Is Donald Trump the Real Speaker of the House?

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: “Is Donald Trump the Real Speaker of the House?”

To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
Host: Charlie Sykes
Guest: Former Rep. Charlie Dent
Date: December 9, 2025

---

Overview of Episode Theme

This episode explores the rapidly changing dynamics within the Republican-controlled House, the weakening of Congressional power, and the increasing dominance of Donald Trump over both Congress and GOP policy—even as he shapes a new, controversial U.S. national security strategy. Charlie Sykes and former Congressman Charlie Dent dig into the personal and institutional conflicts rocking Capitol Hill, notably a revolt by leading Republican women and the unprecedented ceding of Congressional power to the executive branch.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

---

1. The Republican House in Turmoil ([03:03]–[06:03])

• Mike Johnson's Speakership at Risk: Speaker Mike Johnson faces a revolt, especially from prominent Republican women: Elise Stefanik, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, Anna Paulina Luna, Lauren Boebert, and Harriet Hageman.
  • Johnson's hold on power is fragile; a few more resignations could cost him the speakership ([05:10]).
  • If the House flips in the midterms—as likely—Johnson may aim for Minority Leader, a role that only needs support from his party ([05:10]).
• Why the Revolt?: Surprisingly, the break with Johnson is not ideological. The dissenting women are among the most MAGA-aligned members; instead, personal rivalries, unmet political ambitions, ego, and grievances drive the rebellion ([06:03]).
  • Elise Stefanik’s bitterness over a blocked UN Ambassador nomination and recent special election losses ([06:48]).
  • Marjorie Taylor Greene’s frustration at lack of Trump support, fallout from her activism on the Epstein files, and anger over an ACA health care premium credit not being extended ([07:40]).
  • Anna Paulina Luna pushed for proxy voting due to family reasons, highlighting shifts in workplace norms ([08:30]).

Quote:
“These are not feminists ... these are people who have gone waded deeply into the fever swamps. So why are they breaking with the speaker now?” —Charlie Sykes ([06:03])

---

2. Gender Dynamics & Culture in the GOP ([10:54]–[13:29])

• “Waffles and Spaghetti” & the Old Boys’ Club: Johnson’s conservative views about gender roles—exemplified in lighthearted but telling podcast remarks—may further alienate even ideologically aligned women ([10:54], [12:03]).
• Historical Lack of Representation: Dent notes the GOP’s ongoing struggle recruiting and elevating women, an issue exacerbated post-Dobbs and during misogyny-laden controversies like the Epstein files ([12:50], [13:29]).

Quote:
“I don’t know if he has a problem with women so much as he has maybe a very traditional view of the roles of the genders.” —Charlie Dent ([12:36])

---

3. Congress Surrendering its Power ([17:01]–[23:26])

• Trump as De Facto Speaker: Sykes and Dent argue Congress, especially House leadership under Johnson, has willingly ceded its constitutional authority. Laws aren’t advancing, and institutionalists are retiring or demoralized ([17:01], [17:57]).
• Specific examples: Trump's pocket rescissions override Congressional appropriations; tariffs imposed without Congressional consent; historical context, e.g., Speaker Hastert defending Congressional independence from the executive branch ([19:09]–[21:36]).
• Congressional dysfunction evidenced by increased use of discharge petitions and inability to pass key bills ([09:29]).

Quote:
"The speaker is essentially the deputy legislative director for the White House." —Unnamed GOP member, via Dent ([23:07])

Quote:
“...they have turned over the keys to the executive branch, which was, frankly, something the founders never thought would happen.” —Charlie Sykes ([22:11])

---

4. Paralyzing Partisanship & Broken Consensus Models ([23:27]–[25:14])

• Both parties now act as servants to their party’s president, eroding separation of powers (“a system of separation of parties, not powers”).
• Single-party legislation leads to laws lacking durability—examples: Obamacare, Trump tax cuts, Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act ([24:00]).

---

5. The Health Care “Rubik’s Cube” ([25:14]–[32:16])

• Stalemate on ACA/Obamacare: Trump and Congressional Republicans have no real alternative to the ACA despite a decade of debate ([28:02]).
  • They’re likely to extend ACA tax credits to avoid massive premium hikes but lack a long-term plan ([25:59]).
  • Past attempts at repeal and replace failed due to internal GOP disagreements; market realities block simplistic solutions ([28:53]–[31:03]).
• Employer Healthcare Tangle: GOP rhetoric about moving away from employer-based care doesn’t square with political realities ([31:03]).

Quote:
“All these years, he’s never seen a single credible Republican alternative plan ... which is actually kind of remarkable when you think about it.” —Charlie Sykes, paraphrasing John Boehner ([28:02])

---

6. Trump’s Trade Policy, Tariffs, and Economic Fantasies ([32:18]–[36:44])

• Disconnected Claims: Trump’s populist pronouncements (“tariffs bring in trillions,” “no more income tax,” giving $2,000 rebates) are economic nonsense ([33:18], [33:39]).
• Tariff Realities: Tariffs raise costs for manufacturers and consumers, hurt farmers, and estrange U.S. allies (e.g., Canada) ([34:59]).
  • Tariffs justified under broad emergency powers stretch the law and may soon be challenged in the Supreme Court ([38:20]–[39:40]).
  • Returning to “Smoot-Hawley” era trade ideas is mocked for its economic folly ([39:43]).

Quote:
“We all know it’s not true ... the price of bananas and coffee’s gone up. And now they’re saying ... I guess they are tacitly acknowledging that these tariffs have raised the prices of certain things that Americans buy and consume.” —Charlie Dent ([33:40])

---

7. The Revolutionary National Security Strategy ([40:22]–[46:32])

• A Dramatic Break with U.S. Tradition: The new Trump doctrine abandons Europe, caters to culture wars, and is celebrated by Russia ([03:03], [41:54]).
  • Critics call it a form of performative national suicide (citing Anne Applebaum) ([40:22]).
  • Trump’s national security vision is “a repudiation ... of every other Republican president post World War II” ([41:54]).
  • The administration’s willingness to hand over Ukraine’s sovereignty and appease Putin is framed as naive, dangerous, and a gift to autocrats ([43:47]).

Quote:
“This was written by the Russians. And how can an American president put their name on this and send it to the Ukrainian government?” —Charlie Dent ([43:47])

---

8. Ukraine, Putin, and Trump’s Nobel Obsession ([45:24]–[47:21])

• Trump’s Fantasy of Diplomacy: The administration’s overtures to Russia and frustration at the lack of peace progress show a disconnect: Putin doesn’t want peace—he wants Ukraine ([46:32]).
  • Jared Kushner’s involvement in talks with Putin is cited as emblematic of a naïve, unserious approach ([45:24]).
  • Dent: “Nobel Peace Prizes are not awarded to individuals who appease tyrants, continental tyrants in Europe.” ([46:32])

---

9. Electoral Realities in Pennsylvania ([48:11]–[50:05])

• Trump’s visit to Scranton/Wilkes-Barre signals anxiety: the GOP is losing ground even in former strongholds ([48:11]).
• Republican underperformance in swing and competitive counties (e.g., Luzerne and Lackawanna), with Democrats energized while Republican turnout is lagging ([49:14]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “It is so important, I mean kind of urgent, urgently important to continually remind ourselves that we are not the crazy ones.” —Charlie Sykes ([50:19])
• “What did they expect when they go all in on Donald Trump’s brand of politics, Mike Johnson’s brand of politics? Are they really, like, shocked, really surprised to find out wow. Kind of a sexist environment here in the House.” —Charlie Sykes ([15:14])
• “…I used to believe that we had a system of separation of powers ... I believe today we have a system of separation of parties.” —Charlie Dent ([23:27])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [03:03] – New Trump national security strategy: a break with U.S. foreign policy tradition.
• [04:44] – Mike Johnson’s shaky speakership; Republican women revolt.
• [06:03] – Why pro-Trump women are challenging House leadership.
• [10:54] – “Waffles and spaghetti”: Gender roles and GOP leadership.
• [17:01] – Congressional surrender of power to the executive.
• [23:07] – "Deputy legislative director for the White House": Speaker as Trump’s subordinate.
• [25:14] – Health care, GOP gridlock, and lack of an ACA alternative.
• [32:18] – Trump’s tariff claims and economic misinformation.
• [40:22] – Analysis of the new national security strategy, implications for Europe and Russia.
• [46:32] – Trump’s fruitless attempts at peace with Putin; Nobel Peace Prize obsession.
• [48:11] – Trump’s strategic visit to Scranton/Wilkes-Barre amid GOP losses in Pennsylvania.
• [50:19] – Closing affirmation: “We are not the crazy ones.”

---

Tone & Language

The tone is sharp, urgent, and occasionally exasperated but maintains a sense of dark humor, especially when puncturing the absurdities of current political dynamics. Both Sykes and Dent draw on personal anecdotes, institutional memory, and policy detail to paint a picture of a party and a branch of government in deep crisis—caught between reality, wishful authoritarianism, and internal paralysis.

---

Transcript

[Charlie Dent]

We will answer your call as soon as we can.

[Quo Business Phone System Advertiser]

Are you still running your business with one creaky old phone system, missing calls, losing track of messages, and scrambling to keep up with your team? It's time to break up with the past and say hello to Quo. Quo is the number one business phone system with 4.7 stars across 3,000 reviews on G2. Quo brings all your business phone calls and texts into one app for your team. No more juggling devices or being tied to a landline. Quo's built in AI, logs calls, creates summaries, automates follow ups, and can even answer and route calls so you never miss an opportunity. Whether you're a solo operator or leading a growing team, Quo keeps you connected and helps you deliver standout customer experiences. Join over 90,000 businesses using Quo and see why it's the one business phone system for customer satisfaction. Level up your workflow with quo. Get started free plus get 20% off your first six months at quo.comtech that's quo spelled Q-U-O.comtech and if you have existing numbers with another service, Quo will port them over for free. Quo no missed calls, no missed customers.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half price, not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means a half day. Yeah, give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow hager 35 gigabytes of network's busy taxes and fees extra see mintmobile.com.

[Podcast Host (Sequoia Capital / Crucible Moments)]

We all remember the choices that shaped the course of our lives in business. World renowned venture capital firm Sequoia Capital calls them Crucible Moments. Their podcast brings you inside the pivotal decisions that some of today's most influential companies Hosted by Sequoia's Roelof Botha Crucible Moments Season three Pulls back the curtain on the untold stories behind companies like Stripe, Zipline, Palo Alto Networks, Klarna supercell and more. Hear about the make or break decisions, early stumbles and leaps of faith that turn scrappy startups into market defining forces. Once you're caught up on season three, check out some of the episodes from seasons one and two with guests like Steven Chen of YouTube, Tony Hsu of DoorDash, Steve Huffman of Reddit, Br Chety of Airbnb and more. Tune in to Sequoia's new season of Crucible Moments to discover how some of the most transformational companies of the modern era were built. Crucible Moments is available everywhere. You get your podcasts and@ crucible moments.com go listen to crucible Moments today.

[Charlie Sykes]

I'm Charlie Sykes. Welcome back to the to the Contrary podcast. We have a new national security strategy out, was dropped on Friday night. If you haven't seen it, it's really, really a big deal. It's not just a rejection of, say, say, Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. It's a rejection of the entire foreign policy of every single president since World War II. We're talking about Truman and Eisenhower and Nixon and Kennedy and Bush, and it basically says.

We'Re throwing Europe under the bus. It's loaded with culture war stuff, basically gives Russia pretty much everything they want. And of course, the headline this morning is Russia is pretty pleased with all of this, even as they continue to bomb Ukraine. Meanwhile, we a lot of speculation about what's going on in Congress. So we have a very special guest, a veteran of Congress, a veteran commentator, former Congressman Charlie Dent, who served for many years in the Pennsylvania legislature and for seven terms in Congress. You've probably seen him on cnn. Charlie, welcome to the program. This will be the To Charlie podcast today.

[Charlie Dent]

Well, that's great, Charlie. I just want you to know I've been mistaken for you more than a few times, especially when I put my glasses on. I've been told, hey, Charlie Sykes, how you doing? I said, that's nice, but I'm not Charlie Sykes.

[Charlie Sykes]

Okay, that's really weird you should say that because I Remember back in 2017 or 2018, someone said, has anyone actually ever seen Charlie Sykes and Charlie Dent in the same room at the same time? I mean, is it possible? So I don't know where this started.

[Charlie Dent]

But, you know, separated at birth.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah. Well, I find it very, very flattering to be compared to you. Okay, so let's talk about before we get into the big heavy lifting stuff, I want to get your take on what's going on with your former colleagues in Congress. Speaker Mike Johnson facing a revolt of Republican women. How much in danger is Speaker Johnson right now? Just give me your take of the state of play.

[Charlie Dent]

Well, he could be in a lot of trouble if a few more members of Republican members of Congress decide to resign, then he will no longer be the speaker. So that's his first problem. The second problem is the midterm prospects for Republicans in the House don't look particularly Good. Right now it's quite likely, probable that the House will flip. I'm not here to predict how big a margin, but it's likely to flip. And so he will go from being speaker to perhaps the Minority leader. And if that's the case, if he wants to keep the job, he should be able to do it simply because he only needs half the members of his conference to support him. The minority leader position does not require a vote of the full House, unlike the Speaker's position. So I think to that extent, if he wants to be the minority leader, he might be okay after the election. But then again, you're the minority leader, you have much more limited power and influence.

[Charlie Sykes]

So what is going on here? I'm looking at the list of the Republican women who have now broken with him. Elise Stefanik, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, Anna Polina Luna, Lauren Boebert and Harriet Hageman. These are not feminists. These are not centrist, these are not center left folks. These are not Liz Cheney types. In fact, some of those are some of the, I don't know, most aggressively pro maga members of the caucus. So can you explain what's going on here? Because it doesn't appear to be ideological. I mean, these are, I mean, these are people who have gone waded deeply into the fever swamps. So why are they breaking with the speaker now?

[Charlie Dent]

Well, in the case of Elise Stefanik, let's face it, there's a little bit of payback going on here. She wanted to be, she was looking to become the UN Ambassador from the United States. And she was all teed up. Then there was a special election in Lancaster, Pennsylvania for a Senate seat in the upcoming Florida special elections. And at that moment, Speaker Johnson saw, hey boy, these special elections aren't going so well. Republicans are significantly underperforming. We don't want special election in upstate New York. We might lose the seat. And basically got the President to withdraw or to force Elise Stefanik to withdraw the nomination. So I think there's a lot of bitterness over that. Frankly, I think that's probably the biggest thing more than anything else with Elise Stefanik, with Marjorie Taylor Greene, it's pretty clear that she gave her unconditional full throated support to the President. That support was unreciprocated. The President, Frank, always unreciprocated with her. Well.

Then of course, Margie Taylor Greene's got out over her skis on the Jeffrey Epstein matter. I think she's doing the right thing trying to, you know, release those reports. And same with A few of the other women, Mobert and Mace and others, and Tom Massie, but she. But in the end, that was too much for the President. He saw that as a betrayal. In fact, called her a traitor. And she didn't take it well. And now she's kind of gone on. And also she was upset about not extending the health care, the ACA premium credit.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah, I'll talk about that later.

[Charlie Dent]

So I think there are a few issues, but I think it's just that she's. She gave her support. It was unreciprocated. She wanted to run statewide. The President really wasn't there for her. So that explains Greene and Luna. I know she had some issues, I think, on. Didn't she want the House to be able to do proxy voting for members? And.

Because she had a young child and other members, too. That's changed since I was in Congress.

[Charlie Sykes]

I'm really glad you're doing this because, I mean, anytime people. I think that's one of the, you know, the impulses of pundits, you know, to find some sort of an ideological through line or something. And a lot of this is personal. A lot of it's ego. Right. I mean, everybody has their own agenda.

[Charlie Dent]

Yeah. What happened with Hageman? I didn't realize Hageman was having issues right now. And Luna had an issue, I think, over the whole issue of proxy voting for new mothers. I believe that was the issue. That was what she wanted. And there might be other issues.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, the Congressional stock trading ban. I mean, this is where she really.

[Charlie Dent]

Broke the stock trading ban, too. Yeah.

[Charlie Sykes]

She actually began the discharge petition to force a vote on Congressional stock trading ban. Now, this is unusual. You were in Congress for a very long time. For members of the majority party to file discharge petitions is, I mean, unusual, unheard of. I mean, pretty extraordinary.

[Charlie Dent]

It's extraordinary. In fact, I was involved with the first successful discharge petition in 2015. We did it on the Export Import bank as John Boehner was announcing his resignation, and we had not yet decided a new speaker. At that moment, we were waiting for Paul Ryan, but we didn't have a speaker. And I helped lead an effort to force the authorization or reauthorization of the Export Import bank out of committee. Over the objections of the Financial Services chairman, we were successful. That was the first time it was done since, I guess, shay's Meehan or McCain Feingold in the early 2000s, maybe, whenever that was. And then before that, there wasn't one done since the 1920s. So it was very rare. But when we did it, we were successful. And by the way, we had over 300 votes for the legislation. With the majority, the majority. We're just trying to prove that we had. The Republicans wanted to do this, but there were a few people were being stubborn. Now, discharge petitions are floated regularly and they've had some success. They succeeded with one a couple years ago. Garrett Graves is involved with. I don't even remember the subject anymore. And now you have discharge petitions on issues from Ukraine. You had them obviously on the Epstein files. So we've had these discharges now and they're more and more frequent. It just speaks to dysfunction of the House. If you can't pass bills, people are going to try to force their agenda there. So they'll go to discharge petitions and try to force the House to go consider their bills.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah, no, I mean, what's interesting is that none of these women have broken with Donald Trump really fundamentally, except for Marjorie Taylor Greene on the Epstein issue. But I mean, there's something about Mike Johnson's difficulty in dealing with women in his caucus, even the MAGA loyalists. I don't know if you saw that, that, that little, little clip where he's, he's appearing with Stephen Miller's wife on a podcast with his wife and they're talking about how, you know, men's brains are like waffles and women's brains are like spaghetti.

[Charlie Dent]

Men and women are different in this ways that men have, can compartmentalize things.

[Podcast Guest or Commentator (possibly Knox or Jamie)]

Brains are like waffles.

[Podcast Host (Sequoia Capital / Crucible Moments)]

Yes.

[Podcast Guest or Commentator (possibly Knox or Jamie)]

They have little compartments and they can think on one little compartment at a time and close it. And men actually have a compartment that has nothing in it. So when you ask him what are you thinking about? And he says nothing, he means it.

[Charlie Dent]

He means it.

[Podcast Guest or Commentator (possibly Knox or Jamie)]

He really is thinking about, he's not.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Thinking about like the Roman Empire, but there's that too.

[Charlie Dent]

There's that, there's a whole compartment.

[Podcast Guest or Commentator (possibly Knox or Jamie)]

But women, we, we cannot do that. We are always thinking. In fact, our brains are like spaghetti.

[Charlie Sykes]

And he's nodding along and, and I mean, it's just like there seems to be a kind of a, this is kind of an old boy, very conservative male dominated caucus. And even when you have ideologically aligned women, are they picking up something? I mean, are you getting any of this vibe? And here we are two old white guys talking about why are the women upset about all of this? I mean, but clearly Johnson seems to have a. Well, give me your take on this. He seems to have a problem with women. Does he?

[Charlie Dent]

I don't know if he has a problem with women so much as he has maybe a very traditional view of the roles of the genders.

[Charlie Sykes]

That may be a problem.

[Charlie Dent]

That's right. And that can be a problem in 2025.

And I think that's it. But the Republican conference over the years has had some challenges. Frankly, we didn't have enough women in our conference. When Boehner and speakers Boehner and Ryan were in charge, we were really concerned about how few women. I think at one point, I think we had maybe 13 women. Now, they've increased their numbers in recent years. But I do think they have issues, though, that have been. That have also unsettled women, like, particularly post Dobbs, I noticed the women became a little bit more vocal Republican women about how to talk about that issue of abortion and didn't always like the way some of the men talked about it.

And I just remember going through this over the years, but on some issues like that, we've had issues and now it's only gotten worse. Well, of course, Donald Trump, the Epstein files clearly speak to a whole new level of misogyny. What those guys were doing down there in that island, the sex trafficking and peddling of young girls, young women, is really beyond anything we've ever seen. So I can see why the Republican women, especially those who are upset about the release of the Epstein files, are, Are screaming bloody murder. I don't. They didn't ask for much. They just said, release the files of a pedophile, of a sex trafficker. I mean, that's okay. That's should have been. That should have taken five.

[Charlie Sykes]

Relatively easy vote.

[Charlie Dent]

Yeah, it should take five minutes. It shouldn't be a traumatic experience for anybody. And instead these women, in the case of Green, being called a traitor for.

[Charlie Sykes]

Endorsing this measure, kind of extraordinary. I mean, there's some analysis that, you know, talk about the underrepresentation in leadership. Only a single elected committee chairman is a Republican woman. And apparently they felt sidelined. And obviously, as you point out, there's some frustration over legislative priorities and there's discontent over maybe the way that women are treated. Part of me, look, I struggle against cynicism, as you know, and usually lose. When I was asked about this the other day, and I said, you know, okay, this is ironic. What did they expect, these women, if they are thinking, yes, women are going to be empowered to. What did they expect when they go all in on Donald Trump's brand of politics, Mike Johnson's brand of politics? Are they really, like, shocked, really surprised to find out wow. Kind of a sexist environment here in the House. Who knew? If only we had been warned about.

[Charlie Dent]

That, you know what I'm saying? Well, I mean, we kind of known who Donald Trump has been for years. You know, he's been a bit of a, you know, he's always been out there as a, you know, kind of a fancied himself as a, you know, high class playboy out there, you know, kind of a cad. And, you know, that was his thing. You know, he's Miss Universe pageants. He was, I mean, the term misogyny has been used by Donald Trump for a long time. So I mean, he's, you know, he was calling people, and I remember Miss Venezuela, I think he was calling her Miss Piggy back in the day. And, you know, he had a lot of choice comments for people and about things he said about women. I remember when Megan Kelly, we go back to the first debate, you know, he was calling women, she accused Trump of calling women pigs, sluts, dogs. And he said, oh, no, no, only Rosie o', Donnell, you know, and then, and so, I mean, there's been a bit of a history of this. So nobody should be shocked, nobody should.

[Charlie Sykes]

Be surprised, no one should be surprised.

[Charlie Dent]

You know, what you bought, you know what you bought. And now maybe there's some buyer's remorse. But it's not just the women. I think there are a lot of guys, you know, who are having heartburn, too. I mean, I know I've served a lot of these Republicans. They can't be happy about this absurd and very costly trade war. Many of them have a traditional view about Russia and Ukraine and, you know, are mortified by where the party has gone. So, I mean, there are a lot of folks, both men and women, you know, who have, I think, serious concerns about what the President has done and particularly what he's done to weaken Congress as an institution with his pocket rescissions and, you know, issuing tariffs willy nilly without any input from Congress or even a vote from the Congress. So I think there are a lot of institutionalists out there who are having some hard, hard moments right now. They've been having.

[Charlie Sykes]

Okay, let's talk about that because there are a lot of Republicans who are retiring this year who have decided, I just don't want to be part of this. I don't want to sit in this caucus, I don't want to be a potted plant. But this has been one of the themes of this term, hasn't it? Has been the willingness of Congress to cede so much of its power. I mean, it was basically out of business more than a month. Right. During the shutdown. Mike Johnson didn't want to have a vote on the Epstein bill. So, you know, there are institutionalists. But this is one of the big surprises, and I'm guessing it's kind of a surprise to you as well, watching how the Congress of the United States, which in the constitution has Article 1 powers, basically turning itself into a wholly owned subsidiary of Donald Trump. I mean, and this is one of the stories that people are going to look back on. Why did Congress. Why was Congress so willing to give up its power to give up its leverage? What do you think?

[Charlie Dent]

Well, there are many people have been saying that the Article 1 branch, Congress has been very much weakened since Abraham Lincoln. Others will say it was since fdr.

But I think it is fair to say that Article 2 of the Presidency has really usurped a lot of power from Article 1. Now, part of that is, you know, I think right now, particularly since Trump has taken over, it's not only been that the executive has usurped power, it's that the congressional branch has willingly surrendered power, it seems, to the President. And I'll give you some specific examples. When I was in Congress, I was chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction in the va and you may remember as I was leaving Congress, Donald Trump wanted to take military construction funds and use them to pay for a border wall. Okay, that's all well and good, and we can have that conversation, but there must be a vote of the United States Congress to do so, because he wanted to take appropriated funds that were passed into law for one purpose, for military installations. You know, to construct, you know, bases and schools and hospitals whenever the troops needed.

And he wanted to move them to a border wall. Okay, you know, we can have a debate about a border wall, but you cannot simply just reprogram. And he wanted $3.5 billion, a third of the whole military construction budget. And at the time, I said this is outrageous. I mean, and this is not. This is not, in my view, this is not constitutional. You know, we fast forward to today. The President is using what's called a pocket rescission to rescind funds that have been signed into law. Now, the Supreme Court has said that the line item veto is unconstitutional. We can have a debate about the line item veto, whether it's a good thing or not. States have it, but we don't have it at the federal level. So he's essentially imposing, in my view, a line item veto. And where is the pushback from Congress? And that's part of the reason why they can't pass appropriations bills right now. Because if you're in the minority party. And this is why Republicans have to be smart about this, because what goes around comes around. Okay, If a Republican president is going to withdraw, is going to cancel funds for USAID or other programs he dislikes, you know, the next Democratic president might decide to cut funds for the Department of Defense or other priorities or the Border Patrol or ICE or whatever priorities Republicans might have. And so again, this is being done without a vote of the Congress. Same thing on the tariffs. I mean, I think this is the tariff issue and the rescission issue, to me are the most consequential issues for Congress because this speaks right to their power of a purse authority, which is really Congress's authority. That's what makes Congress Congress and not the Russian Duma. You know, we are a branch of government that has real financial clout. We control money. And if that power is weak, then Congress becomes much less of an institution. I can't understand why the speaker isn't insisting on this. You might remember something, Charlie, back when George Bush was president, George W. Guy named William Jefferson, Congressman from Louisiana. Remember the hard cold cash in his freezer he had out of 40 or 90,000? Oh, yeah.

[Charlie Sykes]

Oh, yeah, I do remember this.

[Charlie Dent]

Well, you remember what happened there. And to show you how things have changed, the FBI raided his congressional office over that matter. Then Speaker Hastert, Republican Speaker, Republican President Bush. Hastert objected on the speech and debate clause that the executive branch did not have the authority to enter into a member of Congress's office because of what files they might have that would be upsetting to the administration. Now, that was in a criminal case and this guy was guilty as all get out.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah.

[Charlie Dent]

So basically, Hastert took an unpopular position to protect the Congress as an institution. Can you imagine that today? I mean, against the Republican president. No, a Republican President. And so you can argue whether or not Hastert was right to do that. But he was standing up for what he thought was the best interest of the Article 1 branch, the Congress. I wish the current speaker would stand up for the Article 1 branch on taxes and spending. No tariff as a tax should be imposed without a vote of the Congress. These deals, these trade deals, who's voting to raise tariffs? These are just being raised without a vote of anybody.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, this is the great mystery. And I think it was Marjorie Taylor Greene at one point who said that basically Mike Johnson's not really the speaker. Of the House, that Donald Trump is the speaker of the House. Trump has actually joked about the fact that he's the speaker of the House. And in fact, there's some truth to that, isn't it? That basically they have turned over the keys to the executive branch, which was, frankly, something the founders never thought would happen. I mean, never imagined that the speaker would turn over the branch. I mean, you can remember various times when the Speaker. Look, I mean, speakers have bowed the knee to the presidents in the past, but there was a time when the speaker would sit across from the President and he would tell the President what was going to happen, not the other way around. Right. I mean, so this surrender of power is extraordinary. So let me ask you this. I mean, is Donald Trump the de facto speaker of the House since basically, you know, one tweet and Mike Johnson's gone?

[Charlie Dent]

Well, I had a Republican member say to me the other day, I won't mention his name, said to me that the speaker is essentially the deputy legislative director for the White House. Yeah. And so you think about that. I mean, that's their own troops saying that. So, yes, in many ways, Johnson has been able to accomplish things like the one big, beautiful bill, get it across the finish line.

[Charlie Sykes]

Right.

[Charlie Dent]

Not because of anything he did, but because he had the President leaning in doing this. But you remember how difficult it was for Mike Johnson when Biden was president. I mean, they couldn't. The House couldn't pass simple rules to bring bills to the floor. Well, now he's got a Republican president who can help him with all those things. But as Donald Trump's, you know, as his approval rating dips and it's dipped pretty far, expect to see a little bit more separation from members. But remember this. You know, I used to believe that we had a system of separation of powers. Yeah, that's what we were all taught, brought up to believe, checks and balances. I believe today we have a system of separation of parties, and that the party of the president, in many cases his own party in the congressional branch, feels it's their obligation, their responsibility, to carry the agenda for the President at all costs. The Democrats have done this. Republicans are doing it now. And I think this is very unhealthy for our country because that's why we end up using the Congress, ends up using this reconciliation process to jam major issues through on a partisan basis. These laws are not durable or sustainable because they are not done with the consensus of the American people. If you have a bipartisan consensus on something, there's a Good chance that law is going to be durable and sustainable. And that's been our problem. We're still fighting over Obamacare jammed through on a partisan basis. We're fighting over the tax bill of 2017 jammed through on a partisan basis. The Democrats IRA Inflation Reduction act jammed through on a partisan basis. And we keep fighting over all these things. Things. And that's because of the way they were enacted. And both sides are guilty here, but each side thinks it's their job to carry the agenda of their president and they subordinate their own institutional interests as a result.

[Charlie Sykes]

So let's talk a little bit about some of the things that the Congress is going to have to do one way or another. They're going to have to wrestle with this issue of health care. And give me your take on all this, because it looks to me, and you correct me if I'm wrong on this, that Trump understands you have to do something. Yeah. And there are a lot of Republican members who do not want to do anything to prevent the dramatic increase in premiums for these Obamacare plans because they hate Obamacare. So at some point, how does the Rubik's Cube work here? We're in December. The clock is running. Give me your sense of what has to happen and what you think will happen with health care legislation.

[Charlie Dent]

Well, I agree with you. I think the president realizes that Republicans have to do something. The question is, what is that something? Republicans need to arrive at a consensus on health care. And frankly, as a party, we've not been able to do that. We went through this in 2017 with a repeal replace bill. I voted against the bill at the time because I said, look, this bill is not going to, it's not going to work out like we think it's 20 some million people are probably going to lose coverage as a result. We don't want to be in that position. And so here we are. Fast forward what's the repeal and replace. What's the replacement here? I mean, they're talking about HSAs or providing grants directly to individuals. Okay, great. Let's say you pass all this in the law. How long will it take to stand up a program like that? You can't do that. You can't do that by the end of the year or arguably even over the next year. It's going to take time. So what will happen is Republicans will be forced into position. They will need to extend those ACA tax credits for at least one year, probably two, and then if they want to come up with a substitute, and there are a Lot of problems with the aca, don't get me wrong. It has not controlled costs. The ACA has provided more access to people. More people are covered. That's the success. But it has not controlled costs. There have been a lot of consolidations in health care. You can make a case things are more expensive, costs have come up, and the subsidies mask what the true cost of health care is. So people are, you know, it protects them in terms of what they pay the price, but the costs are still high. But there's a lot to do here on healthcare, but you're not gonna get it done before the end of the year. And I doubt Republicans will arrive at a consensus during an election year or perhaps even after that. So they're just gonna have to extend them and they're gonna have to bite the bullet. And Johnson is gonna be in a box because he has marginal swing district members who want to extend these things. You know, the ones in Kagan's, down in Virginia, Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania, people are in really tough districts. And then you've got, you know, most of his members are in very safe seats. And I don't think they could care less if they get extended. You know, they're going to win their reelections anyway, perhaps by reduced margins, but they're going to win.

[Charlie Sykes]

You know, it's 2025, and one would think that at this point point, Republicans would have come up with an alternative on healthcare. I'm thinking of a quote, I think it was from John Boehner, who said, you know, all of these years, he's never seen a single credible Republican alternative plan, you know, on the floor, which is actually kind of remarkable when you think about it. Since we've been debating health care for God knows how long, why is there no Republican alternative to Obamacare? I mean, Trump talks about, in two weeks, we're gonna have this big, beautiful plan. We have the concepts of a plan or a plan of a concept or something. What's stopping them from coming up with something as a coherent alternative? Just like inability to come up with a consensus of any kind?

[Charlie Dent]

Well, it's because it's hard. It's really hard. And, you know, when Donald Trump ran for president the first time, you might remember what he said on health care. He said, we're going to cover everybody. It's going to cost less, and it will be beautiful. Okay? Now, there's a lot there, but there's no policy to back any of that up. The more people you cover, it's going to probably cost you money. So you know, we're going to cover everybody. It's going to cost you less. Well, that's okay. Now how. No, he never tried to explain that. And of course it'll be beautiful. Whatever, whatever that means. And I think that was always the problem. There was never the policy to back it up. You know, you might remember when Paul Ryan became Speaker in 2016 after, well, in 2015. But in 2016, after Trump was elected, in January of 2017, you remember what the Republican plan was initially? We're going to repeal Obamacare, and then over two years we'll replace it. And I was at the time saying, whoa, you can't do that. I mean, that would be, you got to blow up the insurance markets. How are you going to price a product? And then Trump said, well, repeal, replace. Okay, Then we get into repeal replacement, gonna block grant Medicaid, cut the funds, send it to the states and tell them to deal with it. And then, so all these people get kicked off of Medicaid, they go into the exchanges, they get a $3,000 tax credit, and guess what? Not enough money to buy health insurance, they go naked. So 22 million or whatever lose coverage. And that wasn't gonna work either. And so I think Republicans, you know, look, there's a lot to be said about, you know, maybe instead of giving direct subsidies to the insurance companies, maybe give them to individuals. Okay, we have a debate. But, but there's got to be a lot of work done though, to.

[Charlie Sykes]

You have to give it to the insurance company sooner or later. I mean, yeah, they're going to. Yeah, insurance companies are going to get the money.

[Charlie Dent]

Yeah, the individual will be able to direct it maybe to an insurance company. The insurance company's going to get the money. So, you know, it's. But again, we have to look at the numbers. And so, and the Republicans are in a place now where, okay, it was easy to beat up on Obamacare in the early years because of the way they rolled it out. They, they made a lot of promises. And remember, too much of Obamacare, the aca, many of the pay for provisions have been repealed. People forget that the medical device tax, there was something called the Class act, this long term care thing. You might remember.

The Cadillac tax that they were going to impose that the unions hated and wasn't going to be implemented until 2018, two years after Obama was to leave office. Well, that got repealed too. The health insurance tax, I mean, all sorts of taxes got repealed. So a lot of things have been taken away, all the hard stuff. And we're Left with it. And so Republicans right now have to come up with a real consensus with a real plan. And then, okay, once you come up with a plan, then finding the consensus. And of course, a lot of Republicans debated about getting rid of the employer based system of health care, getting rid of the employer exclusion in the tax code. Now that was very controversial. And we ended up doing, not going down that road because most people get their insurance, guess what, through their employers. And so we have a system that no one would have ever created in 2026. But we go back to World War II and wage and price controls and explain why we have an employer based system of health insurance. We wouldn't have done that. We wouldn't have done it that way. It's not the ideal way to do it, but that's what happened. The war ended. We gave all kinds of special tax breaks to employers, provide health insurance. It worked pretty well until the cost exploded. And then.

You know, so here we are.

[Charlie Sykes]

You know, look, the fact is, it is, it's hard and you have to be interested in governing. And Donald Trump is not really interested in the nitty gritty of that sort of thing, but he loves making these sweeping promises. I don't know whether you saw at the cab, at that weird cabinet meeting, the North Korean style cabinet meeting that he had last week, he was talking about how, you know, everybody's going to be getting a rebate check on the tariffs because the tariffs have brought in trillions of dollars, which is complete bullshit. There's nothing. Trillions of dollars. And then did you catch what he said? He said, you know, we're getting so much from the tariffs that you may not have to pay any income tax ever again because we're going to bring in so much money, which is okay now for. Donald Trump wasn't paid income tax in like 50 years. I mean, that's one thing. But I was watching Jimmy Kimmel the other night and he says this is like, you know, some kid running for student council, promising that we're going to have soda in all of the, in all of the water fountains. It's just, it has no relationship to reality, Charlie.

[Charlie Dent]

Okay, we're going to use this tariff revenue now to eliminate the income tax, which will nowhere come close to eliminating what we collect from the income tax. And we're going to use that tariff money to give people $2,000 rebate or refund. I'm just, you know, my head explodes when I hear this. Are we going to use this for refunds or are we going to Use it to get rid of the income tax. Okay, you can't do both.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yes.

[Charlie Dent]

And you can't get rid of the income tax with it, because we're talking how many, maybe a few hundred billion dollars worth of tariff revenue right now. I don't even sure what the number is. And even then, you know, he says, oh, you know, we don't pay for it. You know, the exporting country does. China pays for it. Well, that's nonsensical. We all know it's not true. They even acknowledged this the other day when they finally came to the realization, hey, you know what? We don't grow some things in the United States. Oh, like bananas and cocoa and coffee. Oh, yeah, yeah, let's get rid of those tariffs. Because guess what? The price of bananas and coffee's gone up. And now they're saying. So I guess they are tacitly acknowledging that these tariffs have raised the prices of certain things that Americans buy and consume. And I think this whole trade conversation that they've entered into, again, is. It defies any type of logic. They're saying, we're going to reshore all this manufacturing because of these tariffs. I got news for them. Every manufacturer I talk to tells me their costs are going up. That's because of the tariffs. Their costs are going up. Talk to a farmer who just lost markets because of the anticipated retaliation. If you're a soybean farmer, these tariffs aren't doing them any good either. And by the way, we're going to use the tariff revenues to bail out farmers and bail out. Why not auto companies? Why not anybody else who's been impacted?

This is just crazy. But every manufacturer I talk to tells me they import things, their inputs, they make things, then they sell them, sometimes they export them. Their costs are going up. I have a headline from. I'm sitting here in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Mack Trucks, a few months ago announced they're laying off 300 people because of the tariffs. Okay. Truck manufacturing. You know, again, we all know the automotive sector has really struggled with these tariffs, and so none of this makes any sense. And to go after a country like Canada with tariffs, I mean, what the hell did they ever do to us? Canada.

[Charlie Sykes]

Canada. Yeah. Why are we mad at Canada?

[Charlie Dent]

Yeah, he's mad about a trade. He's mad that they run a trade surplus with him. Well, that trade surplus is something that was a deliberate move on our part. We wanted to import more Canadian oil so we didn't have to take it from places like Venezuela and other unstable places.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yes, that was the plan.

[Charlie Dent]

That was the plan. And in fact, we won the Keystone pipeline. We wanted to bring the Keystone pipeline, to bring it in. So, yes, you know, when you take oil out of the equation, you know, we run a big trade surplus with Canada. But we did this because we wanted to become North American energy self sufficient. And we largely have.

[Charlie Sykes]

Do you remember when every Republican and every conservative was in favor of the Keystone pipeline because it was the route to energy independence? What a great thing it was. And we won. You either had the Keystone pipeline, which created all these jobs, or we'd have to buy oil from the, you know, the Middle East. Okay, this is crazy stuff.

[Charlie Dent]

Remember that? And most of the Democrats are against the Keystone pipeline. So I'm just astounded by this. And then to impose tariffs during Trump won, they wanted to impose tariffs, 232 tariffs national, in the name of national security on Canada.

Who knew? Who knew there were so many.

[Charlie Sykes]

So.

There was a paper last week, I mean, a really interesting article, and I hope I don't mispronounce his name. Scott Lincecombe, who is an economist who writes for Cato, and he talks about the incredible complexity of these tariff things. You know, the regulations create this mass web of really difficult things. And what's interesting about that is that, you know, conservatives, free market folks were always talking about one of the reasons why they wanted less regulation on business was that, you know, you want, you know, a clearer path to the free market. And instead this deregulatory administration has imposed this vast spider web of new regulations on terrorists. And it really is an interesting, it is an interesting piece. And of course, we'll see what the Supreme Court is going to do on the tariffs. Because my sense is that what Trump is trying to do is he's trying to dare the Supreme Court, you know, look at all these good things that are happening. And I'm going to blame you for not sending out the checks. I'm going to blame you for all of this. And I don't know.

The law seems to me very, very clear that Trump is exceeding his Article 2 powers. On the other hand, we know what these justices are like. And the prospect of having to refund all of that money, I think might make them a little squeamish. I don't know, predicting what the Supreme Court is going to do is very, very difficult. But, I mean, just having a hard time, you know, Justice Roberts coming down with a decision that's going to require massive refunds from the federal government to all these businesses, which would be, I Mean, nice, but incredibly messy and complex.

[Charlie Dent]

Well, the court's put itself in a little bit of a vice here. I thought they made a correct decision a few years ago on when Joe Biden was canceling student debt debt in the name of an emergency. A law passed after 9 11, which I would argue he wildly exceeded his authority. He could set aside whether or not it's good to cancel student debt, but $400 billion worth without a vote of the Congress? The Supreme Court ruled against Biden on that, as they should have. It should have been a 90 vote. It was 6 3. Same thing going on here with the tariffs. Again. Trump using an emergency authority, the ipa, International Economic Emergency Powers act or something like that. He's using that law to justify tariffs. The word tariff doesn't even appear in that law, by the way. And to oppose all these, you know, these Liberation Day tariffs. Well, you know, I think the court good chance they're going to strike it down. I mean, I don't know how they can strike down the student debt provision because of an emergency authorization that was absurd. And this one. So I think he's going to have to. They're going to have to do this. But Trump will turn around, though, and then he'll reimpose these tariffs under Section 232, National Security 301, Unfair Trade Practices. There's actually a Smoot Hawley provision, too, that has never been implemented. I'm sure they'll go use that one. I mean, they think Smoot Hawley was a great law, while everybody else.

[Charlie Sykes]

Wait, Smoot Hawley's still on the books, I think. I was not aware of this.

[Charlie Dent]

I think there is a provision and I just can't. I got to go find it. There is a provision in Smoot Hawley that has not been used where the president could impose some tariffs. But I guarantee you they're going to go out there and look at that provision and try to impose it. Every economist under the sun said it exacerbated the Great Depression. And fun fact, by the way, during the 1930s, you know, the United States ran a trade surplus post Smoot Hawley. Yeah, great. Global trade dropped by a third. And we went from. I actually from 3 trillion, I think, down to 1 trillion. That's how bad it was. And unemployment rate was over 20%. Did anybody really notice the trade surplus?

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah. No. Okay. So let's talk about one of the big stories over the weekend, this new national security strategy. This is what Ann Applebaum said about all of this. The new national security Strategy is a propaganda document designed to be widely read. It is also a performative suicide. Hard to think of another great power ever abdicating its influence so quickly and so publicly. I thought the New York Times headline captured at least part of it. Trump's security strategy focuses on profit, not spreading democracy. It prioritizes culture war issues, moves us closer to Russia, signals the abandonment of Europe. It drips with contempt for the post war architecture and institutions, lays out this Trumpian vision that degrades our alliances, empowers our adversaries, increases global instability. You know, for people who think that Trump is a straight line from Ronald Reagan, it's hard for me to imagine anything clearer than the deviation that you're seeing in this new strategy. I mean, it is America switching sides, and they put it in writing. I mean, now every Republican is like, this is not a tweet. This is not a off, you know, off the cuff thing. They can't say, Trump is joking. We need to take him seriously. But not literally. It's in writing, Charlie. And it is a remarkable shift in what America used to be and what it used to represent on the world stage. Your thoughts?

[Charlie Dent]

Well, this whole business of this being a straight line from Reagan to Trump. No, this is a repudiation not only of Ronald Reagan, but of every other Republican president post World War II. This is rejection of Eisenhower, of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, H.W. bush, and George W. Bush. Every single one of them is being repudiated because of this. I have not read the document. I have read some analysis of the document. I have it here, actually. I was going to read it today, actually, I read parts of it, but I can't imagine that an American president, and especially a Republican president.

Feels that we should abandon America's crowning achievement after the Second World War, and that is.

The peaceful integration of Europe, making it a place that is stable, safe, secure and prosperous. Through our intervention, through our leadership, along with our friends and partners there, we helped make Europe a better place. It had been the focal point of America. Europe had been the focal point of American foreign policy in the 20th century. Two world wars, never one to repeat this exercise. And we actually accomplished our goal remarkably. And this president wants to walk all away from it and say, you know what, Russia, take what you want. You know, he said that, you know, about, you know, the Baltics or whatever in Ukraine. He's in Ukraine. You know, there's no. As if there's going to be no consequence. Europe will be forced to rearm in a big way. You know what I Want Europe to do more for defense. They're not doing it because of us. They're doing it because of the threats they're facing. And they see the threat. Everybody sees the threat except this White House, which seems to think that Vladimir Putin is somehow benign. The fact that Wyckoff, his special envoy, took that proposal, however many points it was, and presents it to the Ukrainians.

It gives it to the Ukrainians to accept it by Thanksgiving, and this would. You will cede power, territory. You will cede. You will cut your armed forces in half. You will never become part of NATO, basically. You won't be a sovereign state. You won't be able to make your own decisions. I mean, this was written by the Russians. And how can an American president put their name on this and send it to the Ukrainian government? I thought, you know, the President seems to think our role is to mediate this dispute. Now, we're on one side here. I thought we were on one side, the Ukrainian side, but it feels like we're on the Russian side. He sees Russia as a benign power. Hey, I want to integrate Russia into the global economy too, but their behavior has to change. I mean, that's the issue here. It's the Russians. You know, if they start, if they rejoin the family of nations and want to play ball with the rest of us, on to the rules, fine. But if they're going to go out there and disrespect these countries sovereignty and invade and undermine the Baltics, the Poles are scared to death. Obviously, Ukraine has been dealing with this for years now.

We can't simply allow that. If the President really wants toif he really wants to bring an end to this war, take that $300 billion and tell the Russians where it's going. It's going to Ukraine to reconstruct their country and to fight the Russians. That's where it's going. And, you know, ratchet up the sanctions even more. There are all kinds of things that we can be doing to the Russians and, you know, put the pressure on them. I don't see Putin making any concessions. All this expectation of Zelensky to make concessions. Why is that? Whose side is he? I mean.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, and that's why. And that's why you had that farce last week, that five hour meeting where they send Jared Kushner, who has no role in the government, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who, utterly clueless. They sit there for five hours and basically Vladimir Putin flips them off. And I feel like we keep playing this game like don't you get it yet? Putin doesn't want peace. Putin is not going to make any concessions whatsoever. And all Donald Trump seems to care about is getting the Nobel Peace Prize, which he did not get, will never get, but. So they invented a fake prize for him. I'm kind of hoping. There's part of me that's thinking, okay, now you've given him this fake bullshit prize that he, you know, the. The FIFA Peace Prize, that maybe he'll move on to something else. But it is. You know, what's interesting is just the naivete of this policy. And Trump is trying to be. I am the realist. You know, I am. You know, we're talking about hard power and economic power, and yet he has this fantasy imagination where Vladimir Putin is gonna do him a solid by making a concession. And Vladimir Putin just humiliates them again and again and again.

[Charlie Dent]

When will they ever learn? Putin doesn't want peace. He wants Ukraine. I mean, isn't it obvious? He wants it all. And he certainly wants the Donbas. And they don't seem to understand this, that this is what Putin's objective is. And by the way, Nobel Peace Prizes are not awarded to individuals who appease tyrants, continental tyrants in Europe. And we just don't. We don't do that. And to placate these people like Putin, they don't give peace prizes for that. Neville Chamberlain didn't get one for peace in our time. Donald Trump won't get one for amazingly. And it's hard to get a peace prize, too, if you're gonna blow up boats in the Caribbean without any kind of an authorization.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, I was gonna.

[Charlie Dent]

It's tough, too.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah. The war crimes seem to be kind of a negative, that they keep blowing up the boats. And obviously they're not backing off from all of that. They're gonna keep doing it. And, you know, even if you're dealing with people who are in the water, you know, we could. That was last week's story. Okay, one last question for you. In the time we have here, president is coming to your home state of Pennsylvania to finally talk about affordability. They're really struggling with that because obviously the public cares about it. People in the White House are desperate to convince the president they care about it. He appears to be uniquely tone deaf on this issue. And he's saying things like, you know, what a con and a fraud it is. So, you know what's. Normally, Trump has a kind of reptilian instinct for what, you know, how to handle issues. He's really having a hard time with affordability, isn't he?

[Charlie Dent]

He sure is. And he's going up into the Scranton Wilkes Barre area of Pennsylvania, northeastern PA. That's about 60 miles, 50, 60 miles north me. And he's going up there in part because Luzerne county, where Wilkes Barre is and right next door to his, Lackawanna county, where Scranton is, those areas, particularly Luzerne County, Wilkes Barre, that area voted for Obama. Then Trump won it three times by a big margin. Lackawanna county, where Scranton, where Biden is from, that's become a very competitive county, pretty even right now. And you know, the Republicans flipped that seat in the midterm. And guess what? You know, things aren't going so well up there. Luzerne county, where Wilkes Barre is, in this off year election, the Board of Commissioners went from Republican to Democrat. Now, this is a county that has gone very Republican. So is it shocking that Donald Trump has chosen to go up there because he is losing ground fast in what this, this is an area that swing county and a swing state we would have called this. Luzerne county really isn't a swing county, it's a Republican county. Now, Lackawanna county is more of a swing county, but in that area where Trump will be, he's losing ground fast. And I think that's part of the reason why he's going there, because there's something going on up there and it's not good for the Republican Party. There are a whole host of reasons why he might be there, but he's got a problem in an area that he likes to claim as his own. And I tell you, if you're a Republican running in these swing districts, right now you're seeing this underperformance all across, not just in Pennsylvania, but across the country. It's dramatic. And, you know, maybe it gets a little better between the off year and the midterm, but it's still bad. I mean, Democrats are motivated, they're energized, they're angry, they're enthused, they're coming out.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah.

[Charlie Dent]

And Republicans aren't coming out to as great an extent.

[Charlie Sykes]

No. You're seeing that in one election after another. Charlie Dent, thank you so much. Former Congressman CHARLIE Dent, former CNN commentator it is really great to welcome you to the podcast. We'll have to have you back. Thanks, Charlie.

[Charlie Dent]

Thanks. Thanks for having me, Charlie. Great to be with you.

[Charlie Sykes]

And thank you all for listening to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. You know, why we do this, why we continue to do this, because it is so important, I mean kind of urgent, urgently important to continually remind ourselves that we are not the crazy ones.

[Podcast Host (Sequoia Capital / Crucible Moments)]

Thank you.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know, one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's Unlimited Wireless for $15 a month. Now you don't even need to wrap it. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes if network's busy, taxes and fees extra.

[Podcast Host (Sequoia Capital / Crucible Moments)]

See mintmobile.com we all remember the choices that shaped the course of our lives in business. World renowned venture capital firm Sequoia them Crucible Moments Their podcast brings you inside the pivotal decisions that define some of today's most influential companies. Hosted by Sequoia's Roelof Botha, Crucible Moments Season three pulls back the curtain on the untold stories behind companies like Stripe, Zipline, Palo Alto Networks, Klarna, supercell, and more. Hear about the make or break decisions, early stumbles and leaps of faith that turn scrappy startups into market defining forces. Once you're caught up on season three, check out some of the episodes from seasons one and two with guests like Steven Chen of YouTube, Tony Xu of DoorDash, Steve Huffman of Reddit, Brian Chetzky of Airbnb, and more. Tune in to Sequoia's new season of Crucible Moments to discover how some of the most transformational companies of the modern era were built. Crucible Moments is available everywhere you get your podcasts [e-mail] go listen to Crucible Moments today.

[Charlie Dent]

Curious about how AI is reshaping industries from the top down. YouCan with AI hosted by Nathaniel Whittemore of AI Daily Brief, delivers real world strategy from KPMG's frontline. AI leaders get practical insight on topics from Data Readiness to AI Governance. Listen now at www.kpmg.com.us forward/aipodcasts.

[Charlie Sykes]

ACAST powers the world's best podcasts.

[Charlie Dent]

Here's a show that we recommend.

[Knox or Jamie]

Do you like being educated on things that entertain but don't matter? Well, then you need to be listening to the podcast with Knox and Jamie. Every Wednesday we put together an episode dedicated to delightful idiocy to give your brain a break from all all the serious and important stuff.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Whether we're deep diving a classic movie, dissecting the true meanings behind the newest slang, or dunking on our own listeners for their bad takes or cringy stories, we always approach our topics with humor and just a little bit of side eye. And we end every episode with recommendations on all the best new movies, books.

[Charlie Dent]

TV shows, or music.

[Knox or Jamie]

To find out more, just search up the podcast with Knox and Jamie. Wherever you listen to podcasts and prepare to make Wednesday your new favorite day.

[Podcast Host (Sequoia Capital / Crucible Moments)]

Of the week.

[Charlie Sykes]

ACAST helps creators launch, grow, and monetize their podcasts everywhere.

[Charlie Dent]

Acast.com.