Pod Save America - GOP Passes Megabill, Betrays Its Own Voters

Episode Date: July 4, 2025

House Republicans deliver on Trump's Independence Day deadline, passing the Senate's version of the so-called Big Beautiful Bill, which will cut taxes for the rich, gut Medicaid for the poor, and explode the deficit beyond all recognition. Jen Psaki, host of The Briefing with Jen Psaki on MSNBC, joins Dan to discuss how Mike Johnson and Trump won over the bill's GOP holdouts, what happens now that it's passed, and how it changes the story of the 2026 midterm elections. Jen and Dan discuss Trump's threat to deport Zohran Mamdani and Paramount's $16 million settlement with Trump. Then, Congressman Ro Khanna stops by to talk about what's next for Democrats now that the most unpopular bill in history is set to become law.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. 

Positive America is brought to you by Incogni. If you've ever searched for your name or address on Google, it's shocking to find how many results have your personal information and it's not by chance. Data brokers and people search sites, collect your personal information, your name, address, phone number, financial info, income, and hundreds of other records.

They sell and share it publicly without your consent, but Incogni is here to put an end to that. It hunts down these unethical sites and gets your info removed from the places that expose your private information. You don't have to email anyone to fill out forms or jump through hoops. They handle the entire process for you. Incogni also continuously monitors to see if your data makes its way back onto these databases and will request repeated removals, keeping your info off them forever. So you get fewer spam calls, fewer spam emails, and more peace of mind.

Incogni even offers a family and friends plan to extend protection to up to four additional members. Just create an account and authorize them to act on your behalf. Incognito then handles the data removal process and keeps you informed of their progress. Anyone who's ever done a basic Google search or known someone who knows how to do deeper research knows that it's terrifying how much personal information is available on the internet for everyone to find. Incognito is a great resource to help take back your privacy and push back on these gross data

brokers and other people who are trying to sell your personal information for money. Right now you can get 60% off an annual plan by going to incognito.com and use code PSA. That's INCOGNI.com slash PSA and use the code PSA at checkout. Welcome to Potsdamerica, I'm Dan Pfeiffer. John is off this week, so you're getting an upgrade. Our great friend Jen Psaki hosted the Briefing with Jen Psaki on MSNBC, former White House press secretary, and one of my favorite coworkers ever. Jen, thanks for doing this. Dan, I don't know that this is an upgrade, but you were one of my favorite co-workers ever too. And in fact, one of my favorite bosses, which I always like to remind you of every time we talk.

No one would ever believe it now that I was ever your boss. And even then, that was only, that was more on the org chart than in reality. We were colleagues. Okay, we can revise history. That's totally fine. That's fine. I'm good with that. Okay, today we're going to talk about the big horrible bill, which is very likely being signed into law as you're enjoying your 4th of July barbecue. We'll also get into the latest on immigration, including Trump's threats to denaturalize and deport,

Zoran Mondami. And we'll be talking with our friend, Rokana, one of the smartest people in the House representatives about where we go from here. But let's start with the bill, because a lot has happened since John and Tommy recorded on Monday afternoon. On Thursday afternoon, the House Republicans,

by the slimmest of margins, passed the Senate's aversion of Trump's so-called big, beautiful bill. There was some drama along the way. Republican deficit hawks and moderate holdouts banded together for a while to keep the bill from coming to the floor. But in the end, all but two of them did

what Trump-era Republicans do best. They folded without getting a single concession of consequence. Democrats for their part did the best they could to delay the final vote. Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries spoke for eight and a half hours in opposition to the bill, setting a new record for the longest floor speech in modern history. But ultimately it wasn't enough to stop the bill's passage, which Trump said he'd signed on Friday morning. Jen, let's talk about how this bill ended up passing. As of last night, it looked like there were enough holdouts to, if not kill it, at least

delay the bill's passage. I went to bed at 10 o'clock Pacific time last night. They were all holding out when I woke up at 4 a.m. Pacific time. That all folded. What changed? Why did they cave? I mean, I had a similar East Coast version of sleep time, but when I went to bed, or when I was getting ready to go to bed, there were still the four holdouts, which meant they would have had to flip one,

which they clearly did more than that. You know, I was thinking about this this morning, and I was reading this piece in the New York Times where they had this paragraph or two, where it talked about how there was a version of a Republican conga line that came to the White House and Trump signed all these things and people left the White House after this charm offensive and felt maybe warmer about the bill which that was earlier in the day but I

think that continued throughout the course of the evening clearly and Mike Johnson this calculation, which is a calculation he's made in the past, to go to the floor even if you don't know you have the votes. He did it when he was running for leadership and hoped the pressure will flip people. And what happened in the middle of the night? Was it a Trump call? Was it a promise made to somebody about something we don't entirely know? Or was it some of these people made the calculation, they didn't wanna be primaried

and they'd rather face the voters in their district? That also could have happened. It's not surprising. I wasn't shocked by it moving forward. I'm sure you weren't either. Doesn't mean it's like not disappointing. It's hugely disappointing, but. It's just so wild on one front, right?

Like, yes, we get it. These guys fold all the time. But they all said just hours earlier, I will never vote for this bill. Yeah. If I don't get, I need changes, give me changes. Then they voted for a bill with no changes. Not a single comma period quotation mark number was changed

from the Senate bill that arrived earlier that day. They just rubber stamped that. And I guess, and I talked about this a little bit in my interview with Ro Khanna that you'll hear later, there's a lot of fear of Trump in the primary. It's just no one means what they say, which maybe that's just like naivety even to care about, but they just, like even they don't even adhere to their lies.

Like they're lying about what's in the bill. And even within the framework of that lie, they can't stick to it. True. And remember there were two different reasons why house members were opposing the bill, right? There was the freedom caucus who all were so outraged by the cost, right, or how expensive the bill

was, a hugely expensive deficit-adding bill, they were outraged by that. I'm never going to support this. Some of them were threatening like, we'll walk out, what have you. They obviously did it. Most of them didn't do that. And then there were the members who were at least verbally outraged by the Medicaid impact of Medicaid. And they just still went ahead and did it.

So it was like two different groups convinced themselves to come forward and support the bill. And, you know, who knows what they're telling themselves that maybe it's their political survival. But yeah, completely disappointing and outrageous and hopefully they pay a political price, they will. The thing that's interesting was for a long time there were four no votes, right?

Three conservatives and Brian Fitzpatrick, who is a, I can't really call anyone in this caucus a moderate, but he represents a vulnerable, a swing district. Moderate-ish? I don't know. Yeah, he's more moderate than Jim Jordan, so congratulations, whatever, right?

And his vote was mostly somewhat about Medicaid, but really also about he's mad about them cutting off arms to Ukraine. Ukraine, yeah. And he, to his credit, voted no, and then turned off his phone and left. I don't know why more people don't do that, by the way. Why would people stick around? That's like a side note to wait to be pressured by Lil Mike Johnson, I don't know why more people don't do that by the way. Why would people stick around? That's like a side note to wait to be pressured

by Lil Mike Johnson, I don't know. It's very strange. But then, so most of the argument, which is just, you know, here you have this bill that is going to kick 17, we'll talk, get into the details, but it's keep you off their healthcare, take food away from poor people,

do all these terrible things. And most of the people opposing it, people who are most likely to bring it down, were not mad about any of that stuff. No. They were not mad that the bill was too cruel. They were mad that it wasn't cruel enough. Yes.

And just like the total like fucked up, nihilistic cruelty of the Republican party comes to bear in this because their argument was, we said we needed a bill with $2 trillion in cuts. That's the, their claim was, that's the deal that Mike Johnson made to us. That was what was in our budget resolution. That's what we passed. And then the Senate gets their bill and they make a bunch of changes.

They actually make some of the Medicaid stuff worse. Almost no one's complaining about that. Maybe one guy from North Carolina who ended up voting for the bill. What the Senate did was they made a bunch of business tax cuts permanent, which added a half a trillion dollars to the bill. Made it more expensive. Yeah. Right. So instead of taking those out, no one's arguing to take those out. They're just arguing for more Medicaid cuts to do it. It's just like we, the opposition, it's just really important for I think,

but again, most of the opposition with the Republican Party was not that the bill kicked people off its healthcare. No. It didn't kick enough people off its healthcare. No, 100%. And the other part that's completely gross, there's many gross parts, is that when they talk about this,

a lot of them explain it as, well, we just wanted to extend the tax cuts and the Medicaid stuff is just a pay for. It's just a pay for. Like it's not a policy decision. It's like, no, it is a decision because it's a huge impact of the bill. As if it was a sidebar thing,

they were just trying to find money to cover the tax cuts for the highest income as if that makes it okay, which I find even more disgusting, right? It's- Manutia as JD Vance would call it. Which that as a note, and I don't know if you've talked about this, but the fact that it wasn't like a reporter caught him in the hallway tired. He typed that up or a staffer type that up and posted it.

Right. It was like, you know what I'm going to say? The Medicaid cuts is minutia. That's what I'm going to type that up on my phone or whatever, whatever he may have done. Um, yeah, all of that together is, um, I mean, it should be incredibly alarming for people. It should be. Yeah, there's something broken in our system because people voted to hurt their own constituents for a bill that's incredibly unpopular. And those are supposed to be

the circuit breakers in the system that keep people from doing things. They're supposed to be under pressure, political pressure to not do terrible things. But that traditional political pressure of the voter has been subsumed by pressure from one man in the president of the United States. And that's when you tip over from democracy into some sort of fascistic authoritarianism because the core idea that the people have the power to democracy has fallen by the wayside because it's really only about one person. Very true. I know, I mean, you're the polar coaster man,

so like you know more about polls than most people. I will say, and you probably saw these, there were a couple of polls, and we'll see how it plays out because now Trump's gonna do the big thing with the b2 Bombers and all this kind of stuff happening when he signs it the Washington Post Ipsos poll this week where it showed that

By like a 10-point margin and I can't remember if it was 12 or 13 points in a different 10-point margin in white working-class voters did not like the bill And by like a 12 or 13 point margin white rural voters didn not like the bill. And by like a 12 or 13 point margin, white rural voters didn't like the bill. Those are Trump voters. Those are core people. I mean, he won those groups by large margins. What's tricky, there's a lot of tricky things here. One of the tricky things is what the Republicans did in this bill is they made the implementation of the cuts, not until after the midterm elections. So it's going to have to be not you've lost your healthcare, but they are going to take your healthcare away, which still could work.

But it is it's a little bit more nuanced than like it's it's leaving next week. Yeah, it's it's all there's a there's a lot of work to do. And we'll get to some of the politics and communications around that in a minute. But I just when John and Tommy recorded on Monday, Bill had not passed the Senate yet. So they went through a similar process. They recorded, then we're up, the Senate goes into this process all Monday night.

Is it gonna pass? Is it gonna pass? Lisa Murkowski is holding out. In the end, Lisa Murkowski cuts a specific deal for her state that some people are calling the Kodiak Kickback, which I think is a great term. Did you see her defense of why she voted for it? And what did you think of it?

First of all, it was in the category and she's not the only one. There's a lot of people in Trump's cabinet and members of the Republican Party who do a similar defense, which is the like, I'm an observer of what's happening defense. Like I don't even know what's going on. I hope the House fixes it and makes it better. It's like you were the deciding vote in the Senate, ma'am. You know, I mean like you were the one who just allowed this to move forward. But it is almost like they're taking away their own power because they don't want to take responsibility. And that is so consistent. I found her defense to be so, it was agonizing.

I hope the House makes it better. Almost just offensive to people who she represents. I mean, really? You have the ability to vote which way you want. And I hope that Kodiak kickback, I don't know that it's not gonna solve all of the other things that are going to impact the people of your state.

It's just the idea, like she thinks her constituents are idiots. Yeah. Right. Because she can't possibly be as obtuse as she's acting here. Everyone knows that it's not coming back from the house. But if it were to come back from the house, it's not gonna be better on Medicaid.

No. Right? It's the opposite. It goes the opposite direction. The House would make it, if they did it, made it, if they made any changes at all, it would be to make the Medicaid provisions more onerous on the people of our state. And to probably, I would imagine,

since the state of Alaska has a grand total of one House member, they would have taken out the Kodiak kickback, because that would have offended people everywhere else. And it's just, you're exactly right. They are just people, they're everyone involved here is so unwilling to take responsibility for what they have just done to the people of their states or of their districts. It is. I know. Also, Lisa Murkowski, you've been in the Senate a long time.

The house is now run by little Mike Johnson, who's like, how high should I drum Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Green? Depending on the day. So like you think they're gonna make it better. I mean, she obviously doesn't it's it's it's again As you said treating people like they're stupid Do you think Democrats had enough to oppose this bill? I love what Hakeem Jeffries did. I think it's great I think it brought the vote at least into the light of day. Is that going to make the ultimate difference? Around midterm elections. No, but I think it was at least a smart tactical thing to do Leading up to it

You know, I'm not it's hard to envision now I want to hear what you think about this that they could have done anything to prevent Republicans from going the way of Trump and getting enough of them. But could they have put more pressure on in districts? Could they have spent more money in those places? Could they have done more targeted efforts? Probably. But again, I'm still not totally sure given how willing to cave and spineless this caucus is,

it would have changed the outcome just because of who the final votes were. But what do you think? Yeah, I think that's right. So the polling, in addition to showing this bill is incredibly unpopular, the polling shows that people have not heard a lot about it. Yeah. Right.

It just hasn't broken through to people. Yeah. So I think it's, while I am, as people who listen to this podcast know, I talk a lot about the media ecosystem and how challenging it is to get attention. Democrats obviously did not find a way in this very difficult environment

to get enough attention for this bill. Right? I don't know what, like, I don't have a great idea of what's the thing they could have done anytime in which Trump is bombing Iran and we have the tariffs and there are- Alligator Alcatraz, I mean, all the freaking things happening. He's sending the military to Los Angeles

in the middle of this. I just don't know what the silver bullet was, but if the measure is, did you focus the nation's attention on this terrible bill, they did not do that. I do not think that would have changed the legislative outcome here because the general view, how this has always been in politics is, you defeat a bill, when you're in the minority,

by making the bill so unpopular that the majority thinks it is not in their interest to pass it. This bill is so unpopular, it's the most unpopular piece of legislation in the history of modern polling, and they still voted for it anyway, in almost every single one of them voted for it. And so I don't know that they'd gotten

a whole bunch more attention. That would have stopped the bill. It may have made it easier to inform, to make more people aware of it, which would have driven their numbers down, which could help us in the midterms over time. But they just did not have a ton of tools to actually do it because there is now this,

the connection between public opinion and governmental action has been severed in the Republican party. What, I mean, I feel like we're having a crossover week, Dan. I'm really enjoying it. the connection between public opinion and governmental action has been severed in the Republican Party. I feel like we're having a crossover week, Dan. I'm really enjoying it. Because I think I asked you this question the other night, but now I'm curious what you think now that it's passed.

Because now it's passed, and I think they had a, although it's passed, I mean, Jeffrey's doing what he did was good. You've seen some sort of action and excitement among House members who really showed up. What do they do now? Like this weekend and the next couple of weeks, because the key thing to your point is it's what is it?

42, 43% only? No. And also in every poll you see, the more people learn about it, the more they hate it. So it's like, there is huge opportunity and, huge opportunity in informing people more, but what does that look like in this media environment? I think there's no easy answer. I want to stipulate that.

Like I am very sympathetic to all the people who have our former jobs working for all these members. Like this is just, it's not easy. We didn't have TikTok in our age. We didn't have TikTok. Communications directing. It just was a different world. Like we can actually get attention

by going to the traditional media. Now it's very hard to reach people. And the people who don't know about the bill are people who either passively consume news or actively avoid political news. And so reaching those people is very hard. I think what this means is that we're going to have to talk about it all the time.

It's even when we're not getting attention about it. We need people with big platforms to talk about it. We need the people within the party with the biggest platforms. And that includes our former boss, that includes all the people who have inkling of running for president in 2028. It includes the former vice president and our nominee

have to be out there talking about this. Those people have not really been on the playing field yet. And so our biggest megaphones have not been talking about it because we will win this battle from public opinion. The more people know about it. Because even just as it's gotten more attention over the last six weeks here,

as the house has said, and be considering it, it has gotten less popular. And one thing that I think should give everyone some confidence in the Navigator Research Polling among Republicans, among Republicans, as I said on your show the other night, the poll, the bill is 10 points less popular now than it was six weeks ago. And so there is like, if we talk about it,

we can actually do it, but it's gonna have to be more than, it's gonna, we're not gonna, there's not gonna be one single thing that does it. I think this is one of those times where it's just like, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, right into the campaign cycle. Yeah, and I think the, I mean, this reminds me a lot of 2018.

I don't know if it reminds you of 2018. Just because that was a campaign all about healthcare that cycle, that cycle. That was when Democrats won back a lot of seats, won back to have 40 something seats, I think. Pelosi became speaker again. And it was about Republicans' efforts to take things away. And now it's like they're actually taking things away.

But it was very focused, to your point. And again, the media environment was very different then, so it's more challenging, but more than, I looked this up the other day, more than 50% of the ads post-Labor Day were about healthcare. I mean, it wasn't about 20 topics, right? That's my point.

And we got a long time till the midterms, but it is sort of a modern day lesson in some ways. Yeah, it is. I agree with you. It's like, we were able to, with a measure of pretty significant discipline across the party, which is notable in a party that's not always disciplined,

to really focus on the idea that they were trying, that they cut taxes for rich people and were gonna try to pay for it by taking your healthcare away. Yeah. The slight difference here that I think makes this a little more challenging for us is because of the different media environment,

because people were so dialed into political news back then, everyone knew the Republicans tried to take the ACA away because of the famous moment with John McCain and the thumbs down. We still had the capacity for monocultural political moments back then. And so there was context. So you knew that, so when you saw an ad or heard a politician say they did it,

you actually knew it happened. And the hard part here is most people are not going to know that Republicans voted to take Medicaid away at the outset. So when you see the ad or you hear the politician who you're instantly skeptical of, if you don't have context for that attack, you're more likely to dismiss it, which is why the work now matters

for when the campaign kicks off. Like the goal should very clearly have you're more likely to dismiss it, which is why the work now matters for when the campaign kicks off. The goal should very clearly have a baseline measurement of what public awareness is of several provisions in the bill, including Medicaid cuts. And then where is it six months from now? Where is it eight months from now to actually know if we're making gains on that front?

I realize this is your show and not mine, but I do think you're one of the smartest people in politics. I'm gonna ask you one more question or we can talk about it. Since you framed it that way, yes, go ahead. Tell me, you better be smarter. I've built up what you were gonna say. The other thing that I think is challenging

in a different way now, and Trump has always been a liar, but now it is like everybody's lying, he's lying. Like that report the other day, a couple of days ago, about how he privately, in the caucus meeting, he said there are three things you can't touch, Social Security, someone or something else, and Medicaid. And it's like- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, yeah.

Medicare and Medicaid, yeah. And somebody in the room, like a Republican member, was like, we are touching Medicaid. And it's like, is he lying to himself? He's not a policy wonk, but like, you have to be basically dead not to see like, what the cuts are. It's like, how do you combat that?

Because it is pushing this complete gaslighting into the public, and that's what the Democrats are fighting against. This is the part where we're gonna need to use individual stories of people. Yeah. Right, because if there are, people are gonna be more likely to believe people

than politicians always. Like if I was working on campaigns for 2026, instead of shooting like slickly produced, well lit TV ads of people to camera talking about what these Medicaid cuts are made of them, I would have people recording videos, vertical videos on their phone. Yeah.

So it looks like a FaceTime call. Yeah. Because that's how people consume information now. And the more slickly produced something is, the more skeptical they are of it. Because they don't trust the news, they don't trust politicians. And so I think we're gonna need,

really need individual people because people don't really trust Donald Trump outside of his base. They don't really trust Democrats either, but they might trust someone from their community talking to it. So that's sort of, I think, how you would have to do it. RPS, as we used to call them.

RPS, where it always comes back to the real people. Real people. Real people. Paws of America is brought to you by Bombas. Summer's here and we're all chasing something. A break, a goal, a vibe. Let's not let bad socks and blisters ruin it. Oof, I got a blister the other day. Really sucked, didn't feel good. More and more Bombas.

Bombas. Bombas right now. I wasn't wearing any socks. Bombas make socks that keep up with whatever your summer looks like. I'm not wearing any socks. I'm wearing my socks. I'm wearing my socks. I'm wearing my socks. I'm wearing my socks. I'm day. Really sucked. Didn't feel good. I'm wearing bombas.

I'm wearing bombas right now. I wasn't wearing any socks. Bombas make socks that keep up with whatever your summer looks like and whether you're running a marathon or just a few errands. Seriously, you know that song that makes you want to go fast?

Bombas running socks are like that. They wick sweat, help you keep cool, and fight blisters. It's not just running. They make specialized pairs for hiking, tennis, golf, you name it. They even make socks that can make international flights bearable.

Yeah, we're talking Bamba's compression socks to help curb aches and keep those legs energized for the sightseeing ahead. Plus, with wedding season in full swing, you're going to want to see their ruffle and dress socks that'll make you the best dressed guest. Best of all, they don't just feel good, they do good. One purchase equals one donated to someone who needs it. You could also order Bamba's abroad. That's right along with the u.s They now ship internationally to over 200 countries. Sorry, North Korea. Maybe next time bombas are the best socks

I love them I if I were you I would chuck all your old gross hole filled socks and buy only bombas because they're great quality They're super comfortable and this got a good cause attached Head over to bombas.com and use code crooked for 20% off your first purchase. That's B-O-M-B-A-S.com. Code crooked at checkout, bombas.com, and use the code crooked. All right, let's shift gears a little bit

to what happens now. First and definitely most important, here's what the bill will actually do. And I wanna say this, because all of you are gonna be at 4th of July barbecues, you're gonna be with your friends and family. That is an opportunity for you to talk to them about what's in this bill.

So let's do this. 17 million people will lose health insurance over the next 10 years. More than 300 hospitals will be at serious risk of closing the doors entirely. More than 3 million people will lose their food assistance because of new paperwork requirements for SNAP benefits. Individual household energy bills will go up by $170 over the next 10 years. 3 million people will lose their food assistance because of new paperwork requirements for SNAP benefits.

Individual household energy bills will go up by $170 over the next 10 years, and more than 800,000 clean energy jobs will be lost by 2030. And all of that is to pay for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the ultra wealthy and large corporations. Jen, other than gas lighting, is there any way the Republicans could actually sell this piece of shit to their constituents? Well this sort of goes back to what we were just talking about. And you can kind of see a preview and it's good to know how they're going to sell it,

right? Or not sell it, how they're going to talk about it and defend it. I mean, they've clearly tried to lead with things like no tax on tips, right? Which is not a bad thing. I'm not against that. But as if that's the driving big thing out of this bill. And the challenge is they have continuously said there are no cuts to Medicaid here. And you have to explain, right? So it's like you have to explain that they're making it arduous

paperwork that people aren't going to be able to fill out and complete and that's going to knock a bunch of people off Medicaid. And there's this particular tax cut that helps people be able to pay for Obamacare. It's like, that's going to knock a bunch of people off Medicaid. And there's this particular tax cut that helps people be able to pay for Obamacare. It's like, that's a lot to explain. So I think people should assume that they're going to try to continue to gaslight people. And the Democrats need to make it as simple as possible. As you've done, I mean, we talked about this the other day.

It's like, it's got to be they're taking, they're getting rid of your healthcare and taking it away so that they can give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, right? It's like, if you're explaining Arjo's paperwork, you're losing, you should assume they are going to gaslight people and they will lie. And so it's like being prepared for that. Yeah, I do wanna, I started thinking about this

in a couple of ways. There's like one, what does a politician say on the stumper goes to the head? How do they say that? Then there is like, how do people who like regular activists, volunteers, people who just care about democracy talk about this stuff in conversations with their friends and family? Because my operating theory of politics is that those conversations are now more important. They're the forefront of political communications, right? What you and I used to do by like dialing up reporters and getting stories in the New York Times,

now what really happens is you tell people how to talk about these things and they go talk about them. And I just want to make one point on Medicaid. Yeah. This is where the gaslighting has been incredible. It's all about work requirements. And the idea that the Republicans are selling is that there are a bunch of able-bodied people who are sitting at home collecting Medicaid checks

and that is not true. But let me just explain how we know that's not true. No one gets a Medicaid check. Medicaid does not mail a check to you. If you are eligible for Medicaid, you go to the doctor, you go to the doctor, you go to the hospital, you get a cancer treatment, you see a doctor about a broken arm, whatever it is, Medicaid pays the bill. So the only way we're saving money on Medicaid is not to stop sending Medicaid checks to people who don't need them. It is people not getting healthcare, right? Or making these people pay for healthcare themselves, which many of them can't do

because they qualify for Medicaid. And so just, and like on the work requirement thing, like that is the one part in the polling that polls very well. Just we have to like one just factual point here is that the point of these, did this when Arkansas put work requirements on Medicaid employment did not go up right Ezra Klein and Matt Iglesias made this point on their podcast didn't prompt people to go back to work or whatever they were describing because there were

not people who were being lazy it doesn't solve your problem to not get a paycheck if you were just going to the doctor when you're sick. Like it doesn't, this is not that, like they're trying to treat this like Ronald Reagan's mythical, pretty racist idea of welfare queens just sitting at home, collecting welfare checks. That's not what this is.

It's about keeping people from going to healthcare. But in Arkansas, I think the number is 95% of the people who fell out of the program because of the work requirements already had jobs. They were paperworked out of their own healthcare because you have to fill it out once, you know, whatever, depending on the state, once a week, once a month, once every six months, and people, you know, they fill out the wrong form,

they don't fill it out on time and they lose their healthcare. So we're just key people for having healthcare. And I think just, if you're talking about Medicaid with people, people are gonna use this work requirement thing and I just want people to have the information to actually talk about it in a way that persuades people. for having healthcare. And I think just, if you're talking about Medicaid with people, people are gonna use this work requirement thing and I just want people to have the information to actually talk about it in a way that persuades people.

Absolutely. And I think the separation of how people talk about it with their friends and neighbors, which is the most important question versus what people say on the stump is a really important one. Georgia is another example of this, where they have put work requirements in. It did not work in the same way it didn't work in Arkansas. I don't even think

they're doing it anymore. Or it was like stopped by some courts. So, which tells you kind of a whole lot about the absurdity of using that as the baseline of your program. So. All right. Then, as if that wasn't enough, there's the question of deficits. Yeah, this is something Republicans love to say. They're very pro clutchy about it. Yes. Yes. It usually sounds something like this. Let's take a listen. The number one threat to our nation right now is our debt.

It's not China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. It's the debt. You know, America is still the greatest country in the world, but it won't be for much longer if we don't solve the debt problem we have. If we don't get our debt in order, we're less safe. The national security risk we have right now is our national debt. Our national debt is larger than the gross domestic product. We're going broke. And I think the

American people are looking for adult leadership. They're looking for leaders to come to Washington, roll up their sleeves, and stop spending money we don't have. That was that. So that's the soothing tones of Ted Cruz. Yes, exactly. Just always. Details on a chalkboard. Okay.

I mean, he is annoying in audio, he's annoying in video, he's annoying in real life, 2D, three day, in every way he's annoying. Most of these people you heard there just voted for a bill that Congress's own accounting pros say will add more than $3 trillion to the deficit for no reason. And they're all celebrating. Were these people full of shit then or are they full of shit now? I mean, both.

Yeah, both. It's always both. It's like, it's always both. You know, one of my colleagues, do you know who Steve Bannon is? He's very smart. I do. He writes a lot. He's great. He wrote this thing this morning that I appreciated, I think you would, from working in government so much. It's like, what are you trying to solve

when you do your signature? Most presidents are like, what problem can I solve? I ran on the problem to solve it, or I entered government and I inherited a problem. Barack Obama inherited a financial crisis. He also was concerned about the millions of people who didn't have healthcare. Let's go solve those problems, right?

And that is what he focused on, which is a very clear objective. Joe Biden, you know, he inherited COVID. I mean, it's not like Trump created it, but you know, it's like he was in the middle of a COVID crisis. It's like the most framing thing to me in some ways is like Trump is like, what problem should I solve? Rich people need more money. That's the problem he's solving.

All the things we're talking about in terms of the impacts, like the cuts to snap benefits, the cuts to Medicaid, these work, with these owners work requirements. That is all a sideshow in order to solve the problem that he has identified as the biggest problem for his signature legislation. And that is rich people need to pay lower in taxes. These people keep saying to your point of gaslighting

that the deficit is not gonna go up. Scott Besson has said that we're gonna grow our way out of this, right? Cause if the economy grows, you get more tax revenues and therefore the deficit comes down. But here's the thing, right? This is a very important point. One is BS.

It didn't work last time. Nope, or anytime. Republicans use an accounting trick that they love to use called dynamic scoring. This is getting very nerdy, which I know you appreciate. I love it. I love it. Dynamic scoring is one way in which the Congressional Budget Office, the bean counters, are supposed to factor future growth into it. I love it, Rick. Dynamic scoring is one way in which the Congressional Budget Office, the bean counters,

are supposed to factor future growth into it. So if something growth they project is going to grow the economy 3% or whatever else, they will then take the new additional tax revenue that will come from that and subtract out the cost of the bill, making it cheaper. Well, guess what? They finally got to use dynamic scoring here,

and it made the bill more expensive because they believe this bill, the CBO believes this bill is going to slow down growth because it's going to raise interest rates. And so is it like, it's going to make it worse. And just this idea, like I, like you and I were around when Washington DC lost its mind about debt and deficit and thought we were going to become Greece and all of this. And at the exact moment when the government was trying to, we're trying to get out of a financial crisis, we're trying to create jobs and all of a sudden we're worried about

deficits. That was a time when interest rates were close to zero. Now we're at a time of inflation, interest rates are high. So the cost of that three trillion dollars is massively more expensive than it was when Obama passed the Recovery Act, when Biden and Trump passed the COVID rescue bills. So this is gonna have real, real consequences. And so I guess my political question is,

do you think people care about deficits and should Democrats make this a part of their message? First of all, somewhere Brian Deese and Jason Furman's hearts are singing because of your explanation of that I will just say I don't think the Democrats should make this about deficits Every poll I've seen but you tell me polls are imperfect. I know does not rank that as the high thing I think it can distract from the other pieces, which is like, what are you taking away from people's lives? healthcare benefits nutrition things like that.

Where I do think there's maybe opportunity is like the hypocrisy piece, I suppose, right? Like this person, and there are certain districts where this may work, so maybe it's district to district, but that's my gut, but you may not agree with me, which is always interesting. I don't know. I want to ask this question because I am workshopping this in my head. No question taking food and healthcare away from people is top of the list. No question. There are voters who care about this. It came up, it would show up in polling in the 2024 election

in some way to perform. And so there's at least some segment of voters where we should be making that message to, right? And I think there was some benefit in branding the Republicans as fiscally irresponsible as we were able to do to the Republicans in the George W. Bush era when they were, because Clinton, I mean, now we're heading down memory lane

here, but Bill Clinton in the 90s actually got us out of deficit, got us in a surplus. George W. Bush then spent all of that surplus on a tax cut for the mostly benefit the rich and then on a really stupid war in Iraq for a very long time. And then we Obama inherited these huge deficits. So I think there's some benefit in branding the Republicans as such.

I also think that there's gonna be massive consequences down the line for debt this large, with interest rates this high. And it's important that people know who did this. So that's maybe more of a little bit of a long game because the next democratic president, hopefully in 2029, is going to inherit a gigantic shit show because of this.

No doubt. I wonder, because in the polling, is it who cares about it most? Is it age specific? Is it like independence or is it geographic? Or do you, I don't know, I'm just curious. I'd have to dig deeper. It has traditionally been

self-identifying moderates and independents. And a lot of times it comes from like a pox on both your house's views of the parties. Whereas they spend money, you know. We have gotten a lot of those former deficit voters just because the, I think they were probably more traditional college educated suburban voters who've come to our coalition, but there are some.

And I just think it's one thing we should just like think about. There's like a fine line, like you don't wanna embrace the austerity politics that we don't like so that when we actually get an office and because we do things responsibly, right? Inflation Reduction Act paid for, the Affordable Care Act paid for, right?

But you don't want to like, people lost their minds about this before and we don't lose their minds again. But I do think Republicans have to own this. And I think there's probably some value in that. But like I said, I'm workshopping it. No, no, no, it's interesting. I mean, we'll also see because it's like Abigail Spanberger, who's more on the moderate side, running

to be governor of my state. There's a Michigan primary and the Democratic set. Like some of these things are going to be workshopped also in these races, which will be kind of interesting to see too. And I'm also wondering about if there are things like you're saddling your grandchildren with debt. You know, it's like who are the, so I don't know. It's, I'm interested in the outcome of your workshop. I don't know if there's going to be a podcast on that, but we'll listen.

If there's a silver lining here, it's that retaking the house, which already seemed to be somewhat in sight now seems even more plausible. We've both worked in wave elections that tend to be about one really big issue driving public opinion around the country. You mentioned what 2018 was about, Republicans took the house in 2010 around the Affordable Care Act. When you were at the

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, it was about the Iraq War. Do you think this bill could qualify as one of those issues that drives the election? Yeah, I do. Because I think that if you look district by district, and I know there's lots of data and lots of groups are wisely pulling this data out there,

you can tell the story of the direct impact. I mean, David Aldeo has like the highest percentage of Medicaid recipients in the country, right? That alone is an argument in that district. And there are ways to, and this is like the D triple C days, it's like make it very localized and specific and about real people and the people it's impacting.

And it's about taking something away. So I think it could be, I mean, it is 18, are we 18 months, six, I don't know. I'm not a mathematician. We're more than a year. We're more than a year. I'm not a math expert, but like, we're more than a year, almost a year and a half away.

Lots of things could happen, but I still think this could be the like defining topic that is hammered home in a lot of these districts, at least in putting challengers on the map in some ways too, who are running against people who voted for this, but that's just my gut. Yeah, I think this should make winning the house easier. It shouldn't even make winning the Senate plausible

because Republicans just, they launched a full frontal assault on the core of their coalition, right? This is the working class voters who are gonna suffer from this bill are their voters now, right? The P and it's not just, this is not, there's a lot of like, when are the,

you know, you see this a lot of thing you see on, you know, Twitter or blue sky from Democrats like, when are the MAGA base gonna realize that Trump is fucking him over? It's like, no, they're the MAGA base, right? They're for him for a reason. They're buying his merch. They're buying alligator Alcatraz hats.

I don't know. They're not gonna take off their alligator Alcatraz hat, their Gulf of America hat. But the people who are really like, and they will suffer in this and they will probably find a way to rationalize it because maybe they care about something more than their own personal financial interest, right? Maybe it's abortion or just general, they fetishize fascism.

I don't know, whatever it is that gets them there. But the people who moved from like Biden to Trump from 20 and 2024, or the people who did not vote in 2020, who voted for Trump in 2024, those people are more working class, more or less likely to go to college, more likely to be black and Latino than your average voter. They're more likely to be younger. And all the people are the ones who are gonna suffer most.

And so if we can actually communicate with those people, which is one of the great challenges as we've talked about throughout this podcast, like it could be something that not just delivers to house in my view, it could actually fundamentally be a political realignment. No party has ever done to their voters what the Republicans have just done to their voters.

Like this has never happened before. No. It's an unprecedented moment in American politics and could have unprecedented consequences. Yeah, politically brutal vote. And even as there is a delay in the implementation of some aspects of the Medicaid portions of the bill, we're already seeing there was a story today

about a rural hospital in Nebraska that's closing. And we will see that. And those type of outcomes, the stories have to be told as to why it's closing and why people have to drive three hours and why people can't get cancer treatments or treatments for all sorts of things. But we'll start to see those. And those are things that do hit home.

Yeah, we have to make Republicans own everything that is wrong with healthcare system here. Much, I think a lot about when we were in the White House in 2009 and people, like this is the thing that was showing up in focus groups all the time, is people were so mad at Barack Obama for raising their taxes. And it's like, no, we gave you a tax cut, right?

We know we cut your taxes, but they were getting their taxes raised by their state and their county and their city to meet budget shortfalls. And they've just assumed that they were blaming us for it. So when people aren't getting the, when the hospital closes, the people aren't getting the services they want,

when they should own healthcare inflation, right? That this is gonna raise costs. They should own, frankly, all inflation at this point. That's on us to do it. But if we can do that, then I do think it can. It will obviate the challenge of the fact that they've delayed these. Yes. Yeah, I agree. I agree. The flip side of this anti-incumbent wave, if it does materialize, is it can sometimes feel like

all you have to do is get out and vote and it'll take care of itself. But given that many of us live in safe districts, we're going to need to be really focused on particularly flippable seats. The good news is we're gonna have a really powerful story to tell in those places, as you and I have been talking about, Jen. I'm just gonna give some examples from our friends here at Vote Save America to show how we can win the house. I'm gonna start with Gabe Evans in Colorado 8.

He represents the Northern Denver suburbs. He won by less than 2,500 votes last time. And under this bill that he just voted for, nearly 30,000 people in his district will lose access to healthcare and food assistance, and nearly 1,000 energy jobs could be lost. Marionette Miller Meeks in the first district of Iowa, she represents Iowa City,

and she won by a grand total of 799 votes. She has been so bombarded by people that she turned off her social media tags and comments. And in her district, nearly 25,000 people lose access to health care. Nearly 29,000 people will lose access to food assistance and 1300 energy jobs could be lost. And there's one rural hospital in danger of closing. All because of that. Then David Valdello, as you mentioned in California 22, he represents Bakersfield. He lost his seat in 2018 after voting for Trump's first tax cuts, but then won it back

in 2020. 65,000 people in his district could lose access to their healthcare. 60,000 households could lose access to food assistance and 3,612 energy jobs could be lost. He just fucked over his district in an truly epic way. And so if you people listening here want wanna learn more about who we can target and what we can do to take the house back, go to votesaveamerica.com.

Pond Save America is brought to you by Zbiotics Pre-Alcohol. Let's face it, after a night with drinks, I don't bounce back the next day like I used to. I have to make a choice. I can either have a great night or a great next day. That is until I found pre-alcohol. Zebiotics, pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct and not dehydration that's to blame for rough days after drinking.

Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly and feel your best tomorrow. This ad is reminding me that I'm out of Z-Biotics and that gives me enormous anxiety because I basically won't touch a drink without having a zebiotics first because for me It is a miraculous Elixir elixir tonic potion It's voodoo. It's a spell. I don't know whatever it does. It works for me

I feel exponentially better when I have Zebiotics before I have any alcohol and you will too summer is here Which means more opportunities to celebrate the warm weather before that backyard barbecue brew, glass of Pino watching the sunset at the beach or cocktail by the campfire. Don't forget your Zbiotics pre-alcoholic drink. Drink one before drinking and wake up feeling great and ready to take on the next day and all that summer has to offer. Go to zbiotics.com slash crooked to learn more and get 15% off your first

order when you use the code crooked at checkout. Zbiotics is backed with a 100% money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember, head to zbiotics.com slash Crooked and use the code Crooked at checkout for 15% off. All right, Jen, one last topic on the politics here. Elon Musk is still seriously on one about the bill. He wrote on the social media site that he owns that every Republican who campaign on cutting spending and then voted for this bill, quote,

will lose their primary next year if it's the last thing I do on earth. He also wrote, if this insane spending bill passes, the American party will be formed the next day. Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat Republican unit party so that people can actually have a voice. Do you think the American party is a thing at all

and should we give them until Monday since Friday is a federal holiday? You know, we're graceful people, so we'll give them until Monday, or I will. I don't know about you. Look, here's the thing. The guy has a lot of money. He knows nothing about politics.

See Wisconsin State Senate race where he wore a cheese hat and threw millions of, tens of millions of dollars at it and the liberal justice won. People will probably- And they struck down the abortion ban in Wisconsin. And elections have consequences.

Like there's an example. It is, but in terms of the party creation, as you know very well, it's very hard to create a third party or to run on third party. I mean, think about like the libertarians or the Green Party. They're on a never ending battle to get on state ballots because state laws are all different, right?

So he'd have to not just have money. It's like a full time plus job to try and attempt to do something like that in terms of creating another party. I think you also have to get, I looked this up today because I like to prep, is like an advisory opinion. You have to get an advisory opinion from the FEC to like, my point is it's really hard to actually do that. The other thing this reminds me of is God bless the Howard Schultz period of time when everybody was like,

we need somebody who like, we need a party and a person who's not from either side, who can just speak to the middle. People say that what, every cycle, wasn't there like a Joe Manchin theory at some point? Yes, yes. 2020. Anyway, that never works. There is not actually appetite for that.

Elon Musk is certainly not that. Um, but it reminds me a little bit of that. We're like, maybe the talking point sounds good on paper for a second until you see Elon Musk is certainly not that, but it reminds me a little bit of that. We're like, maybe the talking point sounds good on paper for a second until you see Elon Musk's name attached, but also it's really hard to start a third party and do it actually.

Elon Musk is more likely to colonize Mars than he is to build a viable third party in this country. Should we root for that? I mean, at least for him colonizing Mars. Have at it, sorry Mars. I mean, it's on his colonizing Mars. Have at it, sorry Mars. You can have him. It's on his agenda, yes. You can have him, hopefully he goes.

Obviously the world's richest man could have a huge impact in congressional primaries. Do you think he actually does anything here? It's what's so hard to know. And so my theory, which is quite dark and conspiratorial, but here we are, is that Elon Musk kind of already has what he wants. I mean, he has all this data, right?

There's been tons of stories about this. This is what he wanted from Doge. Doge still has access to all this data. It's data on private sector companies. It's data on competitors. It's data on the American people. So I'm not totally clear if he's just like fucking with Trump, right? And maybe he just like throws in some money and a couple of races to piss Trump

off if he's still mad. Maybe that's my, where my gut is. I just, it's hard for me to envision him giving huge amounts of money to like 50 congressional candidates, but we'll see. Yeah, he would need to maximize his impact. He would need to create a super path to spend the money. Cause if he, he can only give, you know,

a couple thousand dollars to each primary candidate. And so if he like, there are lots of rich people who could do that, like ultra wealthy people could do it to every candidate you care about. So being the world's richest man doesn't really help that way, you need a super PAC. And who's gonna run that super PAC, right? Is there, what happened last time was he wanted

to elect Trump, so a bunch of pro-Trump operatives went to him and found a very easy way to separate him from his money. Who's gonna do that this time? It seems like he wants the attention more than he wants to do the actual work. So, I mean, if he wants to beat some of these people and make them lose their primaries, but who's running against them too, right?

I don't know. Who's the moderate, because we're talking about beating them. Who's the pro-doge Republican who's running in Wisconsin three or whatever else. I have, right. This is like, I don't know who that vote, like who is that candidate?

And like who is the pool of people who are like, I want Elon Musk to really take more control here. I don't know where that exists. So. All right. Let's talk about immigration quickly before we go. Trump took a trip to Florida for a photo op at the so-called Alligator Alcatraz,

the new migrants detention center built by Rhonda Santens in the middle of the Everglades as basically a political stunt. The discussion yielded by the visit was about as high-minded as you'd expect. Let's take a listen. We have a lot of bodyguards and a lot of cops that are in the form of alligators.

You don't have to pay them so much. We're going to teach them how to run away from an alligator, okay, if they escape prison. How to run away. Don't run in a straight line. Run like this. And you know what? Your chances go up about 1%. I think our viewers at home should know that this is air-conditioned facility,

so if any of the news claims are keeping them out in the hot, humid South Florida, that is wrong. It's probably 60 degrees in there. Or 72. Biden wanted me in here. He wanted me, it didn't work out that way, but he wanted me in here. It's a lot to unpack there. Alligators make good cops. Yes. Is any of this helpful beyond Trump's base, do you think?

Well, here's what's kind of interesting over the last six months, to me at least, where like Trump was, um, you know, winning on the border argument, right? And keeping us safer on the border. And then when you started to see what he was doing under the guise of insane lunatic, Stephen Miller and his 3000 a day goal of arresting migrants and kidnapping them and kicking them out of the country. People don't like the individual things, right?

So it's like, including deporting people, including Kilmar Obreggo Garcia, including pulling people off the streets. It's like, this is not what we want the border to be safe, but we don't like all of these things. And so Alligator Alcatraz, I don't know, I guess maybe his base finds it funny. Maybe his base finds it to be a continuation of him. Like I'm being tough on the border. I'm sending people here.

It's hard for me to envision it being appealing beyond that. I mean, it's like the cruelty is the point, the joking about putting people in a place that's surrounded by snakes and alligators. What struck me about this is like, it's very much in the vein of I'm a strong man, I'm so powerful, I'm going to use the military to go in LA. And look, I have all these dangerous reptiles,

I mean, it's so bizarre, but all these dangerous reptiles who are going to prevent migrants from being free. And look, I have all these dangerous reptiles, and it's so bizarre, but all these dangerous reptiles who are gonna prevent migrants from being free. And meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of people that they are arresting, pulling off the streets, pulling from their kids, pulling from their parents are people who don't have any criminal record, right?

It's like, so it's this language that doesn't even match. They're not going after the people with criminal records because they're harder to get. So to me, it's just all of this, I'm gonna like beat my chest strongman tactics that he like resorts to all the time. Yeah, I don't think there's probably a ton of strategy or I think he probably thought the idea of,

like he's obviously obsessed with Alcatraz. He thought the idea of alligators eating, escaping migrants, it probably seems appealing to him in some way. Like the impact of al-catra, of alligators eating, escaping migrants probably seems appealing to him in some way. Like the impact of it, I don't think it has much of a political impact. You're exactly right. His numbers of immigration have gone down.

They're now almost as bad as his numbers on the economy, which is like a real problem for him over the medium term at least. What it does is it soaks up attention, right? Like this is the kind of thing. This is what Rhonda Santos is frankly very good at before he embarrassed himself on the national stage from the Republican primary. And Trump is doing kind of thing, this is what Rhonda Santos was frankly very good at before he embarrassed himself on the national stage for the Republican primary.

And Trump is doing the same thing, which is just like, I've done something that's gonna dominate attention for a day, probably takes attention away from the bill that was passing at the time. You know, you could just, like these are the kind of clips that go viral on TikTok, right? Both from people loving Trump for doing it, always in this cool and funny, and people making fun

of him for doing it or hating on him for doing it. And so it kind and funny and people making fun of him for doing it or hating on him for doing it. And so it kind of soaks up attention, but it's like, I mean, it's gross and disgusting and cruel and everything else, but I think the political impact of it's probably pretty limited. Well, he went there also the day after the Senate

passed the big ugly bill. So like that is telling, he wanted to talk about alligator Alcatraz more than he wanted to talk about his signature legislation. Yeah, cause like in a different world, a president would go do an event somewhere to, you know, build momentum on the passage of your signature legislation to get it through the house.

And instead he went to a place to talk about how to run into zigzag to avoid getting eaten by an alligator. Something I was taught at an early age when I went to visit my grandmother in Florida. Oh, tough lesson for a little kid. There weren't a lot of alligators by her apartment complex, but I do remember my grandfather teaching me that.

Dan from Delaware, living the tough life as a child. There you go. Yes, yes, in the mean streets of Boca Raton where my grandparents retired too. Exactly. Okay, one potential inmate and alligator alcatraz is Zoran Mondami, New York City's Democratic candidate for mayor.

Trump this week threatened to denaturalize and deport Mondami if he defies ICE. Mondami then fired back on Wednesday. Here's a sampling of that back and forth. We'll have to arrest him. Look, we don't need a communist in this country. But if we have one, I'm going to be watching over him very carefully on behalf of the nation.

A lot of people saying he's here illegally. He's, you know, we're going to look at everything. Donald Trump said that I should be arrested. He said that I should be deported. He said that I should be denaturalized, less so because of who I am, because of where I come from, because of how I look or how I speak, and more so because he wants to distract from what I fight for. I fight for working people.

I fight for the very people that have been priced out of this city, and I fight for the same people that he said he was fighting for. It is easier for him to fan the flames of division than to acknowledge the ways in which he has betrayed those working class Americans. What did you make of his response?

Very good. I mean, he is an incredibly gifted communicator, Mom Donnie is, which is kind of stating the obvious. What was very smart about it is he didn't take the bait and he called it out for what it is. And that is exactly the right tactic with a bully. That's what people should do if, I mean, I will say from personal experience

being attacked by Vladimir Putin, you gotta punch him back and call him out for why they're calling you out. And that's exactly what he did. The Republican Party, it's a state the obvious, I know you guys have talked about this, they wanna make Mom Donnie out to be the symbol, right, of every Democratic candidate.

He's an insanely gifted communicator, a huge star. His politics would not work in every district in the country just to state the obvious, right? He's not trying to say that, nor is that what he's conveying. But that's what they're trying to do. And I also am betting Trump, I mean, Trump wants Eric Adams to remain mayor.

So there's like lots going on here, but include, and obviously all of that is like gross dog whistle stuff. But I think that's a good model for when you're attacked by Trump, call him out for why he's attacking. He attacks people he thinks are effective. That's why he attacks them, right? He doesn't go after, I mean, sometimes weak people

in the primary, but he attacks people that he sees as kind of a, he's seen them around too much. But yeah, I thought it was really good. What about you? Yeah, I think what I took really was interesting is, Trump is obviously attacking him for who he is, right? Like Trump cannot fathom the idea that a 33 year old immigrant could be the mayor

of his home city. Like that something must be awry, illegal, rigged. It's the same reason he had to believe that Barack Obama had cheated on his birth certificate. Right, was actually a Muslim from Kenya. Yeah, you can't like, it's like, his brain cannot factor the idea that someone like Zoran Mondani could beat the pants off

of someone like Andrew Cuomo in a Democratic primary in New York City. Like it doesn't work that way. So it has to be something else. So it's all gross dog whistle stuff. What is this interesting is just, and this goes to, I think his talent is a communicator, and it really is, I think, a model

for progressive politicians, is he is laser focused on his working class advocacy and his popular positions. Right, because it is what he did was racist, what he did was jingoistic, what he did was offensive, but he took it and he pivoted right to the idea that he's attacking him because he's, because Andami is tough on Trump's friends,

the billionaires that he, like it's just, it's just the way that he, like, I don't, I'm not saying I know what the right answer here is, because people can handle this differently, but it's notable to me that Mondani, who's like, everyone's talking about how he can't run all these places. He's a prime for the Democrats, how he specifically avoided identitarian politics

and went right to his populist economic argument, which is what every centrist democratic consultant would argue you do, right? And he did it, I thought he did very well. Like he's clearly very, very talented. And I was like, I took note of how he handled it. And I think other people could learn some lessons from it. I think it's a model for anyone,

no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. You can do that if you're running against Dave Valdaya or any of those other people I mentioned, those exact words. Yeah, exactly. And that being laser focused on working people and how you talk about it. And yeah, I think that was a very good,

and what I mean, as you know, is not the working people message is exactly what the message for me. It's mainly being a member of the Democratic Socialist of America. Right, it's like, and he's a proud member and that works for him. And obviously he just crushed Andrew Cuomo. It's like, but he's not, if you ask him, and I've asked him, it's like, and he's a proud member and that works for him. And obviously he just crushed Andrew Cuomo.

It's like, but he's not, if you ask him, and I've asked him, it's not like he's saying everybody should run as a democratic socialist. That's not what he's saying. So my point is he's not saying that, but the Republican party is trying to make that be the case or that be the perception. But yeah, I think that was a very well handled response.

Okay, one last thing before I let you go, Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, announced on Tuesday that it will pay $16 million to settle Trump's lawsuit over the 60 minutes Kamala Harris interview. Payment will cover Trump's legal fees and the balance will go to his Presidential Library Foundation,

which I'm sure will be used to buy books. Obviously. Yes, as a reminder, this is a totally frivolous lawsuit over a segment of an interview that which I'm sure will be used to buy books. Obviously. And other things like that. Yes. Gold one. As a reminder, this is a totally frivolous lawsuit over a segment of an interview that Donald Trump wasn't even a part of, but Paramount has a big merger in front of Trump's goons and seemed to think it had to pay up.

Jen, just as the TV professional on this podcast, can you explain what 60 Minutes did and didn't do with the Harris interview? So correct me here if I get any aspect wrong. Basically, they did a lengthy interview with her, and they edited down the interview, and they used a portion of the interview, a smaller portion, that they aired on a different CBS show.

And the issue, they argue, is that they made that edit down, made Harris look better. I think I'm getting this right here, if I remember all the details. Now it prompted through this process, CBS to release the full transcript and everything from the interview, which actually when you look at the full context

of the interview, she actually looks better in the full context. She doesn't look amazing in either one, but like she looks better in the full context than she does in look amazing in either one, but like she looks better in the full context than she does in the edited down. That's the kind of the irony here, but that's what it is. Now you and I have been a part of, I mean, how many interviews did Barack Obama do

with Steve Kraft? I mean, so many, at least once a year for 10 years. I mean, I don't even know. And they were like often hours long and they would be edited down. This is kind of the normal course of business. And, you know, Republican candidates would do hours long interviews with them.

McCain probably did, Romney, all these people. It's 60 minutes. They only have so many minutes, even in the 60 minutes. So it's pretty standard fare for networks to do when they interview any big guests, any taped interview, you edit it down. Yeah, it's like, this is entirely from this lawsuit that every single legal person on either side of the aisle

thought CBS would easily win if they had gone to trial. It probably would have never gone to trial, it would have been tossed out by a judge. But because they truly, like this is just, can't emphasize this enough, they have a merger before the FCC. The FCC run by Trump's goons has to approve that merger. The owners of Paramount will get billions of dollars

if that merger goes through. If it doesn't, they're actually in huge financial trouble because a whole bunch of pending debt that the Paramount corporation has. And they feel like they have to pay tribute to Trump. They have to give him $16 million to have a pretty standard merger approved. And this comes on top of ABC paying a similar amount

of money, the Walt Disney Corporation paying a similar amount of money to settle a lawsuit involving George Stephanopoulos. And we're really sort of, I guess my question for you based on this, how discouraging and dangerous do you think this settlement is? Well first of all, the message it sends to people like Trump and his lawyer goon squad is not it's over and we've settled it.

It's you're a good target to watch what other interviews people are doing and see if we can target more. I mean, this is what you see with law firms or with universities. They don't stop when you acquiesce. They keep going because they know you're a target for it. This is like, you know, so there's that. What concerns me is, and you and I worked in media for so long, it's like, is that you never know

what's happening in the editorial meetings, right? And while the editorial meetings are not linked to the legal judgments, right? But what you don't know is like what edict is coming down from any of these places to the editorial leadership about how they're supposed to be covering the Trump administration. And it's not to suggest, it's not as obvious as go on TV

and say Trump is great and the best president in history. Like that wouldn't be authentic. It's like what stories are killed, right? What stories aren't pursued? I mean, remember Bill Owens from 60 Minutes also resigned like just this year. What stories were killed there? What were the frustrations about? So the piece that concerns me is the obedience in advance that you don't see, right? And most people don't know like you and I do, that that's where the discussions are had. I mean, questions that are asked

in the White House briefing room often come out from down from like corporate news people in different places. They're not always invented by the reporters in the room. Sometimes they are, you know? And that's the piece that's concerning. What decisions are made about what stories get to be on the air and how Trump is covered.

And that no one will ever be able to see. It's disproving a negative. So that's the piece that I think about a lot. Yeah, and if you're someone who doesn't really care about media or thinks that traditional media or corporate media is doomed, there is one other consequence of this, which is Paramount also owns Comedy Central,

and they are reportedly delaying the latest season of South Park because they're afraid it's going to make fun of Trump and upset them and upend the merger. So it's like we're even allowing Trump to make programming decisions at Comedy Central for fear of upsetting our mad king. So I've just leave people with that notion. Yeah. Okay. When we come back from the break, you'll hear my conversation with Congressman Ro Khanna

about what Democrats should be doing in this moment. But two quick things before we do that. If you haven't subscribed to Friends of the Pod yet, please consider doing so. Your support means more to us than ever. You'll get ad free shows and access to exclusive series like my own show, Polar Coaster. We've got a new episode out this week that goes deep on the polling around this terrible bill and key takeaways from Zoran Mondani's win in New York City. Subscribe to Friends of the Pod at crooked.com slash friends or directly on Apple podcasts.

Another great way to support our mission here at Crooked is to buy some of our great merch featured right now are our America While Supplies Last T-shirts and koozies. A sentence I never thought someone could force me to say into a microphone, but here we are Check out the whole collection at crooked comm slash shop Paz America is brought to you by quince if you're not into chasing trends, which I'm not But you're in stuff that fits right feels good good, and actually lasts, and you're gonna love Quince. Their lightweight layers and high-quality staples will become your everyday essentials. Quince has the kind of stuff that you'll actually wear on repeat, like breathable flow-knit

polos, crisp cotton shirts, and comfortable lightweight pants that somehow work for both weekend hangs and dressed-up dinners. The best part? Everything with Quince is half the cost of similar brands. By working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middlemen, Quince gives you luxury pieces without the markups. And Quince only works with factories

that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing practices in premium fabrics and finishes. I've bought a ton of stuff from Quince now. A bunch of workout shirts, a bunch of socks, a bunch of kind of basic t-shirts and stuff. Great sheets from Quince. You want to get some sheets? Yeah, and I was going on a trip, I went and looked, they had a great kind of basic t-shirts and stuff. Great sheets from Quince. Can we get some sheets? Yeah, and I was going on a trip.

I went and looked. They had a great kind of bag, not like a fanny pack. Fanny pack adjacent. I can't remember what it was called. Sounds like they have a lot of great options. Lot of great options. Different categories. Just get something.

Go to quince.com. You're gonna love all the things you can get there. Stick to the staples at last. With elevated essentials from Quince, go to- The term I was searching for was belt bag. Belt bag. Belt bag. If you want a a belt bag go to quince.com slash crooked for free shipping on your order and 365 days return that's q u i n c e dot com slash crooked to get free shipping and 365 day returns quince.com slash crooked

for all your belt bag needs joining me today to talk about the shit show in the house over the last 24 hours for all your belt bag needs. Joining me today to talk about the shit show in the house over the last 24 hours is Congressman Ro Khanna. Congressman, welcome back to Pots of America. Well, Dan, that's a perfect summary. As I flew back Tuesday night and just watched one by one Republicans cave in the middle of the night. Predictable, but still sad to see.

Yeah, did you, as you're watching it happen, did you have hope Republicans cave in the middle of the night. Uh, predictable, but still sad to see. Yeah. Did you, as you were watching it happen, did you have hope that they might hold or did you know they were always going to fold? Were you watching the arms get twisted? Well, it'll set the scene for us a little bit. Well, you know, I figured they would fold. I've been through the story too many times and the fear is palpable. I mean, look, I, uh, had done a war powers resolution with Thomas Massey to keep us out of war

in Iran. And Massey was targeted by not just Donald Trump's tweets, his top lieutenants, the people who won the presidency. Donald Trump says, I'm going to put you in charge to take out Massey. And that was a chilling signal, not just to Massey, but to every Republican. I mean, they are in world fair, uh, being singled out by, by Donald Trump. But you know, when we, uh, had the boat Tuesday or two nights ago or so, I guess, uh, last night, it was, uh, it's been a long, long, long sleeper.

Well, you'll have to try to get, of course we understood, uh, 10 PM. back here. 10 PM and there were about 10 Republicans short. I thought, okay, it's going to take them a couple days, but they just kept that vote open all night. You heard about the different deals they were making with Republicans promising them that they would get further cuts in a future reconciliation bill promising Trump would do some executive order. And one by one, you saw them basically folding and the terrible result we saw this morning. It's like we have come to, you know, like I thought they were going to fold. We've seen this.

We've seen this play several times now in the Trump era. But when you like step back from back from the insanity of this moment, what they just did really seems totally off the wall. You could give one and two points. One, these members said 24 hours earlier, they would never vote for this bill. They declare, unless I get changes, I'm never voting for it.

They called it a piece of shit. They were all over it. They got no changes, right? It's the exact same tax that came back from the Senate. And they all voted for it. And on top of that, all of the polling says the bill's incredibly unpopular. Every person seems to imagine this is gonna make it harder

for them to win, to keep power. And yet they did it anyway. In your conversations with problems, you're watching them, do they believe watching them, do they believe their own bullshit here or is this really just sort of fear of Trump? It's fear of Trump. They're in the Tom Tillis situation, right? Tillis knows that he can't win the general election voting for these Medicaid cuts.

And so he's holding out, holding out, holding out and probably positioning himself better for the general election. And then Donald Trump basically tweets out that I'm going to support a primary challenge. And within 12 hours, Tillis says, I'm not running for reelection. I mean, you got to look, if Barack Obama tomorrow decided to endorse a primary challenge against me, I wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't quit. I mean, it's quit. It's unbelievable. It's like Trump doesn't support you and your career is literally done. And so I think these folks knew that they were between a rock and a hard place.

If they voted no, they were done. And so they're rolling the dice and they're counting on basically being able to mislead the American people. They pushed out a lot of these cuts to 2020, late 2026, 2027, and they're hoping they can skate by before the cuts really impact people. Now I don't think that'll be the case. States will do anticipatory cuts,

but that's the bet they're making. You know, we've talked a lot on this podcast over the last several weeks about the cuts to Medicaid, the cuts to SNAP, the tax cuts for the rich, the clean energy jobs that will be lost, but I feel like every hour I'm learning about another terrible thing in this bill. Somehow I did not realize that they eliminate direct file for the IRS in here, making it so much harder for people to file their own taxes. What are some of the other things in this bill? You think people should know about that may not have broken through to people Well, they make it very hard for people who are paying back their student loans to get loan forgiveness

You know their programs where if you make every monthly payment for 25 years The government will forgive those loans They take that away. If you're a doctor or a nurse who's doing public service, there are programs that will help you with student loans. They take that away. If you come on hard times and you can't make a payment, there are things that were there to help you. They take that away. They got funding for university science research in there. They are, of course, the most cruel parts are taking away the health care and the food assistance.

But just to put this in perspective, then, look, George W. Bush's tax cuts were awful and skewed towards the very rich, but everyone got something. And Trump's first tax cuts were also skewed for the very rich, but everyone got something. You were poor working class, you got something. And Trump's first tax cuts were also skewed for the very rich, but everyone got something. You were poor working class, you got something. This is the first time in modern history where while the rich are actually getting tax breaks, the working class and the poor are getting screwed, like they're being worse off. They're losing money while the rich are getting more money. And it's literally unbelievable that they all voted for this,

especially because the candid truth is more of the working class move to their direction, and they're shafting them to help the people in my district. I mean, it's just when you look at the distribution of what this bill is going to do, it's shocking. Yeah, it's really interesting because this is the pipe dream. This is what Paul Ryan used to wake up every morning to do, which was to cut taxes for the rich

and pay for it by gutting Medicaid and his mind else be Social Security Medicare. But back then, from basically the days of Reagan through the Obama years, when the Republicans pushed that policy, the tax cuts were benefiting their voters and the cuts to social services were hurting democratic voters. That's now no longer the case.

Trump actually won voters who made under $50,000. So Kamala Harris won the voters made over a hundred thousand. It just seems just wild to me. It's like they have not updated their policy agenda to reflect the shift in their political coalition. It's like they're waging war on their own voters. They literally are. I mean, some of these districts, like Valdello's district,

over 100,000 people, 150,000 people on Medicaid, you would think he wouldn't won a trillion dollars a cut to Medicaid, and yet he's voting for those cuts to benefit districts like mine, which has a lot of the billionaires. And I think it's two things. One, they're counting on being able to lie, basically controlling the media narrative to say, oh, nothing changed.

They're the Republicans. The Democrats are just exaggerating people being hurt, and they're basically counting on that tactic. And then two, they haven't calibrated the true populism. I mean, some of the people in their party actually like Josh Hawley have, or at least tactic, and then too, they haven't calibrated the true populism. Some of the people in their party actually like Josh Hawley have, or at least understand why this is bad. It's only voted for it.

Why this is bad. He's still voted for it, but at least he tried trying to get the child tax rate more. At least he gets that this is not smart politics, but a lot of the others, they're not even making an effort to do it, and they hope sheer rhetoric can defy the reality of the others, they're not even making an effort to do it. And they hope sheer rhetoric can defy the reality of the policy. That leads me to sort of the next question here, which is, all the polls show this is very unpopular, but they also show that the American people have heard very little about it.

There was a poll from Priders USA, the Democratic Super PAC, which shows that a tiny fraction of people could even cite the fact that there were Medicaid cuts in this bill. Why do you think it's been so hard to get people's attention on something as important as this piece of legislation? I think just we're in a short attention environment. There's so much going on. There was the bombing in Iran. There's Trump's daily assault on immigrants. There's the issues that people are dealing with in their daily lives, and they just look at the headlines on this stuff and they don't really know how it's impacting them. And I think that's going to be the challenge for the Democratic Party. We've got two tasks. We've got to show how

this is actually taking away health care for folks and food assistance for folks. I have real people being telling these stories and be specific of what it's doing now and the next year so that people know before the elections that here's actually what's happening because they're going to keep saying, you're exaggerating, you're lying, you know, see, it wasn't nearly as bad. And they've of course tried to stack most of the cuts towards the end of the, uh, end of the decade. And I guess that sort of gets to my question is how they've, of course, tried to stack most of the cuts towards the end of the decade. And that sort of gets to my question,

is how do we, we're heading in these midterms. This should be the central issue of the midterms. But the cuts, the damage to most people is theoretical at that point. Have you thought about how we make that case in the context of midterms to make sure that people like Dave Valdeo pay for their sins here? So we're just having this conversation, I don't mind revealing it, and it's among the

California delegation on tax. And I said, look, we've got to have someone do the analysis of what cuts are going to happen starting tomorrow up through 2026 by states in anticipation of the freeze on the provider tax, in anticipation of people having to fill out all this extensive paperwork to get benefits. And then we've got to find stories of folks like that in Valdez's district, in Calvert's district, in Young Kim's district. I think sometimes Democrats campaign too much in abstraction, 17 million kicked off.

I don't think that connects. I think we've got to be like, here's Susie,, Suzy, who's two year old now doesn't have healthcare. And by the way, here are the specific people this month who have been affected in Valdez district. And we've really got to do our homework. And I'm going to ask the caucus to try to come up with something so we know the timeline of these cuts and know the specifics in these districts.

You're a proud progressive, like many proud progressives, I imagine you are quite skeptical of austerity politics, but this bill does add $3 trillion in debt. This is a very different environment than other times in which Congress has passed legislation that's unpaid for like during the stimulus act, after the financial crisis 2008, the rescue package during COVID, we're at a time of high interest rates. Like there are

real consequences to just larding up with debt at this exact moment. Is that something you think Democrats should campaign on? Yes, I mean this is absolutely reckless to have 8% of GDP deficits when you have no external shock. I mean, it's one thing when you had the Great Recession when President Obama came into power or even the pandemic under Trump and Biden, they had to act or if you have war. But right now you've got no external shock. You've got, as you put it, high interest rates. And the money is for nothing. It's going to people who have capital or are not investing it. We know that the previous tax, Trump tax cuts, people didn't

increase business investment. They sat on their money. They gave stock buybacks. They wiped off debt from corporations. So you're not getting anything productive from it, and you really run the risk of making all of us poorer as the Fed is forced to buy up these treasuries as people feel that treasuries aren't the best place to invest. So it is putting a huge burden on young people. And I think ultimately that's really the argument we have to make, which is, you know, when you take food away from people and you take away health care, the people you're hurting the most are the kids, right?

I mean, it's the poverty trap. And so you're taking away investment from the kids, you're adding all this debt to these kids, all to basically provide these tax breaks for the wealthy. There's like nothing about investing in this country's future. All the empty rhetoric about making America great. You're really bankrupting America's future just to satisfy the whims of the wealthiest in this country. For entirely a short-term benefit.

It's not even really for gain because we're not, it's not like these are new tax, for the most part, are new tax cuts that are gonna generate growth in the economy. They're just keeping the tax cuts that were passed in place, whatever it was six years ago, or seven years ago, that didn't really generate a lot of growth anyway. So we're just really screwing the future for a minimal benefit in the present. From a policy-making perspective, it makes zero sense. I would just like looking at this thing, uh, it just really is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen Congress pass. It just makes no sense why they actually, I mean, I know they

want to give their tax cuts to their billionaires and I get that and like, that's obviously very important to them personally. It's very important to their donors. It's very important to Donald Trump, but just the entire thing put put together is like a very contradictory exercise. They say they want to lower the deficit. They add a bunch of $20 to the debt. They make recession more likely. They cut all the programs people need when recession happens. They ran on lowering costs.

And this bill, in every way, shape, or form, raises costs for people. And that's one thing that's going to be, I think, a real challenge for us to explain and show people is that how this actually makes their life more expensive. And that this is a specific act done by these members of Congress, right? Yeah, no.

I mean, look, it takes away a lot of the subsidies for renewable energy that's going to lead to higher utility costs. It takes away funding in terms of good paying jobs. I mean, health care. Look at the jobs report today. One of the reasons the jobs report was decent is all the growth has been in health care jobs. I mean, healthcare, look at the jobs report today. One of the reasons the jobs report was decent is all the growth has been in healthcare jobs. Who then says, okay, what

we're going to do is cut healthcare so that we can have less healthcare jobs, and that's the one sector that's generating good paying jobs and sustaining the economy. So there's a lot in it that is going to impact ordinary people's lives. But I think the broader point is that the only coherence that Republicans have that I've seen in my nine years of Congress is tax cuts. Ultimately, I mean, they could dress it up as whatever, populism, working class, we're a new party. At the end of the day, there's like one unifying principle. They all vote for tax breaks. And those tax breaks are always for the wealthiest. And their whole goal is let's starve government,

let's get rid of the new deal, let's just make government smaller. Who cares about the deficits? We just wanna cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. And I really think that the Democrats just need to go out there and win the argument to say, that's mortgaging America's future. That's not going to help us have kids, we're going to have good paying jobs and strong

families and that's not what's going to help us lead against China or make us a strong nation in the 21st century. We haven't done enough of that. We haven't argued on the economics, on our theory of the case about what's going to make this country strong. I mean, Obama did Clinton did, but we've got to do that again. The basics of making the case.

Congressman Connell, thanks for joining us. Go get some sleep. It's been a very long 24 hours for you. Uh, hope you have a great fourth of July holiday. Happy Ford. Thanks for having me. That's our show for today. Thanks to Ro Khanna for coming on.

And Jen, thank you again for guest hosting. Everyone check out Jen's excellent show, The Briefing on MSNBC, Tuesday through Friday at 9 p.m. Eastern. We'll be back with a new show on Tuesday. Everyone have a great Fourth of July and talk to you soon. If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad free or get access to our subscriber discord and exclusive podcasts consider joining our friends at the pod community at crooked comm slash friends or subscribe on Apple podcasts directly from the Pod Save America feed Also, please consider leaving us a review to help boost this episode and everything we do here at crooked Pod Save America is a crooked media

Production our producers are David Toledo Emma ill Illich-Frank, and Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farrah Safaree. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reed Cherlin 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 Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Matt DeGroote is our head of production.

Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Hayley Jones, Ben Hefcoat, Mia Kelman, Keryl Pellivive, David Tolles and Ryan Young. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.