Pod Save America - 1124: Trump Loses At Supreme Court, Handles It Well

Episode Date: February 22, 2026

The Supreme Court tanks Donald Trump's tariff program in a 6-3 ruling supported by two of his hand-picked justices. Lovett talks to Jerusalem Demsas, economics writer and editor-in-chief of The Argument, about the epic presidential tantrum that followed and what Trump might do now. Then they discuss the findings from a new Argument poll about the backlash to trans rights, why Congress won't assert itself as a coequal branch, the way forward for housing policy, and why all the commentary about the anti-Trump resistance being "cringe" is missing the point.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Today's presenting sponsor is Simply Safe Home Security. No one wants to imagine their home getting broken into. But the scary statistic is that every 26 seconds in the U.S. a family experiences a break-in. Scary, yes. But that's why SimplySafe has worked to make Home Security accessible to more American families. What do you think Love It loves most about having SimpliSafe? Do you think it's us talking about it in the ads every single time we do an ad

in almost every episode of Podcast America? Shout out. That or the ease of use. Yeah. And you got to install it himself. And you set it up yourself. Yeah, so he seems like a handyman to all the listness. Traditional security systems only take action after someone's already broken in.

That's too late. Simply saves active guard outdoor protection can help prevent break-ins before they happen. AI-powered cameras backed by live professional monitoring agents monitor your property and detect suspicious activity. Someone's lurking around or acting suspiciously. Those agents see and talk to them in real time, activate spotlights, and even contact the police all before they have the chance to get inside your home. No long-term contracts or cancellation fees. monitoring plans start affordably at around a dollar a day. 60-day satisfaction guarantee or your money back. Name best home security systems by U.S. News and World Report five years in a row,

ranked number one in customer service among home security providers by both Newsweek and USA Today. And right now, our listeners can get 50% off their new Simpleysafe system with professional monitoring and their first month free at SimplySafe.com slash crooked. That's simplysafe.com there's no safe like SimplySafe. Welcome to Poncev America. I'm John Lovett. Today on the show, I talked with Jerusalem Demsas, journalist and founder of the argument, an independent liberal media company. We covered a lot of ground. The Supreme Court's tariff ruling against Trump, the argument's new controversial poll on trans rights, why Democrats have been losing ground on this issue, how we can get it back. We talked about housing affordability. We talked about the role of resistance, cringe and fighting fascism. Love talking to Jerusalem. The word from the producers in the room is that they are, quote, obsessed.

So let's jump in. Hey, Jerusalem, good to see you. Hey, nice to see you too. So we are both reeling from having just watched Trump's response to the Supreme Court's ruling, rebuking his emergency tariffs. Let's start with the ruling itself. Jerusalem, what was your response to how the court ruled on Trump's tariffs? I wasn't super surprised. I mean, I just thought this is where it was going to go.

Like, obviously, there's some kind of, like, you know, there's a level at which you're worried. that the court has gotten so partisan that maybe they will just stop adhering to like even the most normal expected jurisprudence. But this is where I think most people thought it was going to go. I think most markets assumed it was going to go in this direction. So, yeah, there are a few on the court that are still base partisans. You have Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas ruling with Trump. Kavanaugh seem to be frustrated with. the fact that the court doesn't have an answer for how to deal with the roughly $200 billion that

has been collected. But it's usually not, you know, if a bank robber has a bunch of cash in a pile, you don't often say they get to keep it because it'd be so hard to figure out who it belongs to. I mean, like, this is honestly, like sometimes how, like, the Supreme Court does work in ways that are, like, are kind of frustrating. Like, we don't, I don't think anyone really thinks an ideal world that the Supreme Court or courts in general should be in charge of legislating, these people aren't actually policy experts. Like, hopefully they're legal experts, but they're not like policy experts. And, like, you can hear them sometimes in oral arguments trying to become it. And, like, I have some sympathy for the fact that they're being put in this position because presidential

administrations in particular this one are forcing them to make decisions that should have been legislated by Congress. But at the same time, it's just like, yeah, like, what, I don't know, like, what should they do about it? Like, that's like asking me what they should do about. I probably know more about this in some people in the Supreme Court because they're not economic policy people. But like, I agree, like, this is the main unanswered question. Like, I am someone who had to personally pay tariffs to, like, get my wedding dress sent to the United States of America, like hundreds of dollars that I was not expecting to pay. It's like, am I getting a refund? Is that happening? I don't think so. So. Yeah, I paid 30 bucks on a rug yesterday.

Like, I literally paid it yesterday. I'm like so fucking pissed. I'd waited one day. Like, I might have got, I want to, that's $30. How many get that $30 back? Like, you get an email that's like, we have your package. Send us this money right. now or I was like, I don't even believe. I like, am I being scam? Like, you get an email that says you're, we will not give you this rug unless you pay us $30. So, uh, people were also saying that this was the court potentially saving Trump from himself. And yet you have Trump in this press conference, obviously attacking the judges quite personally, but then saying that this is a ruling that is terrible to disgrace.

It's a disaster for our country, but also it doesn't matter because I can impose tariffs through other legal means. How do you square that circle? I mean, Trump loves in every conversation to, like, have his cake and eat it too. Like, it sucks that you did that, but it doesn't actually matter at all. And, like, who cares? And we're going to make America great again. Also, America is also great. But we're going to keep saying make America great again because MAGA is a great slogan.

Like, you can just, this is how he like constantly wants to win, win it. But like on the merits itself, like, it is always been the case that. there were more legal, there were legal pathways for Trump to impose tariffs. I mean, most legal pathways would have involved going through Congress and Congress could actually engage in, and take on that authority that it's kind of allowed the federal government to have or to, or allowed the executive branch to have for many years now. But there are other less dramatic pathways that were available to Trump. The difference is those ones don't let him do what he likes to do, which is to say, I'm going to switch on tariffs today by this amount.

I'm going to take them off. And like that kind of instability is like, I think, a part of how Trump likes to do politics and how he likes to make deals. And that I think is important that we can take that away because that was really destabilizing for both businesses, but also various countries who had no ability to make any kind of like long term economic planning if they thought, okay, well, tariffs are this today. But quite literally by 5 p.m., they could change. That is now, that is now not possible. Yeah, it also seems part of this is the court did avoid really getting into what constitutes an emergency or not. And there seems to be this reluctance across different rulings by the Supreme Court, by lower courts, both for Trump and against Trump,

a reluctance to engage with the kind of plain meaning of these terms because the courts don't want to say we can tell the president what an emergency is or isn't. And yet, when the president stretches the bounds of this definition, like, we do not have an emergency. We, with the Swiss based on the president not liking the Swiss leader's voice or whether or not he's given a gold brick or not or whether or not Mark Carney gives a speech that Trump likes or not. Even if you want to give the president an expansive space to decide what an emergency is, at a certain point, the court does have to say the word has some meaning. Like, you can't just use it to mean anything you want.

I mean, this is the problem, right? Is it like there's a level of discretion that especially the Supreme Court is used to giving the executive branch in interpreting what Congress has given the executive branch powers to do? So like Congress passes a law and the executive has to interpret that law. Okay, they say like you have to do this health care policy, but they don't write out and this is how you should allocate the money. And these are the ways that you should, you know, write the equation. for who gets to qualify, you have to have some interpretation. Otherwise, like, government couldn't function. Like, how could you even run a massive bureaucracy?

And that sort of logic works when everyone is, like, generally acting in good faith about, like, what words mean? And, like, oh, how they should be used and what did people try to use those for in the past? But when you get to a point where someone's clearly just wanting to ram through their policy preferences, regardless of the plain meaning of the statutory language, that exists, then the court has to intervene. And I agree with you that, like, it's now getting to the point where it's like, okay, we need Supreme Court to say, like, this is an emergency, this is not an emergency. We're drawing these boundaries. But also, we also need Congress to do that. Like, at the

same time, like, yes, I'm annoyed at the Supreme Court, but, like, all of this comes back to the fact that Congress refuses to reassert its role as a co-equal branch of government. They have decided, like, all right, I guess we're going to get cucked by Trump for the next, like, two years. And I guess I'll continue happening forever. And that's, yeah, that's where we are. So what happens now? Trump is not going to be able to do the same kind of queen of hearts off with their heads tariff implementation, but he does have the ability to put tariffs in place. What do you think happens now? What are the economic impacts of this? I think he's going to try. And I mean, he just announced this in the press conference. Like I didn't I didn't take notes from the specific numbers he was saying. But he was going to be re-implementing these tariffs through. the existing authorities that require a lot more process to go through, but are legal. So I expect that we will see significant tariffs being levied in the exact same format and structure,

really. It'll just take longer. It'll have to go through the normal administrative processes in order to get there. The economic impact of that, because it will take more time for them to actually be felt, seems unclear. You already see a bunch of other countries really attempting to build bilateral, trilateral, multilateral trade agreements that exclude the United States in order to sort of to develop, you know, supply chains, different markets that don't rely on the United States anymore, either to like get those goods and services or to be a place where they can sell their goods and services. That's like a real loss for them, obviously, because the U.S. is a massive market that, you know, has a lot of value for people. But it's also like a long-term loss for us. Like if the rest of

the global economy, like decides to figure out a way to like replace the U.S. U.S. market with other, either emerging markets or other existing markets like China or anywhere else, like that's really bad for the United States. And so, you know, this is something where, like, the long-term picture relies on, like, what the choices of a bunch of different actors are going to be. So I think anyone who's, like, really prognosticating about, like, a couple years from now what this looks like, I don't really know how you would know that. But I just, I don't think it's going to be good for us. I think it's clearly going to be a bad situation. Right. Like, even the short term, we aren't paying the tariffs because we pay the tariffs.

obviously. But whatever the kind of realignment that's happening will not stop because he's, first of all, he's already promising to put them back on. Also, a lot of these are long-term plans that have, that Trump can take tariffs on and off in a week, but companies and countries can't change their trade policies in days or weeks. Exactly. Before we go to break, there's a brand new episode of Polarcoaster with Dan Pfeiffer. It's out now for Friends of the Pots, subscribers. Dan breaks down a new CNN poll that takes a look at where voters have shifted since the 2024 election. He talks about Gallup's decision to no longer do presidential polling and a bunch of other great questions from Friend of the Pod subscribers. Subscribing also unlocks access to Pod Save America Only Friends, our new subscriber exclusive show.

Open tabs the behind-the-scenes newsletter from PSA editor Reid Cherlin, who's hearing me do this promo as we speak. and loving it. Subscribing not only gets you access to a bunch of awesome subscriber-only content, it gets you ad-free episodes, and it helps support Crooked Media as an independent, progressive media outlet. So please, please become a subscriber. It's the best way you can support what we're building here at Cricket Media. So if you're listening, pause. Subscribe to Friends of the Pod at crooked.com slash friends, and then come back and hear the rest of the episode. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. February is often filled with constant reminders of romance, which can make navigating your own love life feel overwhelming, whether you're in a

relationship or single. It's okay if you aren't sure how to feel right now. But you know what? Figure it out in therapy. Therapy can help you silence that outside pressure and gain real perspective on what you need to feel grounded and fulfilled. You know, you just, you need to talk to someone. Everybody needs to talk to someone. And sometimes you want to talk to someone and have the confidence to know that that person is going to just listen to you and not judge you because they're your therapist. Right. Yeah. Because a therapist, you get, because a therapist, is paid to be nice to you. But, you know, if you were my friend and you were like, I don't know how to feel right now, I'd be like, go away. That's why I'm a therapist, Tommy. Better Helps Quality Therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the U.S. BetterHelp does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals.

A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences in their 12 plus years of experience and industry leading match fulfillment rate means they typically get it right the first time. If you aren't happy with your match, switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored wrecks. Dump that therapist. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 6 million people globally, and it works for an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. Sign up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com slash PSA. That's BetterHELP.com slash PSA. POSA of America is brought to you by Aura Frames.

ORAFrames are really cool. So cool. It's a picture frame that it's like the wall on Harry Potter, basically. It can update. They can play photos. They can play moving pictures. They have videos. And, you know, look, if you have small kids in the house or a new pet or you just feel far away from someone you care about, you can send them new photos of yourself all the time and, you know, stay more connected. They're great gifts for holidays, for birthdays, for anniversaries, a new home, or just for fun. And they get free unlimited storage. You can add as many photos in videos as you want. You can preload photos before it ships. Then you keep adding from anywhere, anytime. You can personalize your gift. You give it a message before.

arrives. There's a gift box included. Every frame comes packaged in a premium gift box with no price tag. You can share your videos and photos effortlessly. You just download the free ORA app, text photos straight to your frame. ORAFrames is the perfect gift every time. Named number one by wirecutter, you can save on the perfect gift by visiting ORAFrames.com. For a limited time, listeners can get $35 off their best-selling Carver mat frame with code Crooked. That's A-U-R-A-R-A-Frames.com. Promocode Crooked. Support the show by mentioning us at checkout, terms and conditions apply. So I want to switch gears because one reason I wanted to talk to you today is the argument, which is the independent media company you've launched, put out a poll. And the headline on the poll was the trans rights backlash is real. This caused quite a firestorm on social media.

So let's just start with what the poll found. Can you just walk us through the top line results? Yes. So it's actually a very, very long poll. So I'll draw out, I think, what was causing a lot of controversy because we were trying to pull on a bunch of different issues regarding gender that we haven't even gotten to fully explore. But the poll centers on these questions of trans policy and also people's views, their own personal values, about how they think gender roles should function. And it finds a bunch of depressing things. Like one thing that it finds is that what used to be a majority issue, which is that people didn't really want to see bathroom bills.

I didn't like the idea of like the government getting involved in what bathroom people were using. Now you see that's flipped. You see the majority of Americans saying that people should be required to use the bathroom that corresponds with the sex they were signed at birth. And you also see this on a couple of other policies too. So on questions of allowing puberty blockers for minors, the majority of the public does not want that to happen. Even when doctors and parents have consented, they still don't want kids to be able to have access to puberty blockers. We also asked about allowing gender surgery for minors when deemed medically necessary by doctors with parental consent. This is a very rare thing.

This is not happened very often. But it's even more unpopular than allowing puberty blockers. But the good news in the poll, I would say, is that when we ask specifically about protecting kind of more core civil rights questions, like banning discrimination against trans people and hiring and housing, that's a place where the majority of the country is in favor. We should not have discrimination in that way. And it's a much bigger margin to you. You have like 63% of people saying they want to ban discrimination against trans people

and hiring and housing, whereas you have roughly like 50,000. percent of people saying they don't want to allow puberty blockers for minors. So I mean, like this is something that I think, you know, our takeaway is largely there is a real backlash here when we compared it to polls, you know, from a few years ago. You do see more of the public turning against these issues that are core to the LGBTQ rights community. And you also do see that this is happening across subgroup. So one thing that we wanted to do, because I was interested in a bunch of different gender questions and I wanted to see real subgroup analysis. But in a lot of polls, like the numbers are so small. It's like you can't really make decisions on this.

So we paid extra to have this be a 3,000 end poll rather than a 1,500 person poll, which would, which would allow us to actually look at subgroups. And what you can see is that across subgroups, including people who were Harris 2024 voters, you still see this backlash happening against trans people. Obviously, it's much worse and more conservative subgroup demographics like Trump 2024 voters. But it's something where you see across the board a real shift happening. And it's even more concerning because it's happening at a time where the Democratic Party, I think, is doing very well in polling. Like, in our poll, the Democratic Party is plus six. Like, this is not actually meaningfully affecting the chances of the Democratic Party's ability to regain the House this year.

But on other issues like immigration, you've seen that thermostatic opinion shift happen. You've seen people viewing what's going on with ICE and the interior enforcement, horrors, the killings that are happening in Minneapolis. and they're like, okay, I don't like what's happening. My views are shifting towards the Democratic Party on this issue, but we don't see that with this issue, which I think is notable. So what is your interpretation of that? Like, what do you view as driving the shift? I think a few things are driving the shift.

So first, I think when you think about the issues that have always been kind of perennially more popular for civil rights movements, in this space, it's the core issues on discrimination. Like people, even if they disagree with you and how you choose to live your life, they don't really think you should get fired for, like, your gender, your sexuality. Like, they have like an aversion

towards the government engaging in that way. And the LGBT rights movement, particularly the trans rights movement, has been more focused, or the debate has been more focused, that is, on issues that are less central to that. It's been focused on things like sports and whether trans women should be able

to play with cis women in sports. It's been more focused on whether on children and what they should be taught in schools, et cetera, in places where I think that people view that as less central of an issue. And the reason for this, I think, is there's a bunch of reasons. I think one is that, I mean, there's been like hundreds of millions of dollars spent to focus attention on these issues because the right understands that this is the country they live in and that they want to be able to focus on issues that make this more difficult for trans people to get, you know, greater access to civil rights. So you see this with, in 2016, when the bathroom bill is being debated in North Carolina, Republicans, like, saw that, like the rights saw that. They saw how businesses

turned against them. They saw how regular people in a state that is not blue were horrified by this decision to, like, try to police who was going into what bathroom. And I think that they took this lesson and were like, okay, that's not the place to put a bunch of our energy. We're going to put it over there. But I also think there's like secondarily, there was a lot. of, you know, when you think about the decisions being made within the progressive side around what things to focus on, at some level, there was a conceding of that being the core debate. Like, there was constant focus on trends visibility and on these questions of what to be taught in schools. And in a way, like, I think this has to do with, like, a different amount of money

being spent in these spaces. I tried to figure out, like, how much exactly was spent, but it's very difficult because some of us being sent with dark money or whatever. but largely you can tell like way more money is being spent on the right than on the left here. But I also think it's like, you know, very reasonable that people were concerned with, you know, the Democratic president's in power. We have the ability to do visibility for people to make them feel better about there are people like them in high places of authority. And that's like a reasonable impulse to have. But I think that people misjudged how far the country had come on these issues.

I think that we saw a lot of horror by people who are. on the right on this and who are more socially conservative about bathroom bills. And a lot of us, including myself, interpreted that to mean that attitudes had shifted more fundamentally about whether people were okay with gender non-conforming people. But like those two things actually don't always move together. Like you can be really opposed to people acting differently than the birth they're assigned at sex and still think they shouldn't be discriminated against. And then when you see, okay, well, they're not just asking not to be discriminated against. They're asking me to like, you know, see them in positions of authority or whatever. That trigger.

I think much more bigotry in the public than then otherwise. And so I think both of those things played a role in this backlash. Yeah, you do like in the numbers, you do see that what Republicans understood is that this was just not deeply felt yet, right? Like this was just, there was a lot of room for persuasion. And it does seem like Democrats were on a stronger footing when they were talking about freedom from government control. That's how the original debate around bathroom,

the bathroom bill in North Carolina was. We were just like, get out of the bathroom. We don't want the government in the bathroom. Like we, when we were talking about trans issues here, like we focused on just leave trans teens alone, like just leave people alone. And when I was looking at your poll, the framing around the questions, right,

like allow gender surgery for minors when deemed medically necessary. And this is also around supporting or opposing national laws enacting these kinds of policies. Like, is there part of this that's just a framing issue? Like, if you ask the same group of people, a question that was more along the lines of, do you believe the government should be able to ban parents and doctors from determining the Beth health care decision for their kids who are trans? Like, you could conceivably get a different answer, right?

Like, do you agree with that? I mean, wording matters a lot in polls for sure. So one thing that we do in the argument is after we've drafted the questions, we send them to an independent review panel that includes both Democrats and Republicans to review our language for bias to make sure that we're not just doing a push poll. But even with that, like, even with that, there's no like perfect way to ask this. Yeah. One thing that I'll point out is that there are other polls with different wording that have found very similar trends. And so even if you, you know, you might think like, okay, well, the wording moves. this way or that way. That's something to keep in mind. But on top of that too, you want to test

language or policies in various types of wording. Because the goal is not just to, can you get the public to agree to one specific type of how I frame an idea? It's, okay, when they approach this idea, how it will be presented to them in public, how will they react to it? Because Republicans, and like people who are more conservative on this issue are not going to try to figure out the most like liberal sounding frame for talking about these issues, they're going to use language that is way more hostile than what we're talking about in this poll and way more loaded and way more likely to make people feel uncomfortable with the idea. So if even in this language, which is should you even allow someone to do something, even, and to me, like we got feedback

from some people that it's maybe we're loading the poll too much in the progressives favor by putting in that that's only when doctors and parents. consent. And like that that addition was considered like, okay, well, maybe you're pushing it a little bit too much to try to get people to agree with you. And so, you know, even in this framing, you still see this shift, I think is really concerning. Yeah, I'm not asking because I want to get to the backlash to the polling itself. But the reason I ask is also like I'm trying to understand what directions Democrats should be going and making an argument. And to me, the argument has to be around freedom, that we're on a better footing when we're talking about freedom. But at the same time,

I think what's here is like what is very clear is whatever views that people have, like, they're not that strongly held even now, right? Like, this is an issue where people seem to be open to persuasion. And I, and I want to understand why Republicans have done such a better job of the persuasion. It does, like, if you, these, these issues, right, like my treatment for minors, bathrooms and sports. That is where Republicans have focused their energy, but it's also where Republicans, it seems, have a more genuine passion around it, right? Like Democrats, whatever position they're taking, like, their hearts are not really in these issues. Like, this is not something they're passionate about. They seem scared to be on the wrong side of the populace, of like the public,

but also scared to be on the wrong side of activists. And the end result is you have Democrats advocating a range of positions with a lack of real enthusiasm. And then you have Republicans hammering this from like, like with like their base like fully behind them, like excitedly pushing this narrative. And I just, I'm curious how like you wrote a piece basically against what you described as thoughtless moderation, which is between ignoring this data or quote, throwing trans people under the bus. And I'm just like, what is the third direction here? Like what, what do we do if not those two options? Yes, no. So, I mean, I think that there's a clear answer in this poll. A large majority of Americans do not think you should be able to discriminate against trans people

and hiring and housing. I would expect that those numbers stay solid when you look at other kinds of public accommodations too. So for instance, like, can you refuse service to someone because they're trans? These are things like that I think most people would find to be unacceptable. And that's actually not the law of the land right now. Like Iowa, for one, has just repealed legislation that they repealed gender identity as a core protected part of the Iowa Civil Rights Act. They're trying to stop localities from being able to even enact their own protections at the local level. The Supreme Court through Bostock has protected trans people in hiring and employment. decisions. Obviously, that requires a federal government that wants to enforce that kind of civil

rights law. And even under a democratic administration, it's very, very difficult to enforce that sort of thing from the federal government side. It just requires people complaining. And then the government can eventually kind of maybe put in a lawsuit. And so I think that there's, like, a lot of room here for the trans movement and for liberals to, like, focus on these issues and make hay out of the fact that they're trying to strip people of their ability to rent an apartment if they are trans. Like that's what it means to strip someone of discrimination or other ability not to be discriminated against in housing. Those sorts of things I think are really, really solid footing. And I am not like, you know, I'm not like saying that there's like an obvious step one, two, three here.

But I think from an orientation perspective, like there needs to be a lot of this is, there needs to be a lot of effort to make clear that just as it, you know, in previous civil rights movements, trans people are not asking. for special treatment, they're asking for equal treatment. The right to do the exact same thing everyone else is, the right to make decisions with their doctors about their own health, the right to make decisions with their kids about their kids' health. Like, who is better positioned to know what kinds of medical decisions your kids should have other than you? Like, in a society, like, we often, we always say, like, okay, your parent can sign off on whether or not you get a boob job, whether or not you get a nose job, like all these things.

Like, we have to defer to parents to make those decisions. And like, these are areas where I think there's actually a lot of empathic stories to be told. But I think that starting with clear examples of discrimination in places where people who already disagree with you think that there should be protections, winning there, I think is the important part on actually winning more hearts and minds. And I don't think this is easy because you don't control everything everyone says. Like other people are going to talk about bathrooms, other people are going to talk about sports. And like, that's hard. But I think that's the only place to go. Yeah. I think that that's, that's.

largely right. Like to me, it's like you have to have a larger story you're telling about LGBT rights that starts from a place of freedom and equality, right? You start from freedom and equality for all people. And then you have to turn around the idea that Democrats are focused on this. Because the truth is, why did, why does Kamala get tagged with this? Because she answered a question on a survey. Now, that survey was written by people who seemed more interested in in their survey, then winning, whatever. There's a lot of problems on the Democratic side. She also was part of a group of Democrats who became completely unable to have a worldview

that might be in conflict with. There's a lot of things that led to what happened in, in, in 2024. But the ability to tell a story that basically says, we are for freedom, we are against discrimination, and we are not the ones obsessed with trans people. these freaks on the right are obsessed with trans people. We want to get out of people's medical decisions. We want to get out of people's bathrooms. We want to let people live and be free.

Like to me, like if you can start from a place that says that, then by the way, people might trust you a little bit more when you disagree with them and say, actually, you know what? Like, I actually think even if you're not sure about like what should be happening with trans teens. I'm not, I don't agree with you. I want to leave that to doctors and parents, even if you don't agree. Or by the way, on sports, like, like you want to talk about, like, NCAA top competitive athletes. I just want trans kids to be able to play sports with their friends. Like, like, I think sometimes this idea, like, there's so much, I think there's a lot of

anxiety on the part of people that care about these issues and on the part of trans people around, like, feeling like Democrats just are not reliable, that they don't have the credibility as fighters. And so there's no space to have this debate because the Democrats are not seen as like kind of tough, strong representatives who they can count on, even if they don't always see it eye to eye. And it seems like what we need to do is kind of build up some trust. And that starts with like having Democrats willing to kind of take a strong,

clear pro-transposition that also has popular. support. And like, but I don't know. Like right now it just does feel like there's still this tension where, uh, if you even want to have this conversation, you are pretty well, like, attacked as kind of, uh, uh, uh, unsafe to the movement. Yeah. And I mean, I think that there's like to separate out things. Like I think I understand why trans people would be extremely sensitive to this and are, you know, I've like no critique for people who are, for people who are, about their civil rights being taken away and are upset about anything that makes them feel that might happen or might push people to do that.

But I think that when it comes to people who have decided to become activists, whether they're trends or not, if your decision is that your goal is to enact electoral change, you need to stop thinking about elected officials as your friends or people who are going to be loyal to you, especially when it comes to rights movements where you're unpopular. I do not care how nicely I am treated by any elected official. I don't care if they like me. I don't care if they, like, feel loyal to me. I care if they feel beholden to my interests because there's actual power and persuasion that we've built. This is difficult work, and it's not the work of an election cycle. It's the work of, like, many, many years and

maintaining that cultural power. And that's about convincing enough people in real life to be on your side. It is not, like, we've seen this with abortion rights. It wasn't durable to just protect us through the courts. Like, women in many places across the country do not have the right to their own body in situations of potential death because they were protected only by having convinced like five people on the Supreme Court. Like, that's how you convince people on that issue. And it's really important to realize that like that is a type of protection that's important. We want legal protections that happen through the court system. Like those are not things to just give up on. But mass persuasion in a democracy is all.

always going to be the most powerful thing. Whether or not Democrats stand by trans people, if this issue becomes salient in an electoral way, which I don't think it is right now at all. But if it does become salient, it's going to rely on not on Democrats' courage, really, which I mean like some people would make decisions on how courageous they are. It's on whether that's popular or not. These are representatives of the public. And if the public is telling them, I don't want you to allow minors to get puberty blockers. And there's 60% of them saying that to them in their districts. Like, that's not about just courage on the Democrats part. It's like, how are we convincing people to have different views such that we allow our elected officials

to do that? Now, I think that there's like a fair point to be made here that like elected officials are not just, you know, automaton that go like, what is the most popular thing and like let's just do that thing. And I think that's like clearly happening right now. Like the Democratic Party's position on trans rights is like way to the left of the country right now in a way that I think is correct. Like they are right now holding the line. Like there's not, they're not like Democratic politicians proposing bills or supporting bills right now to try and strip trans people of the rights that are unpopular in the public. Like that is something I think people should have some sort of, you know, take, take heart in the fact that there's been a real holding of the line on the

specific rights. Now, we have seen shifts in language, I think, in ways that people are right to be, you know, paying attention to you. I think Seth Moulton is one of these people. And also, of course Gavin Newsom more more recently. But even while their language has shifted, like California is one of the safest places in the country to be a trans person. And so is Massachusetts where Seth Moulton is elected official. And South Moulton itself has like voted in favor of legislation to protect trans people. So I think this is something where like people need to be really focused on outcomes here because there's like actually a real long road ahead in trying to move the country in a better direction on this issue.

Pod Save America is brought to a Magic Spoon. Magic Spoon is basically the grown-up version of your favorite childhood cereals. Same fun taste, none of the sugar bomb. High-protein zero-sugar cereal that still hits that nostalgic Saturday morning note. Magic Spoon is the high-protein zero-sugar cereal that you love.

It's nostalgic, tastes like the classics you grew up with, but without the sugar crash. Each serving packs 13 grams of protein, five grams of net carbs, and zero grams of sugar, so it actually keeps you fueled any time a day, a breakfast, late night snack, post-workout, whenever. They got a bunch of classic flavors like fruity, frosted, cinnamon toast, and they just launched two new flavors.

Classic marshmallow. I had some of those in the kitchen here, actually. They're really good. Yeah, and smores. They had both of those in the kitchen. Nice. I thought they were giving, it was like whoever comes first to the kitchen could just take the box, so I just took the whole box.

So I just not supposed to do that. I think that was probably wise. It's delicious. I love magic. They go fast. Magic spoon treats are crispy, airy protein pack snack bars with 12 grams of protein. Great for tossing in your bag, keeping in the car, or grabbing between meetings.

I could use some right now. Flavors include marshmallow, chocolate, peanut butter, dark chocolate, and more. These feel like a treat but actually functioned like a protein bar, so they scratch the sweet tooth itch without all the sugar.

There's also Magic Spoon Granola. 13 grams of protein, zero added sugar, perfect for yogurt bowls or quick handful snacking. Comes in dark chocolate almond, honey almond, peanut butter,

and additional flavors. Get yourself some Magic Spoon. It tastes really good. It tastes really good. It's all good. They're pitching it as healthy, but it just tastes good. Yeah, it does.

Look for Magic Spoon on Amazon. or at your nearest grocery store or get $5 off your next order at magic spoon.com slash crooked. That's magic spoon.com slash crooked for $5 off. I want to talk about cringe. It's time to talk about cringe. You and I are aligned on the topic of cringe. There's a lot of people that see what happens at a no king's protest. They see the signs about, you know, like that make fun of Trump. They're very earnest. They're very sweet.

they're very Hamilton, and people call it cringe. And you wrote a great piece about it about, about cringe being born of insecurity and fear. What is the role of cringe in the resistance to fascism in America in 2026? Cringe is just normie behavior. And if you don't win the normies, you've just lost. Like, normie is the average person. So, like, any time you're in a movement and it's too cool, you're losing. Like it's like too cool.

Like not enough people are with you. If the losers aren't with you, if the moms aren't with you, if the grandpas aren't with you, like it's like not going well. So when you look at mass movements that have actually succeeded, like the idea that there wouldn't be some element of like, I don't know, people dressing up in weird ways or like having signs that are like, okay, like I guess you almost got there, but there's something a little bit weird about that. Like that's the kind of thing that you expect to see. And I also think, too, like, I don't know, I've reported on a variety of protests, including No King's protests in places across the country. And I think that, like, on social media and on, like, you know, TikTok or whatever, if you're just, like, kind of scrolling your feed and you see these signs divorced from context and divorced from the person, it can really, it can maybe seem a little bit

more embarrassing or weird. And when you're in person, you're interviewing people, like, these are people who, you know, ask them about their signs, like, what does this mean? Like, they often actually have like quite moving stories about like why they're doing this like what brought them there I talked to a very old man I think more than 80 years old in Berkeley California at the last no king's protest who said he had never protested in his life until this moment and he felt really awful about that and that he had realized like what he needed he was on his own he didn't have his friends with him he didn't have his family with him he's like I needed to go do this because I realized like I can't be a part of the silent majority and like I don't remember what his sign was but I remember like it's like the kind

of thing that people would have cringed at that would have been like, oh gosh, like, it's written terribly and like it doesn't look nice and it's not, you know, whatever. And so, you know, I think that like things can play different on social media and that's like important to think about. But, but yeah. Yeah, well, like I'm interested in cringe because I feel like cringe. It's about it's a description of a feeling you have when you see something, right? You cringe. You're embarrassed.

It's a secondhand embarrassment of a sort. And it feels like we're, we combine a lot of different things into what that is. Like one is just being uncomfortable with earnest displays of emotion, right? Just someone who doesn't seem embarrassed of their feelings, which seems like a very like, and cringing at that seems like very high school, very afraid of what the cool kids are going to say, right? Like that's part of it. But then there's also, I think, like when when people say that Chuck Schumer is cringe, right? Or Nancy Pelosi is cringe.

That's actually, I think, more of a valid more, it's more worth thinking about what that. is and that's not just, oh, that's an embarrassing display. It's, that's a performative display that goes beyond their actual either views or prerogatives. So, I mean, I think what's happening there is when people say, like, people say it's cringe that like, I don't know, like Nancy Pelosi, you know, Wara Kente and put her a fist up in the air on the ground, whatever, right? Like, I think that like when people say that's cringe, what they're saying is like, I can't believe someone who I had to, who I voted for or was on my team is like doing something so embarrassing. I think it's still as internal. And I think the root of the problem there is that people are

thinking too much of politics as a source of identity. Like if Nancy Pelosi isn't cool, like that has like nothing to do with me. Like I don't like like whether or not I'm cool has no like Chuck Schumer has no bearing on it. Hakeem Jeffries has no bearing on it. Like it's like not relevant to like my own self perception of myself. But as we've gotten into a place, where politics is not just an arena to win specific material gains, but actually a reflection of who you are as a person and what kind of vibe that you yourself hold. And we see this in a lot of places, right?

Like, I was just, I don't know if you're watching Love is Blind right now, but I just watched, spoiler alert. I don't want to, like, give anything away. Are you into Love is Blind? I'm not. For the dear listeners, there's about to be a spoiler for Love is Blind this season. I haven't watched this season. earmuffs in the studio.

Yeah. So, spoiler alert for love is blind, but like there's one, there's one of the men and the couples is asked by his, his fiance's dad, like, who did you vote for? And, you know, he's like, you know, he's like, oh, yeah, I wouldn't vote.

I didn't vote, but I would have voted for Trump. And you know what I mean? And like, like, this sort of thing coming up in reality TV shows on is dating as like, now it speaks to his person's entire character, which, you know, I think that's reasonable to like view that, like, values shift, shift, but like that wasn't like normal even like 15, 20 years ago for like politics to be so central

to like these cultural shows and movements. And I think that to me is, to me is a reflection of the fact that we've lost a lot of other ways that we describe ourselves. And politics is now the place where people derive a lot of meaning instead of like, whether it's church or the kind of, whether you are a part of a club or whatever. So you see this associational decline happening in life. and like we've moved all of that energy towards politics. And as a result now, I'm like really concerned if people associate me with something cringe that, you know, elect official does. And like you should free yourself of that. So I want to make, yeah, I agree with that. I do think it's more. I think it's more than that. I think it's more than just identity. Because a lot of what Republicans do would be cringe to us if we were Republicans, but we're not. And so there is a little bit of the narcissism of small differences. Lydia Paul Green wrote something about the Indigo Girl. that cringe implies a naivete that gets coded as feminine, a silly belief that human beings, through sincere effort,

might actually improve themselves and the world. And I do think there's a kind of cynicism that undergirds this, which is like if you, you're not jaded enough, that you don't understand how the world really works. You don't understand how broken things are. You're too hopeful, right? Like, I do think that's part of it, too. What do you think?

I, no, I agree. I mean, I think that there's, like, anyone who really works in politics, whether it's as a commentator, as a journalist, as an activist, you know, we're much more ideological than the average person. And by that, I mean, we have like a, you know, we think about policies and our worldviews as connecting in, like, very consistent ways. Whereas when you talk to, like, most voters, like, they'll say a grab bag of things that you're like, well, how do these things go together?

Like how do you support this and also that? Like you get you have to tax rich people more if you want Medicare for all. Like you don't know what I mean? Like why are these things more consistent? And you see this in polling as well where people often will hold very inconsistent views in ways that seem like they don't make sense. But like we are actually the weird ones for being so ideological and consistent. And so why I say that is that I think that when you are someone who's like an expert in your field

and whether that's like politics or whatever it is and you see someone who doesn't do that a lot, kind of just like get on that. ice for the first time. You're like, oh, my God, that's not how you move the puck. Oh, God, that's like not how you shoot a basketball. And like, we're like, oh, God, that's like not how you do politics. But in politics, like, yeah, maybe we're the experts, but like everyone has the same voice. So we don't, we don't get to tell people how to be. Yeah, there's like a, I look my, my, my, I'm working towards a theory of cringe that ultimately lands at being anti-cringe is in the same way, like a Rockefeller. was offended by the strivings of people who had made their own money that there's a kind of class

aspect to this where like like look at all that trying and look at all that effort like with the kind of image in there which like sort of like as if all politics is in performance for a 32 year old white rich guy who has a very dark comedic aesthetic. and who has seen it all and done it all kind of a thing. And like, who is that? Well, that's a, that's a, that's a kid who went to NYU because they had the money to go. Like, like, who exactly real? Who is that high school kid that?

Who's that popular kid you're worried about? What do they look like? What are their equities? I don't think they're poor. I don't think they're poor. I mean, I'll say this. I think that the, the class aspect is like maybe to me less central than the age aspect. Like, we're now in a moment where young people, because the democratization,

of social media because of like the bit like you know just the shifts in culture that have allowed people young people to have more access to a microphone which which are good but that means like they're like entering politics and realizing oh my gosh politics is dominated by like 50 year old white people and like that's so embarrassing and cringe and like it should be dominated by 43 year old white people exactly exactly that that will be our utopia but I mean like I think that it's like just you know young people always think older people who order them are cringe

That's just like how life works in every generation. But like now they now have the ability to go online and like buy the thousands and go like, ew, like what is this? And it's like that's like, politics, like please go to a rally. Like go to local government meeting. Like that's what it is. They're in control of all the power. Like, please. Speaking of old people being in charge and having all the power, I do want to touch on housing.

So Trump signed an executive order aiming to, quote, stop Wall Street from competing with Main Street home buyers. This has long been an issue on the left, the effect that private equity has had on the housing market. It seems like Trump is trying to co-op this issue. But at the same time, the critique of this argument is this doesn't actually have that big of an influence on the effect of housing. What did you make of that Trump announcement? This has like been my like hobby horse for years, John. Like I feel like I have to like experience like do like deep breathing like short inhalation, long exhalation. Like, you know what I mean? To like, stay calm. I mean, this is one of those things where I think the media has done like a severe disservice to the public and informing them about things that are important.

Like, institutional investors, whatever you think about their ability to engage in the housing market, like just putting that aside are like definitionally like a tiny percentage of the housing market. I just pulled up an article I wrote earlier this year called Everybody Hates Renters. Like, you know, we have a chart in there that shows this. mega investors made up 2.2% of investor purchases, of investor purchases in June 2025. So in June 2025, mega investors made up 2.2% of investor purchases. That doesn't even include all the purchases that are non-investors. This is like a tiny, tiny amount. Even in submarkets where you hear things like, oh, wow, like 30% of homes were bought by investors,

when you hear that headline, what that is saying is not private equity coming. It means anything from someone who owns who's buying a second home, someone buying a home through an LLC, a small investor who's a developer in your area who's now renting out apartments or multifamily units. All of those purchases count as investors. So like I don't want to get too into the weeds on this because I could go on this for forever. But part of the problem is that there's been such a focus on this issue. And it is obviously because private equity institutional investors, these are like easy punching bags because people hate them all. already on across the political spectrum. But as a result, it allows Trump to sound like he's doing something meaningful on an issue that's actually very important to people, housing affordability,

housing access, homelessness. These are issues of people are very, very attuned to, particularly since 2020 when we saw prices skyrocket across the entire country. And this is not going to meaningfully affect anything about people's ability to afford housing. And it is really, really disappointing to me that like actors in the media have allowed this story to spread to the point where now, yeah, he gets a lot of political win and say like, yeah, we ban institutional investment to the housing market. I'm like, all right, you didn't even do that. And also it's, it's not going to do anything. It's not going to make a difference. So let's talk about what could make a difference. I'm curious where you think we're at in the great YIMB housing wars that began with the last like

couple of years. So California passes SB 79. This is to allow building. towards around transit, a huge victory for trying to address California's massive housing shortage. Meanwhile, Los Angeles has been fighting at tooth and now. Karen Bass, our mayor, came out against it. The city planner just put out a document with all the ways they're going to try to screw with the implementation of SB 79. It feels like nationally, the politics of this really have shifted.

I think there's been a big debate. People are, even from Mamdani to the abundance. abundance world. People are getting behind the need for more market rate housing and getting rid of rules that prevent people from building. And yet, one of the biggest cities in the country in a Democratic bastion, we seem unable to address it. What do you think? This is one of the most difficult policy issues to make progress on because it doesn't just require convincing a bunch of people, which I think successfully has happened. You now see across the political spectrum, like, Mamdani is a YIMB champion. You have like even Trump voters in Arizona and Trump elected officials in Arizona and Texas who are who are passing YMB policies, Montana, et cetera. And so, you know, that is that is great. And I'm like super happy that we've moved this far in this direction to be in favor of building more housing. But like the central critique has always been that there are so many veto points to actually getting housing built. Like you can convince like the majority of people that actually.

there really should be an apartment building on this block. But if you allow there to be, whether it's loopholes and how people can sue, you allow discretionary approval processes in local government. So, like, if local government doesn't have to just say, like, okay, you passed all the rules, you did all the safety checks, this is the homes that have been approved there. You're not building in an environmentally, like, dangerous area. All that's good. We've given you your permit good to go.

Now, instead, they can say, well, you've passed all those things, but we're just going to sit on this for a while and we're going to like have 15,000 more hearings and we're going to demand more information. And like when they do this, right, like it can seem facially very neutral. You just hear like, oh, they're just asking for more information. The community is upset. They want to know more what's going on. But that delay, like housing delayed is housing denied. Like because of the fact that you have made developers, affordable housing developers to private

market developers, wait, you are increasing the cost of housing. And I think that people don't realize it. I mean, in Los Angeles in particular, I did, I did. a story a few years back about about affordable housing developers in Los Angeles, affordable housing developers have a much harder time with maintaining control over land in order to build housing on it over successive years. Because affordable housing developers are often like getting their financing from a bunch of different mechanisms. And like, though there are different rules for how that money has to be spent and what time period

reporting or whatever. And so when they have all that lined up and they go to the city and say, we have all the financing, here's our permit, we'd love to build some of affordable housing for homeless people. And the city says, well, let's just hold on for a little bit. And then the financing rules change. Now they have to get it re-uped or the interest rates shift, such that like the financing no longer pencils out for that project. Those projects just disappear. And the city never has to say, like, actually, we don't want that anymore. And Los Angeles, like, you know, we've seen this. Like prop triple H, which passed like, I don't know, like a decade ago now, which was in Los Angeles meant to provide, it was a billion dollars for affordable housing.

I mean, like, so much of that has yet to be actually spent and because people don't want to fix these problems. Yeah. There was just some money that L.A. returned because it was unable to spend it in time, just free money that they were given for local development projects to sort of gone. You've started a media company, final topic. The argument, what have you learned in your transition from being part of a larger media company to start? starting your own. So many things, John, so much. I'd never manage that many people before.

Now, we have a great team now. We're 10 people. The Argument Magazine is growing strong. But at the same time, management is just like, it's a whole different ballgame. I had no idea how much stuff I was making my editors or managers do for me in the past. I am now, like, reflecting. I actually reached back to my old editors. And I was like, hey, guys, sorry about that.

And they're like, it's a circle of life. But I think one of the coolest things that I've learned about this is, and part of the reason for starting the argument, which is meant an argument really focused on political liberalism and how to reinvigorate it and really make it meaningful to people's lives by focusing on the core issues, whether those are economic, material growth, whether it's gender and family, which is, you know, what we were talking about earlier today, or about AI and technology and society, and how technology policy should interact with society. These, these big issues, like what can liberal ideas actually say to them is something that I think

there's a lot of hunger for. People are not just looking for a technocratic answer to their question. They're looking for a framework that they can feel like ideologically true to them and feel like it's actually speaking to the broader questions they have about meaning and where they get it from and what politics is supposed to do and what it's supposed to be like. And there are, I think, a lot of people who are unsatisfied, both by the kind of like moderate, just kind of like skewed to the median voter like angle that a lot of politics has felt like and also like the way that progressivism felt for many much of the 2020s and the uh you know the late aughts where it felt like you're not allowed to um you know engage in meaningful debate over questions over which there's a lot of

uncertainty or these are these are not places where you can actually um uh you know have reasonable disagreement without just shutting down the conversation and that's why we're called the argument is like we platform a lot of different views in contention with one another and And I'm constantly in publishing people that I disagree with. And, you know, we have this, this, this column called Madlibs where I just argue with people. And I just think that, like, that's really important to do because most people don't have my views. I'm, like, not an average voter. Like, they don't agree with me on a lot of stuff.

And if you don't figure out ways to talk to them, then you're either consigning yourself to, okay, maybe I can hold on to New York and Los Angeles and live in my safe haven. And, you know, fuck everyone who can't make it here. Or you're consigning yourself to losing forever. And that's something that I'm not. not willing to do. Well, that's good news because everyone can't move to Los Angeles because we can't build a fucking house for people to live in here. So Jerusalem. Way to bring that around. That was great. Jerusalem, Jempsons. I'm such a fan. Thank you so much. I just want to sum up where we're at just because we covered a lot of topics. One, tariff's bad, but he's probably going to be able to do it anyway.

to cringe good. Cringe good. Three, we have to be able to talk about why we're losing ground on trans issues if we want to protect trans people. Four, we have to build houses. Yes. And five, arguments good.

Arguments good. Arguments great. Argue with people. We covered a lot of ground. Drusland, this is so great. Thank you so much. It's so fun. Thanks for having me. I'm such a fan of the show. I'm glad to be here. And that's our show.

Thank you so much. to Jerusalem Dempsis for joining. John, Tommy, and I will be back in your feeds with a new episode on Tuesday morning, and that's it. If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad-free and get access to exclusive podcasts, go to Cricket.com slash Friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substack, YouTube, or Apple Podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review that helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Cricket.

Pod Save America is a Cricket Media production. Our producer is Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farah Safari. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reid Churlin is our executive editor. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Segglin and Charlotte Landis.

Matt DeGroote is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Ben Heffcote, Mia Kelman, Carol Pellevieve, David Tolls, and Ryan Young. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.