light of this ceasefire. We also learned today from President Trump, he posted on social media that the Strait of Hormuz is open. However, the US Naval blockade is still in effect with regards to Iran. What that means is that commercial ships can go through the Strait of Hormuz, but US Ships are still stopping any ships from going into or out of Iranian ports. Now, does this mean that traffic is going to immediately bounce back to pre Iran war levels? There's a lot of questions regarding that. I mean, Trump did say that Iran has removed or is removing all mines, but you can imagine that some companies, shipping companies, might still have some trepidation about going through that straight right now.

[Guest Expert / Interviewee]

Yeah.

[Miles Parks]

And I should also say that markets have responded to these developments. I know oil prices have come down. The stock market shot up over the last day or so. Also related to the economy. This week, Danielle, the administration quietly announced a mechanism related to tariffs after the Supreme Court ruled that some of Trump's tariffs were illegal. Can you explain what's going on there and how this refund program that was announced will work?

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Yeah, I mean, I'm going to give you the very abbreviated version, please. So Customs and Border Protection, which is the government agency that collects tariffs, they announced a new portal that is called Cape that is going to be where a big company can go in and say, look, I paid all of these tariffs that the Supreme Court ruled were unlawful. Please give me all of this money back. Thank you. So this portal is going to open on Monday. That is what we know. And we also know that it's only going to be at first for certain tariff payments that have been made. The very short version is that CBP is going to pay out the easiest to pay out tariffs first, the most recently paid ones and ones where there's not some sort of dispute or additional tariffs or countervailing duties, anything like that involved. So that's what's happening. But there's a lot, lot that is still very uncertain. For example, after the Supreme Court in February said, hey, the IPA tariffs are unlawful, then there was this question of when and how refunds were going to happen. Well, a judge on the the Court for International Trade ruled that, yeah, you do have to pay back the tariffs. Go do it now. The Trump administration right now has until early June to appeal that. So one big question is, does the Trump administration appeal that? How much of it do they appeal? What direction do they go in? It is quite possible that they could say that some tariffs, they just don't have to pay back for this reason or that. One other thing, though, is that the Trump administration certainly has not talked about tariff refunds with joy and alacrity. Like, from the beginning, they've made it clear that they want to fight tariff refunds in court. Just this week, a reporter asked Scott Besant, the Treasury Secretary, how these refunds could affect the economy.

[Scott Besant]

And here's what he said again, we'll have to see what comes out, and we'll have to see what the companies do with them. Just to be clear. Just to be clear, thanks to the Supreme Court, some of this money is going back to China. So is that going to affect the U.S. economy? I don't know.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

To fact check him for the millionth time here, it is not China that pays the tariffs. It never has been. It is US Companies importing goods that have been paying the tariffs.

[Miles Parks]

Got it. Well, I mean, I think big picture, the tariffs thing does kind of relate to the War Powers Resolution, Sam, in that this is something that Congress used to say was our job, and now I guess I do see these things as a little bit connected.

[Sam Greenglass]

Yeah. I mean, and not just war powers and not just tariffs, but also this appropriations fight with DHS funding that we've been talking about. This is one more example of Congress relinquishing its constitutional powers to the executive branch. You know, that is a through line of almost all of the stories we are doing about Congress right now. And I talked about this in the appropriations context with University of Michigan law professor Sam Baggins. He used to be a top official at the Office of Management and Budget. And he says that if Congress doesn't step back in to reclaim its prerogative in these spaces, then we have a really great risk of executive branch tyranny and don't see why every executive in the future isn't going to follow some playbook like this. And so the question Bagginstoss is posing there is not just what does that mean for this administration, but for future presidents as well.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

And that's something that Supreme Court justices also got at. They ruled against these tariffs of Trump's. You did have some of them saying, well, this could just lead future presidents to, yeah, just keep usurping Congress's power. Then what is Congress for in the first place? So Supreme Court justices have thought about this. So now the question is, even with the Supreme Court having reigned in Trump on this one thing, these tariffs, then if he's been reined in there, Congress still can step in for Trump's other tariffs. Congress still can step in and, you know, impose or say no thank you to those tariffs. So it's not just the Supreme Court that is doing it here.

[Miles Parks]

Okay, let's take one more break. And when we get back, time for Can't Let It Go.

[NPR Sponsor Announcer]

What happens when our political party becomes the prism through which we see every other aspect of our identities?

[EZCATER Announcer]

What we're living through, I think, is really the two parties taking opposite sides on whether we want to keep making this type of social progress or whether we want to go back in time.

[NPR Sponsor Announcer]

Listen to NPR's Code Switch podcast in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Miles Parks]

And we're back. And it's time for Can't Let It Go, the part of the show where we talk about the things from the week that we just cannot stop thinking about politics or otherwise. And I'll start us off this week. I, you know, I listen to a lot of music, and I don't know about you guys. I feel like as I'm discovering new music, I feel like I'm constantly just hoping for that, like, lightning strike moment of, like, when something, like, really hits your core on, like, I don't know. I feel like I listen to all these albums in the last, like, year. Very rarely has something, like, really broken through.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

I'm excited for where this is going.

[Miles Parks]

Well, I just had, I don't know. There's nothing more than to say other than that I listened to an album this week that, like, did it, and I was like, on a walk with my dog, and it was like one of those, like, pink sunsets outside. And I put on this album that I barely knew anything about. And, like, I, I feel like I like To Another Plane. Exactly. Like, I did, like, basically, like a daydream walk for an hour and just listen to this record over and over again. And I'm gonna play a little bit of the first song. This is by a band called Sluice, and the album is called Companion. This song is called Beedi. And nothing more I can say other than that. It starts really quiet. It's like twangy kind of country rock. It has a reference to the Wire. It is like everything. It feels like it was built in a focus group for Made for Miles. Exactly. I got back on the ssri. My parents met in high school when they were just seven.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Some real Wilco vibes here.

[Miles Parks]

Exactly. It is like, total Wilco vibes.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

And like, I'm sorry, Miles, are you a dad?

[Miles Parks]

I happen to be I know. I'm like, guilty as charged, Danielle. It did feel like as I was levitating to the. I was just like, I'm leaning into myself here.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Hey, I. Listen, listen. I have a stereotype of a suburban mom as well. I get it. I'm just saying, I'm not being a jerk. I totally get it.

[Miles Parks]

I'm not. Again, I'm like, I'm done with leaning away from myself. I'm leaning in hell, yeah. And like, this album, I am going to listen to 150 more times this year, and I recommend our listeners to go do the same.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

I'm here for the country rock.

[Sam Greenglass]

I can totally picture you on this walk in your neighborhood listening to this music.

[Miles Parks]

Last thing on this is, I really like this when this happens. So I'm on a walk with my dog, and the first lyric of this song is about a person walking their dog at sunset. And I was on a walk with my dog at sunset. And I don't know, there's something about that moment when music lines up with your life in a way that also hits different. Sam, what can't you let go of?

[Sam Greenglass]

Okay, so, Myles, you talked about a struck by lightning kind of moment with that music. That is a nice segue into what I want to talk about, which. Have you seen the Netflix series Death by Lightning?

[Miles Parks]

I watched the first episode, which I enjoyed. I just. I don't know. I don't know why I didn't continue it, but I saw the first episode. It was great.

[Sam Greenglass]

Okay, so for folks who don't know what this is, this is a miniseries about the assassination of President Garfield. And this week, the Capitol Historical Society hosted a talk with the historian who wrote the book that it's based from, which is called Destiny of the Republic, and Nick Offerman, who plays Chester A. Arthur in the series. And so, first of all, total nerd capital moment that I got to experience this week. But the thing that I keep thinking about is this amazing story that the historian described in her talk. And she said that she was researching. Her name is Candace Millard, and she was researching this book in the Library of Congress, going through all of these documents in this very beautiful space. And she came across an envelope that she thought was just going to be a run of the mill letter. So she starts to open it, and it turns out a bunch of hair spills onto the desk in front of her. And written on the flip side of the envelope says, clipped from President Garfield's head on his deathbed. And first of all, wild, weird, kind of gross but what she told us is that it reminds you of this responsibility that you have as a historian, as a storyteller to see these as real human people, even all those years ago. And I think this is a great lesson for us as journalists. Even though we're covering people in the modern day, these are sometimes larger than life figures. We are writing the first draft of history. And I think that is something I want to keep with me as we tell stories about people in politics in Washington.

[Miles Parks]

Capitol Hill is interesting in that way, that every time I've gone up there to cover something, it is. That's one of the things I'm struck by as I'm talking to lawmakers who I see on TV all the time. But I'm like, oh, my God, that's like a person. Like, that person kind of looks like my dad, or that person is kind of like. I'm just like, it is very weird to be that close. And you. You are kind of reminded that, like, these are human beings.

[Sam Greenglass]

You know, I talked to a senator once who's like, I can't talk to you right now. I just came from the dentist. And you realize, yes, these are real people.

[Miles Parks]

Lawmakers get cavities, too. Danielle. What can't you let go of?

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

I have something kind of in that vein of politicians. They're just like us. This week, New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani was talking about a new fund that his administration has create called the Mayor's Fund. The idea being to get a bunch of money from philanthropists to help pay for, for example, his universal child care initiative. But he described it in a very particular way. And here is a cut.

[Guest Expert / Interviewee]

I like to think of it this way. Government is driving the race car, and philanthropy is there to give it that turbo boost to cross the finish line. Or if you are a Mario Kart fan, government is Yoshi, and philanthropy is the golden mushroom, that edge we need to beat Bowser on the rainbow road. To belabor this metaphor even further, Bowser is corporate greed. In this scenario, it made me think

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

about the passage of time, how, like, I tend to think of politicians as, like, as being several decades older than me. And here is a politician talking about an initiative and making it clear that like many of us, he has sat on his friend's living room floor or dorm room floor and played hours of Mario Kart. I don't know. I grew up in Iowa, and the senator there was Chuck Grassley, and I don't think Chuck Grassley has ever sat on anyone's dorm room floor playing Mario Kart. He's probably listened to a phonograph, you know what I mean? And I am now at the age where my lawmakers Chuck Grassley catching strays

[Sam Greenglass]

also, hey, he's always posting complaints about the History Channel doesn't do real history anymore.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

Listen, if Chuck Grassley's office is listening and you can tell me that he has played Mario Kart, I will. And he wants to play Mario Kart with me. Hey, I'm, I'm down.

[Miles Parks]

All right. We can leave it there for today. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi. Our producers are Casey Morell and Bria Suggs. Our editor is Rachel Bay. Special thanks to Dana Farrington, Ben Swayze and Krishnadev Kalamer. And lastly, a big thank you to Anusha Mather, our Washington desk intern the last few months. Thank you so much, Anusha, for everything you did to make our journalism better. I'm Myles Park Parks. I cover voting.

[Sam Greenglass]

I'm Sam Greenglass. I cover Congress.

[Danielle Kurtzleben]

And I'm Danielle Kurtzleben. I cover the White House.

[Miles Parks]

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics podcast.