Bulwark Takes - Supreme Court Keeps Letting Trump Abuse His Power (w/ Rep. Brendan Boyle)

Episode Date: September 11, 2025

Rep. Brendan Boyle joins Sam Stein to explain why Republicans want a shutdown and how their healthcare cuts could throw 15 million Americans off insurance. They dig into Trump’s role, the chaos in Congress, and Boyle’s push to protect constitutional spending powers.

Hey, guys, me, Sam Stein, managing out of the Bullwork. I am joined by Congress from Brendan Boyle again, fan favorite. We are here to talk about the government shutdown fight, government spending in general, the budget, Trump taking away the power of the person, so on and so forth. But first, we're going to start with Miami versus Notre Dame. It's a little old, I guess, but. I thought we were going to start with the Eagles Cowboys. Eagles Cowboys was fine.

Yeah, Eagles Fire. I'm a Giants fan. We're moving on to the next game. Texas A&M this Saturday night, primetime NBC. I'll give a little promo. You guys got a tough schedule, but that's what comes with being Notre Dame. We're actually going to talk about, let's start with the shutdown. So, Congressman, we're, what, like a couple weeks away from the deadline?

It now is getting very serious. And you can tell because both sides are going back and forth, he was sort of pre-accusing the other for being responsible for the government shutdown. I want to hone in on where the Democratic strategy here, lies. There's some disagreement in the party about whether it's even smart to, you know, play hardball here. And then there's some people in the party who have disagreements about what to request or demand or say needs to be part of a deal in order for Democrats to offer their votes in the Senate. Give me your 30,000 foot take on this. And then I'm going to hit you with a few

more specific questions. So first, let's just go back about six months to last spring. Obviously, there was disagreement. House Democrats were completely united. and voting no. Senate Democrats, the bulk voted no, but leadership voted yes and provided the votes so that things would be delayed basically another six months, and now here we are. This time, however, two weeks out, I have to say I don't sense any real disagreement on the Democratic side. I do think the focus should be on the Republican side because we are two weeks to go, and there's no negotiation going on. Republicans are not negotiating with us at all. So this was actually a pretty easy and simple and straightforward situation. It appears to me

quite obvious. Republicans want a government shutdown. I've actually been saying this for the last couple of weeks. I thought that that's where their mind was. I don't think that they will, because of their internal divisions, I don't think that they will give an inch when it comes to restoring any of the devastating health care cuts they've just made, even though up first, you know, the three major cuts, Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare, all three of them take effect different dates. The Obamacare subsidies, that's on the chopping block first. That's really facing us very soon. And that's the one that we really need to act on now, we should restore the Medicaid cuts and prevent the Medicare cuts as well. But

Obamacare is really the major focus. Let's not forget, 15.1 million people will lose their health care as a result of what Trump used to call the big beautiful bill. Working family's tax plan. Yeah, that bill was so unpopular, they had a rebrand about as quick as Cracker Barrel ended its rebrand. So the reality is that their bill is deeply unpopular. because of the substance of it, it turns out throwing 15 million people off through health care to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-rich is not a very popular idea. So anyway, so look, I probably want on. Let me challenge you. Let me challenge you a little bit.

Let's say somehow next week, Republicans say we have all the votes we need in the House to pass a what they would call a continuing resolution, clean CR, just going to keep it as is through the end of the year. is that something you could possibly vote for? Yeah, so first, I'm not interested in negotiating against myself since right now we don't have a negotiating. You're negotiating as me. Despite your invitation for me to do so.

But the second thing is, I would direct you to an op-ed written in a very prestigious publication called The Bullwark a few weeks ago in which I pointed out the rather absurdity of this situation when it comes to rescissions. So imagine. a scenario in which we Democrats actually have Republicans who want to negotiate with us, which right now is not the case. But imagine they would want to negotiate with us. And we reach an agreement on a Monday. And we're getting X. They're getting Y. We provide the votes. And then the very next day on Tuesday, the White House says, thank you very much for your votes.

We're keeping the things we wanted the bill. And all those priorities that you just negotiated for, we're rescinding them. That's what this White House has been doing. How in the world? That's a very valid case for insisting that any deal have language that says future recisions with respect to this law are invalid. Is that like a red line for you? I think that that is an absolute must.

I introduce, this is a perfect segue, I introduced. I introduce legislation the last 24 hours, along with every single Democrat on the House budget committee, which I serve obviously as ranking member. So all of us united on the Democratic side jointly introduced the piece of legislation called the Congressional Power of the Purse Act. And it reforms the original 1974 Act that created this rescission's process in the first place. It makes it far more difficult for any executive, not just this one, to rescind what Congress has already passed and was signed into law. Congress has the power of the purse. That's clearly in the Constitution. What my legislation does is basically provides more tools to enforce that.

Right. So when I mentioned early on that there are some divisions with the Democratic Party, the divisions are primarily over what to say must be included in this bill. You make a very valid case, I would say, that rescissions needs to be addressed in the bill. And maybe it's your act that gets tacked on. Others are saying, well, you've got to undo the Medicaid cuts that are part of the working families. Not the big, beautiful bill. And then the biggest prize, as you mentioned, is the expiring Obamacare subsidies, which are ending at the end of the year. But we're going to already start seeing some sticker shock from insurers because they have to prepare for the possibility that they are expiring. My sense, intimately if I'm wrong, is that the party really

is focused on that last one, the Obamacare subsidies for the reasons you articulated, which is they're the first, that's the first cliff to really hit. Is that a right read that the part, that is like sort of where the party is primarily focused at this given time? Well, let me, let me speak for myself and then you can decide how representative I am or may not be of the House Democratic Caucus. I would just put it generally by saying health care. And then you have those three major buckets that I talked about, Obamacare, Medicaid and Medicare. It's not necessarily, I don't want anyone to get a false impression here. It's not necessarily that Democrats are ranking them in some sort of order.

It is because of what I spoke to moments ago that the dates when the cuts take effect differ, and it just so happens that Obamacare is impacted first. Medicare, by the way, when I say Obamacare is happening first, it's not like the Medicare cuts are happening years away. They start January 1. So they're literally just a few months. months away. Those will be cuts to providers. Four percent cut. You're talking about half of trillion dollars over 10 years. I still don't think people are talking about this enough. The big,

beautiful bullshit bill is the biggest cut to Medicare in American history in addition to being the biggest cut to Medicaid in American history. So no wonder it's so unpopular. And then, of course, finally, after the Obamacare cuts taking place within weeks, Medicare cuts starting January 1, then finally you have the Medicaid cuts that Republicans decided to wait most cynically until a few weeks after the November, 26th election. They take effect December, 26. So, yeah, the bucket of health care is basically the prize here. You mentioned it or you alluded to it.

Six months ago, there was obvious disagreements in terms of. strategy between the House and the Senate. And I think it's fair to say that Chuck Schumer took a lot of incoming on the Senate side for voting for the continuing resolution. And then obviously he needed to recruit at least seven members. He got, I think, nine or ten to come on board with him in order for it to pass. Are you worried about Schumer this time around? Look, I'm certainly not going to personalize it. I think there are different dynamics in the Senate than in the House on all sorts of things. I have to say, though, I mean, just in the last couple hours, I thought Senator Schumer's comments were very strong. And it sounds like he and his caucus are where we House Democrats are.

So I have to say, at this moment, I'm a lot less concerned about that. I want to get to your bill in one second, but just to put a button on this. As you sit here now, it's 2.15 p.m. Wednesday, September 10th, we got a shutdown in a couple weeks. How confident are you that a deal could be crafted in that the government services will remain open? And then secondarily, you know, one of the reasons that, well, let's answer that one first. I'll ask you a second. I'll have to say, and look, if we were having this conversation two years ago, on September 30th, I was saying, yes, no question about it.

There's going to be a government shutdown. It was a Saturday. And then Kevin McCarthy shocked everybody by putting a clean CR to shut down. And a couple days later, Matt Gates filed a motion to vacate against them, and the next day McCarthy was out. So with that big caveat, I am predicting government shutdown. I'm predicting one because I think Republicans genuinely want one. I think that there is no question that any sort of an agreement for them would be divisive internally. None of them want to do anything that in any way crosses Trump.

They've openly, by the way, called on the White House for guidance. I mean, they need Trump to tell them what to do. And absent Trump saying, you know, finally negotiate with Democrats, let's reach a fair agreement, let's have recisions of reform. He's not going to do that. I just don't see, I just don't see Republicans negotiating in good faith. Let me, let me touch with that. Just to finish, I think that the Republican shutdown will happen. Let me test run a proposition.

I don't think he'll negotiate on recisions because that would obviously take away power that he wants. I'm not totally convinced he won't negotiate on the Obamacare subsidies. His own polling outfit has put a memo out saying this is a killer. I mean, in his new working class Republican coalition depends on these things. And you've seen Trump world figures warn about it. And you've seen some Republicans weren't about it, too. Now, I don't know if it's enough to get conservatives in the House on board or House leadership or even Senate leadership on board.

But I could foresee a scenario where he does try to find some sort of way to get these subsidies extended. Could you? I think almost anything is possible when it comes to Trump. I mean, he's a guy who makes it up. There's no brand. I love the people who try to pretend that there's some master plan. In Donald Trump's mind, he makes it up as he goes along. It's improv jazz.

Yeah, yeah. Just doesn't sound nearly as nice. It sounds like I'm playing, not Miles Davis. Just take a look, not to bring up another complicated situation, but just take a look at Trump's positions over the last nine months on Russia and Ukraine. All over the map, completely changing day by day, talking to, you know, humiliate Zelensky in the Oval Office. The next moment he's talking about Trump or Putin being sanctioned. The very next moment is basically hugging and kissing Putin in Alaska.

That's Trump. So, yeah, he could come out tomorrow and suddenly before all sorts of things. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Now, I swear this is my last government shutdown question because I do want to get to the legislation introduced. I think the big question, a lot of Democrats grapple with, is whether or not Republicans and Trump specifically are totally fine with the government shutting down. I mean, this was the issue back in March, which was Doge was basically trying to shut down

the government. And the question was, well, if that's what they want, why would we give it to them, right? Isn't it worse to basically allow them to just usurp whatever powers they want because they'll say it's an emergency power authority and everything else gets shut down? Is that not a concern this go around? Is that, or is that just less of a concern this go around? Look, I think that that is a legitimate concern. But we have to stop pretending like any of this is normal.

I'm someone who's not going to cast a vote out of fear. I think that you tend to make, personally even, I think that when you make decisions out of fear, you tend to make mistakes. So I'm not going to be, while that is a legitimate concern and I don't dismiss it, I'm not going to let that, you know, govern the decisions I make and the actions I take. Let's go to your legislation.

Between the last time we talked and the PC wrote for us and now, I think the big development was this pocket recisions. And I think for those who are not basically 99% of people who have no clue what the hell we're talking about, a week ago, two weeks ago, the administration rescinded almost $5 billion in foreign aid. And they did it in a way that came close enough to the lapse of funding that we're talking about that it would be impossible, if not unlikely, strongly unlikely that Congress could even vote on it, whether they agreed with it. This seems to everyone like highly legal. And then yet yesterday,

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts upheld it, at least temporarily. What is, first of all, I kind of want to get your reaction to Roberts and Supreme Court doing that. And we'll start there. And then secondarily after that, let's talk about what your legislation would do to prevent something like that from happening again? Well, first, absolutely nothing the Supreme Court does surprises me. They have given green light after green light to Donald Trump to do whatever the hell he wants. I have always thought it was fantasy that the nine people occupy the Supreme Court are somehow above politics. I have always just, the legal scholars who genuinely believe that, frankly, I've always just thought were tremendously naive. The wake-up call for me on that was the

Bush versus Gore decision, 25 years ago, 5-4 decision in which all nine justices voted in that decision exactly the same way they voted in the privacy of the voting booth. And I think everything the Supreme Court has done for Trump is further evidence of what I'm speaking about. Now, in terms of rescissions, impoundment, obviously you're just covering this because it's huge clickbait. You know, this is going to get so many ratings through the roof. So let me try to explain this in normal language that we can understand. Resisions, kind of like what I talked about earlier, recisions are basically rescinding money that was already appropriated by Congress. So bill assigned it to law, passed by Congress, House and Senate, signed by the president,

and then an executive president after the fact takes back the money unilaterally. Well, guess what? The courts have not this court, but previous court decisions have ruled. This is patently illegal. Nixon tried it. That's when this became first a controversy. And in 1974, piece of legislation was passed. the Budget and Appalment Control Act, which really dictates basically everything about the appropriations process today, including a process for recisions that any time the executive branch would rescind money that was already appropriated by Congress, Congress would have to vote within 45 days to approve that.

Otherwise, the rescission is blocked. Right. Pocket rescission is very simply, the executive wisely and shrewdly figures out, hey, let me run out the clock and let me do this in less than 45 days, therefore avoiding a congressional vote. Well, in theory, Congress could vote. Oh, Congress, right. Democratic, yeah, Congress. Sorry, but in this case, the thing is, Speaker Johnson and the Republican majority would, you. I would have no choice but to vote per the 1974 Act, but the way to get around that is

doing the rescission within 45 days of the September 30th deadline. So the Congressional Power of the Purse Act that, again, I introduced just in the last 24 hours, along with every one of my fellow Democratic colleagues on the Budget Committee, it eliminates the executive's ability to do that. It creates a lot more tools. to ensure that we don't have a situation which we have had over the last nine months in which a president is acting as if he's the one and only supreme branch of government, where he's taking away the power of the purse from Congress. Well, we'll see if that makes it into the government funding bill.

I'm not totally optimistic it will, but it makes a lot of sense. I've said in a personal and professional capacity, it's very hard to imagine that you can agree to a deal when looming over it is the possibility that it'll just get reneged on. So Congressman Brendan Boyle, thank you so much for joining us. We root for your Irish, I suppose, this coming Saturday. I appreciate. I welcome. I welcome that.

I mean, it's got to be easier. I don't root for the Eagles. I will never, ever. You stole Sequin from me. I was just going to say, it's got to be easier for you to root for the fighting Irish than for any Philly sports team. It is. It is.

All right, man. Take care. I appreciate it. All right. Thank you.