The Daily Beast Podcast - Trump’s ‘Time’ Honor Threatens to Blow Up Musk Friendship

Episode Date: December 13, 2024

The president-elect was chosen as Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year” Thursday—but the distinction may come with some unintended consequences. Then, Rob Bonta, the attorney general of California, joins the program to discuss how the state is preparing to push back against potential mass deportation efforts under a second Trump presidency. Plus! Anna Gifty, a Harvard doctoral candidate and editor of “The Black Agenda: Bold Solutions for a Broken System” discusses the transformative power of centering black women in the economy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN-HLN guy, and current cable news conscientious objector. I'm a former libertarian who now sits pretty comfortably on the left. Hi, I'm Danielle Moody, former educator and recovering lobbyist. But today, I'm an unapologetic, woke commentator on America's threats to democracy. And I'm producer Jesse Cannon, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. goal is to try and make sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears. What a great show we have for you today. Rob Bonta,

the Attorney General of California, joins us to discuss how the state is preparing to push back against potential mass deportation efforts under a second Trump presidency, as well as their work in protecting access to gender-affirming care, reproductive freedoms, and environmental safeguards. Then, Anna Gifty, a Harvard doctoral candidate, an editor of the Black Agenda, a bold Solutions for Broken System is here to talk about the transformative power of centering black women in the economy through advocating for radical solutions to systemic inequalities and a collective push for justice and equity. But first, let's have some fun. So most recently, as we continue to navigate the fallout of the murder of the United Health Care CEO, Brian Thompson, and we now

have in custody the alleged shooter Luigi Mangione, Senator Elizabeth Warren, has, has been one of the most vocal senators as it pertains to corporate greed and has built her career essentially on trying to get money that corporations take from consumers back to the people, back into the hands of the people. And she issued a really stark, you know, warning with regard to the outpouring that people have had on social media about this murder. And she said this, and I think that it's worth reading, which is that the visceral response from people across this country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the health care system. Violence is never the answer, but people can be

pushed only so far. And that is an incredibly bold statement. And I feel like she is one of the only politicians that have come out with that kind of statement, which is not to necessarily dismiss what is being said on social media and the response and the real pain that people feel in response to a health care system that profits off of people's despair and sickness. and is responsible for a lot of death that could be preventable. And she's getting a lot of pushback. And I don't know, Andy. My feeling is like she said what needed to be said.

I think that's right. And she did later clarify that because, as you said, she got some pushback. She told the Huffington Post, violence is never the answer, period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder. I thought she was pretty clear about that in the original interview. she literally said violence is never the answer. If she felt the need to clarify that or amplify that, then fine. And I think that's right.

I think you don't have to, you know, you don't have to think that murdering someone, shooting them down in broad daylight in Midtown Manhattan is a good thing for society to also recognize that the response that we have seen from social media. And we talked about this last time. It's not just the usual far left or far right people who are, you know, who will say things like this. It's people who you wouldn't really expect it from based on the kind of commentary they usually provide. And what Elizabeth Warren, I think, is doing is saying, hey, this is something. And it's something that people should take note of.

And as she said, it's a bit of a warning that at a certain point, you govern, at least as of today, we are still a democracy, you govern sort of at the pleasure of the people and that lawmakers and CEOs, et cetera, are being stupid if they don't sit up and take note of what a lot of the reaction has been around this killing. That is not to say that you think that what Luigi Manjone is accused of was a good thing to do or the right thing to do. You can very easily think, think that that is not the way shit should be done in America, while also looking at the underlying structures that have led to so many people being, if not outright, sympathetic to this guy, then at the very least, sort of saying, you know, I understand, you know, I can see why he did it.

And to me, that's what she's saying. And I think it's a very smart thing to say. the only other response to it is to basically put your head in the sand and say, this was a lone nut and it doesn't mean anything. And I think we've seen from the reaction that that may not be the case. The fact of the matter is, is that we already know that he isn't a quote unquote nut. We already know, like, based on what we know about his education, his family background, he's another wealthy, elite-educated man. I think that that is what makes this so resonant, is that we know that when acts of violence happen, the media really never digs into the why. It's always just quick to say that that person is crazy. Let's move on to the next thing. It's a, it's a, it's a,

it's a siloed event. But the reality is, is that this person isn't crazy. And what the grievance that is here is felt by millions of people. And so either you're going to unpack and get to like the truth of the matter, which is that there is a system that we all exist inside of that profits off of harm. And those that have been called upon to say, we need a universal health care system, we need to care about all people, are always labeled as like communists and radicals. And the fact of the matter is, is that they're neither. But we've been fed in this idea that this system that we're living in is the best that can be done. And that is a lie. And it is a lie that is profitable for a small amount of people. And unfortunately, that is what that CEO represents in a

company that denies 32% of the claims that come in. We've been told for how many years now that we have to make an effort to understand the Trump voters? But many of those same people do not want to seem to understand the reaction to the murder of a health care executive. I know calling out hypocrisy is a fool's game, but it is a little wild to me that for some reason we always have to make excuses or find reasons for for MAGA folks, but when it's something that people on the left are feeling, you know, it's just instant hand-wringing and pearl clutching. So that's all I have to say. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, speaking of those MAGA-Folks, we have now an example of the P-O-Y being a P-O-S. And what I'm talking about here is Trump being named person of the year by Time magazine.

I'm not angry about that. Time has famously named people like Hitler and Stalin, their person of the year. It's sort of a value neutral distinction, I guess. I'm not going to call it an award. Look, it's a meaningless thing. But if we're going to discuss it in the context, I'm not angry about it. Mainly what I hope this does is drive a wedge between Trump and Elon Musk because I have to think that Elon Musk is upset that it wasn't him. And I really hope that stuff like this continues

to happen where the two of them, who are the two of the most insecure people in the world, just end up at each other's throats because they don't like it when the other person gets recognition. Danielle, I don't know. How do you feel about this? I think it's absurd. And I get it. I get that this is not, to your point, it's not an award, that there have been some of the most horrific people who have been named to person of the year. I just feel like we're sitting in a moment where we are just choosing to overlook everything that Donald Trump has done, the pain, the violence that he has caused, and give him the real time cover that he can hang up on the wall of Mar-a-Lago and say, look how great.

I am. And, you know, for Maga, it is a moment of celebration. But like, this man did not win this election in a landslide. It is the smallest margin that has been seen in modern history. And this celebration of authoritarianism and fascism to me is what this represents. And it's wild. It's not as if they're saying, well, he's the person of the year. And then here are all of the ways that he has harmed our democracy and will continue to do so and turn this country over to American oligarchs, he gets this recognition and he rang the fucking bell at the New York Stock Exchange this morning. Like, where the fuck are we? You know? And so for that, it is really hard to kind of look at this moment and see like some light and hopefulness when you see all of these

people doing exactly what we were told not to do, which is obeying in advance and continuing to normalize and celebrate and lift up the person that is going to be responsible for democracy dying in America. And so I'm like, you know what? Fucking Bravo, I guess. Like, you voted for a monster and this is what happens. You know, I don't know. But it's, to me, I think it's sick. Yeah. Look, I get all of that. And I agree with all of it with the obeying in advance. The stock exchange thing was grotesque. I just can't get worked up about this. one particular thing because of what it historically has represented, which is not the best person of the year or anything like that. On the other hand, I do understand that I would guess if I were

still on Twitter that a lot of MAGA people are, as you said, celebrating this and taking it as a victory lap, which obviously sucks. But the actual granting of this quote unquote honor doesn't upset me all that much. I mean, do you remember who the person of the year was? was two years ago, last year. I don't. No, I don't. You know, I just, this, this to me is such an ephemeral thing that doesn't matter. It's sort of the magazine equivalent of the State of the Union address, I guess is what I'm trying to say. I mean, we can talk about Time Magazine interviewed him for this. And he said one of his first official acts as president after his inauguration will be to pardon most of the January 6th rioters. And he said he's going to sign executive orders

to resume the construction of the border wall, which I thought was already completed. So I'm confused about that. And that he's going to start his planned mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. So I'm obviously much more concerned about that shit than I am about him being on the cover of a magazine. As are you. I'm not, trust me, I'm not trying to take a high road here. I'm just saying being on the cover of the magazine, I get everything you're saying and I don't disagree with any of it. I just think that ultimately it's pretty mean.

meaningless. Oh, and by the way, also inside of that article was the fact that, oh, guess who isn't going to bring prices down? Because he says it's, he says it's too difficult to do. Weird. Weird. Weird pivot to make when you spent the last year saying that you could control the economy by, you know, wiggling your nose as if we're in Bewitched. You know, like, you know, whatever. Look who's obeying in advance those economic rules. Geez. Yeah, right. And speaking of obeying in advance. Mm-hmm. FBI director Chris Ray has announced that he is going to resign at the end of the Biden

administration, paving the way for Trump to nominate Cash Patel to take his place. Look, Trump was going to get rid of him one way or the other and appoint Patel or nominate Patel. This qualifies to me as obeying in advance. This qualifies to me as rolling over. This qualifies to me as, you know, Ray said he's doing what's best for the Bureau. I don't believe that for a heartbeat. I think he is doing what's best for him in the sense that it will ease his life.

And, you know, we've talked about this before. The FBI director was supposed to serve for 10 years. The whole purpose of that was to overlap presidency so that it wasn't a political appointment. And we are apparently dispensing with that with what Trump wants to do here, even though, of course, Ray was a Trump appointee in his first term. But he now doesn't like him. so he wants to get rid of him. So what Ray is doing here by resigning is just he's participating in this complete and utter breaking of the way things are supposed to work and the way that the head of the FBI is

supposed to be a non-political appointee. So yeah, not a big fan of this move by Chris Ray. You know, I'm not a fan of it, but I'm just, again, I'm not shocked. No, no. Everyone is just, you know, has decided to roll out the red carpet for Maga, mind furor. And this is what this looks like. Donald Trump is going to get to nominate all of the people who are coming into their positions to destroy the very agencies that they are running. And rather than have any type of integrity, Chris Ray has decided, well, I'll just save my own ass. Forget about

the people that have been under me, that have, you know, that have been working for me for the last seven years and actually standing up for them and having any conviction whatsoever. This is a cover your ass like moment. And everyone and everyone is taking it. Everyone is taking that ticket and kind of moving on. And I think that the only way that you collectively fight back against fascism and authoritarianism is to stand united, like as people and to speak out as leaders. And we are seeing that happen nowhere right now. And so it's like pretty much everybody is going to end up fending for themselves. And that's how they win, right? Because it will, I mean, the ability to turn people against one another and usher in this new regime is going to be so lightning fast. And it's already happening.

And his inauguration hasn't even taken place yet. And so it's just like one person after the other, just complying and obeying in advance. And I was going to say it's the beginning of the end. But, you know, that has been like nine years in the making at this point. Yeah. And it's going to be really interesting to me to see how Democrats act during all these confirmation hearings for the Trump nominees. And I would like to think that there'll be a lot of pushback on pretty much all of them. I know. I know. Again, we've talked about this, Daniel. I am a cock-eyed optimist. We know this. We know this about me. I love it about you. But no, I don't expect that they will. I expect that there will be some who push back on some of the nominations. I expect that they're going to probably

adopt sort of a triage policy where they let some of the quote unquote less bad ones sail through, you know, and concentrate on the more bad ones. And personally, I think that's a bad idea. I think that they should be on it for all the nominees who are bad, which is all the nominees pretty much. But I don't see it happening. And I think that that's sad and I think that that's, you know, I'm not saying this was a grand strategy on the Trump side, but I do think almost part of the plan is to count on Democrats doing stuff like that. So you do five bad things and then that ensures that the three least bad things get through with no problem. And, you know, you throw up a Matt Gates and then there's an uproar and he gets withdrawn. And then,

you know, in the meantime, you end up with Cash Patel as the head of the FBI. So that's what I'm expecting to happen. And look, Democrats don't really have the votes to stop any of these, but that doesn't mean you don't fight. I really hope that they surprise me, but I don't expect it from most of them. At this point in time, I expect very little, because I think that Donald Trump and this incoming regime have revealed America to itself. And I think that what we recognize is that Democrats are just not built for this moment. And people who we thought would be the leaders and stand up like a Chris Wright, they're just, they're not built for this moment. And that's terrifying. And that's where we are. As the second Trump presidency looms closer with its promise of mass arrests, detentions, and deportations of immigrants, one person not sitting on his hands is the Attorney General for the great state

of California, Rob Bonta. He joins me now. Mr. Attorney General, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me, Andy. Excited to be here. So I want to start with something that we seem to hear a lot. And that is that, oh, Trump doesn't really intend to deport millions of people, you know, whether that number is two million,

$5 million, $10 million, $20 million, whatever million he throws around on a given day. And you'll hear a lot of, oh, calm down. He's not actually going to do that. I take it you don't agree with that sentiment. We take him at his word. One of the things he said early on on election night or shortly thereafter was that this second term, Trump 2.0, if you will, will be about keeping promises. And he's made promises and those around him and in his inner circle have made promises

to implement the largest mass deportation of immigrants in the history. of the United States. And so whether that's 1 million, 10 million, 15 million, 5 million, it's an intent to be historical in the volume and number of immigrants impacted. And we're not going to be flat-footed. We are preparing for that. Everything he talks about, we have a response to. We have court briefings that are ready to press print after we dot the eyes and cross the T's on all the issues he's raised, whether it be birthright citizenship or using of the military or the National Guard, or if he goes after DACA again, or public charge, if he goes after sanctuary states and violates the 10th Amendment in the process by conditioning federal grants on changes in

sanctuary state policy, we're ready. And we think that preparedness, readiness is the best antidote and defense against the threats and the danger that may be lurking and they may come. And so we have to prepare for everything. And if he doesn't do it, then, you know, our plan, we can leave it on the shelf where it can gather dust. But we're not going to fail to plan. We are ready. It's so good to hear that, that you know, you have to proceed as if he is going to do what he's promising to do. And I'm so glad that you are. So last week, you issued policies and recommendations aimed at telling California public institutions how to comply with state laws that limit their participation in immigration enforcement activities. Let's get into that a little bit.

What's the goal of these policies and recommendations? This is basically guidance to implement Senate Bill 54 passed in 2017 during Trump 1.0. It's our California Values Act. Some people refer to it as the Sanctuary State Act. It essentially says that the state of California will not be conscripted or commandeered, forced to do the job of immigration enforcement that the federal government does, that the federal government, of course, can and may lawfully enforce immigration laws, but they can't force under the 10th Amendment, California, to do their job. for them, California wants to use its resources for public safety agencies, law enforcement agencies, on detecting and disrupting and dismantling state criminal activity, not focused on immigration

enforcement. The federal government can do that. And so now that we have a president-elect who is promising to implement the largest mass deportation in the history of the United States and will be surely reaching out to local and state agencies governed by SB 54 in California. We wanted them to know what the law of California requires what it prohibits them from doing, what it permits them to do, and we set that forth in specific guidance last week. If Tom Holman sends people into, I don't know, say a San Diego primary school and the people he sends in demand that the principal give them information about students for the purposes of immigration enforcement, according to these guidelines, what should the principal's response be?

One thing we recommended was that there would be a process and a system in place where folks who are, you know, everyday folks, teachers, para-educators, vice principals, principals, you know, who are focused on educating children, that they have someone that they can go to to provide the guidance on an issue that is a legal issue. And when you have legal issues, attorneys can and should be involved and has nuance as well. But generally, there are, some types of information that they can provide if requested and some and most that they can't. And so it provides guidance on the types of requests which are appropriate to respond to the ones that they're prohibited from responding to. It also indicates what information they need

to even collect or retain in the first place and sort of kind of walks them through different potential scenarios and what their obligations would be and what they're prohibited from doing. Gotcha. And this applies, I assume, to state colleges and universities. and things like libraries, shelters, health facilities, et cetera? That's right. Yeah, there's sort of two buckets, a group of entities that is required to have a policy, others that are, it's recommended that they have a policy. And we sort of go through all the duties and obligations that the law requires. Gotcha. What about state and local law enforcement? Does this same guidance apply to California

police departments, to sheriff's offices, places like those? Police and sheriff's departments in the state of California are also governed by SB 54, but in a different way. Generally, they are prohibited from participating in immigration enforcement with some minor exceptions. And so they are not allowed to investigate or detain or arrest for immigration enforcement purposes. In many instances, not allowed to inquire about immigration status or share types of information with the federal government in a way that's consistent with federal law. So those entities, police and sheriff's departments throughout the state of California have a special set of rules and regulations under SB

54. Do you worry at all that I would say maybe even particularly sheriff's offices with the rise of the constitutional sheriff movement and all that stuff? Are you worried that they will ignore that law and do whatever they can to help deportation efforts? I expect law enforcement agencies to follow the law and enforce the law. SB 54 is the law of the state of California. They need to follow it. And look, I can't be naive about it. Is it possible that, Some entity violates SB 54. Of course it's possible. I don't have any specific knowledge. I'm not looking at any specific department or agency, believing that they will. But we will, again, be prepared. We will be ready should that occur. We already know what steps will take. And there's a violation by a law

enforcement agency of SB 54. We can go to court. We can get a court order. We can force compliance. And so already if that happens, I don't believe it will. But if it does, we have a plan. Do you talk to other Democratic Attorneys General about this stuff? Do you have like a group chat or something, hopefully on an end-to-end encrypted network? We talked to Democratic Attorney General all the time and more frequently, more often, and for longer periods of time now. We talked a lot in the ramp up to the election. Of course, there being no guarantee about what the election outcome for the president would be. We had to be ready for the potential scenario that eventually became reality. And so there has been planning among Democratic Attorney General throughout the nation for weeks and months. We've been working also with community organization and advocacy groups that specialize in certain policy areas that specialize in

immigration and reproductive freedom and common sense gun safety, you know, protecting the environment. We think that there's different types of expertise that make the whole of what we do stronger than just the sum of its parts. And so, you know, there's certain folks who have deep, long expertise in immigration or in gun safety. And we should be drawing upon that expertise as we prepare for the actions that Trump might take. So sort of it is, I think we're better and stronger together than we are apart. And we've been talking amongst Democratic Attorneys General and other like-minded, shared valued entities. Yeah, that was sort of going to be my next question. Are any Republican attorneys generals or even governors getting involved in this?

Are there any that are just openly defiant of what Trump wants to do? I'm not communicating with any, if there are. They may be in other, you know, working with other groups, we're working on their own, on Trump preparedness. We work with Republican AGs all the time, including on our social media platform lawsuits where we've sued META and TikTok in a bipartisan way, multi-state, working across the aisle because everyone cares about the mental health of our kids. So not so much on Trump preparedness, but in other places we certainly work with Republican AGs and others. Cool. So I want to talk about some of those other subjects that that you just brought up. And one of them is reproductive freedoms. Obviously, another thing that's

been under assault now for several years, if not longer, and looks to maybe ramp up again under a Trump second term, what steps are you taking to protect the people of California's reproductive freedoms? California is a very strong reproductive freedom state. We consider ourselves a sanctuary for reproductive freedom for safe and legal abortion, where patients seeking an abortion, where patients seeking in abortion and providers providing them are protected and able to do so lawfully and safely. We passed a proposition called Proposition 1 to enshrine in our state constitution, their right to reproductive freedom, to abortion, to contraception. And we fully intend to continue on that path and continue to promote those values and protect

patients and providers and the right to an abortion and the right to reproductive freedom. And we know that the Trump administration doesn't necessarily see the world the same way on that issue. So we've been preparing. And this is an example of where we've been preparing for years, not just months. Shortly after the Dobbs decision came down from the U.S. Supreme Court overruling Roe v. Wade, and there was talk soon thereafter about a national abortion ban. I asked my team to start writing a potential brief to challenge a national abortion ban, to identify if there are any constitutional or other legal deficiencies, if it can be challenged. And if so, on what grounds and how strong are those grounds?

We started preparing shortly after the Dobbs decision over two years ago now. And we also have been aware of the different tactics and approaches that the Trump administration is threatening to take, including weaponizing the Comstock Act, a decades old, I call it a zombie law that has been dead and doing no work for, decades, but now some of the folks on the right are trying to breathe new life into it and revive it and weaponize it to stop the mailing of abortion medication, which is the method for which two-thirds of abortions in the United States of America occur. And so we have a plan should there be a weaponization of the Comstock Act. In that way, we have both a litigation strategy and a legislative strategy. We've also been preparing for the undermining of FDA authority to approve abortion

medication. So there are quite a few different approaches that we think the Trump administration might take when it comes to reproductive freedom and we're preparing for all of them. I'm curious and I honestly don't know the answer to this and maybe there isn't one. But when a state like Idaho makes it basically criminal to transport someone or I guess for the person themselves to go across state lines for purposes of getting an abortion, if that person were to come to California, and I know Oregon, Washington, et cetera, are closer options for them. But if they were to come to California, is there anything you can do to protect them? Or once they go back to Idaho, it's out of your hands? Generally, criminal law is geographic jurisdiction-based,

meaning if state A has a law and state B has a different law. So if state A, California, it's lawful to have an abortion. And in state B, Idaho, it's unlawful to seek and receive an abortion. If you get an abortion in the state where it's lawful, it's lawful. It didn't occur in the state where it was prohibited. And an individual specifically left the state so that they didn't violate the law in that state and they abided by the law of another state. That should be fully lawful. I know that some states may not be happy with the way the law works, but that's the way the law works. And these sort of long-arm statutes that try to reach into other jurisdictions where activity is lawful and somehow transform it and turn it into unlawful activity,

I think are really deficient and stretches of how the law should be used and will be very open to challenge. So usually you can only control as a state from a criminal perspective, you know, the actions that occur in your state. Gotcha. We have shield laws in California to help ensure that that's true to protect patients and providers who are participating in lawful, safe abortions in California. So if law enforcement in Idaho subpoenaed or whatever to get information from a doctor or a Planned Parenthood in California, the Shield Law would allow them to say no? Correct. Essentially. Excellent. Okay. Another subject you've been speaking out about is protecting access for Californians who want gender affirming care. And I know it's been a particularly scary time

for a lot of trans folks. So what exactly are you doing in California to protect this health care access? In California, we believe that gender affirming care is health care, and everyone should have access to high quality, affordable health care. We have essentially a sanctuary, gender affirming care law in California that we've defended, and it's been upheld to provide for gender affirming care in California and ensuring that it's legal and safe. And we have challenged other.

efforts throughout the nation to target a specific group of individuals based on their gender identity and deprive them of health care or other access or rights that are provided to others who don't share the same gender identity. We've taken the similar steps when it comes to access to bathrooms consistent with an individual's gender identity or the ability to play sports consistent with an individual's gender identity. So we believe that individuals should not be discriminated against based on their gender identity. That includes having access to health care. And so we will continue to push for that access.

Excellent. I gather that Fox News isn't happy with you. Can you live with that? I don't think they're favorite. Is that sort of an added bonus? I don't know if it's a bonus or not. But, you know, I like news programs that tell the news. Yeah.

Talk about facts and follow. science. And I understand we have a nation with some different views within it. But I also think that we probably believe and share agreement on most things. But we end up talking about and fighting about the few things that we do have disagreements on. And that's unfortunate. Yeah, for sure. But I was just thinking, you know, anytime that you think, you know, oh, I could be making so much more in private practice. And you think, well, but at least in doing this job, I get Fox News to hate me. It's like a perk. Some hate you can be proud of.

Right, exactly. Attorney General Bonta, thank you so much for joining us. I really appreciate it and really appreciate all the efforts you're taking to protect vulnerable people in America, particularly as we transition into the Trump 2.0 era. Thank you so much. Appreciate your kind words, Andy. Wonderful to be with you. I enjoyed our conversation. Thank you.

Folks, I am so excited to welcome to the new abnormal. Anna Gifty, who is. a doctoral candidate at Harvard Kennedy School studying public policy and economics. She is also the editor of the Black Agenda, Bold Solutions for a Broken System, and the author of the upcoming book, The Double Tax, a book that will explore the costs women face across racial lines. Anna, I am so excited to speak with you. And I was saying before we opened, you know, I'm new to blue sky. And I think that you are, you were the first person I've ever DMed. Oh, really?

Yes. I feel so honored. Wow. On blue sky to say like, hey, I really like your throats here. I really like your commentary. And so I'm super excited to speak with you today. And I kind of just want to open up with this, which is that your premise around us in the United States and also global.

but I'll focus on the United States. Having a healthy, robust economy looks like centering black women. And I want to give you an opportunity to speak on that, why that is, and also get your thoughts on if centering black women is the key, then how do we do that with this upcoming regime that clearly has a disgust and despises? black people, but black women in particular. Yeah. Well, first and foremost, thank you so much for having me on the show. I'm a huge, huge fan of it. And I'm super honored once again to be your first DM on blue sky. If you're not on blue sky already, I need to get on there. It's really fun. Great conversations are happening on there. So, you know, you asked me two really big questions, right,

about how do we think about an economy that centers black women and how do we think about an economy that centers black women in a political reality where black women are being even more disparaged and more ignored. So to answer the first question, I have to say that I'm not to credit for the premise of centering black women in the economy. In fact, this is Janelle Jones's framework, Black Women Best, which has been featured now in a couple of different publications and has also been used to sort of be the foundation for legislation that's been proposed by Congresswoman Ayanna Presley that essentially argues this, right? The best outcome for black women is a better outcome for everyone else. And a lot of folks are like, wait, why would you say that? Like,

what is the calculus behind that? And it's really simple. If you improve things for the worst off among society, anybody who's better off is going to benefit, right? And this is kind of the premise of the upcoming book that I'm working on, the double tax, which is essentially something that precedes this very framework, saying that things are actually truly worse off for black women. If you think about things like child care costs, which I know a lot of folks have been talking about, if you're already making less money because you're being paid unfairly due to race and gender, that means that child care costs are eating a bigger chunk of your income, right? You have less income left after you try to take care of.

kids. I think another thing that people, you know, oftentimes attribute to black women best is even things around housing and who's most likely to be evicted, you know, with respect to not paying their rent on time. Black women are disproportionately evicted as compared to their counterparts. But in addition to that, we're less likely to own a home despite us heading more households, right? Single black women. So these are sort of examples of black women having it worse off economically. And the the question becomes, okay, well, if that's the case, how do we make things better off? And of course, there's a myriad of solutions that exist. But one thing that's become really clear to me, as someone who's writing this book, but also as someone who is a scholar of race, gender in the economy,

you know, and I say scholar, I mean that as humbly as possible, meaning I'm still learning, very much still in the budding phase of things. It means that, you know, we have to get a bit more radical about the solutions that we're proposing. It cannot be things that just scratch the surface and only address certain groups' needs. We need to go to the root, which oftentimes exists at the axes of oppression, where if you find yourself at the axes of oppression, don't be surprised if you see black women standing there alongside you, right? So, you know, now the question that you've posed is, okay, well, we know that black women are worse off. We know that to make things better off for other people, we need to begin with black women and use black women as a

benchmark for progress. But how do we do that in a political reality that is antagonistic towards black women? And I think that a lot of folks think, even I posted about this on Blue Sky this morning, that, you know, the way that we deal with the issues of today, especially politically, happens in one fell swoop, right? It doesn't. It's a lot of small moments. A lot of small moments. A lot of small wins that accumulate over time, right? You know, I'm so happy folks like Rosa Parks and Catherine Johnson got to see, you know, black women excelling and exceeding. But they were very old when they saw that, right? And I guess my point there is we have to be willing as the left, as liberals, right, in the long game. And I think a lot of times folks are not willing and

invested as much in the long game. And what I mean by that is deciding to make a concerted effort locally, right, statewide, maybe even at times nationwide, and coming to terms of the fact that you might not see the fruits of your labor in this lifetime. Ideally, you would. Truly you would. But like I just said, because the shadow of injustice is long, the fight for justice also has to belong as well, right? Even when we have protests, even when we have uprisings, there needs to be a strategy that sustains what people are fighting for. And that takes time. And so, you know, we're in a current political reality where everything feels like it's about to be basically flipped upside down. And so the strategy here, in my opinion, is to get local, get into community and figure out

where black women are losing right now. And spoiler alert, It's basically everywhere, right? Like, basically everywhere. And so if that means that, you know, you join a tenant union and you start advocating for better rights for renters, that's a very simple way to get involved, right? If this means that, you know, you're in your workplace and, you know, there's black women employees that are probably making less than you, you tell them how much you're making. And then you work with them to advocate for more, right?

These are sort of really concrete, almost simple examples of everyday life that allow people to advocate for a better economy without it feeling super large and super out of reach. And I think it really boils down to you see the most marginalized as humans too, because that's really where the system fails. The system does not see the marginalized as human, right? And because they have dehumanized groups that are amongst the marginalized, amongst minority. those who are amongst the most vulnerable, that is then used to take away right. It's used to take away health care access. It's used to defund public schools in their community. And so how do you counter that?

You show up as a human. As a human who cares, right? You join your local school board and you advocate to make sure the full history of America is taught in your classrooms. This is not rocket science. You don't need to hire a bunch of consultants to figure this out. This is a matter of humanity and showing up for your neighbor. And a lot of folks have not been showing up for the marginalized.

And now they're wondering why they are now subjected to what the marginalized have experienced. I often say that what happens to black people happens to us first and happens to us hardest before it gets to everybody else. You make so many really good and profound points. Thank you. One of the things to me about this incoming political regime, Trump's second. term. And I will just disagree slightly. It's not necessarily going to turn things upside down. Because one of the things that I've been asking is that, you know, has Maga and Donald Trump, have they destroyed America or have they revealed America? And I think that what we have seen, and particularly I'll lift up the fascination right now with

the United Healthcare murder of the CEO and the alleged shooter, it has exposed a very deep wound inside of America where we are recognizing how harmful these greedy systems have been and that the systems have been created in order to keep the most marginalized, the most depressed, the most economically low-income folks in positions, in their place. And so when we say like, well, is it going to turn the system upside down? And it's just like, no, it actually, I think, has awakened a consciousness in people and recognizing that, no, it actually, isn't the undocumented person who is stealing my job. It isn't the, you know, the trans person and their right to exist that is interfering with my economic success. Like that those are all,

it's all a ruse, right? Like it's all a ruse to point fingers at everybody except for the class of people that are responsible for the system being the way that it is because it benefits them. And so I wonder in this great revealing that is happening, how we really use this moment to connect us with how these systems were created and how we need to your point radical change in this moment that we've been fed this incremental movements over the last like, you know, I would go from the civil rights movement until now. We've been fed these kind of incremental changes. Oh, look, you know, you're a little bit better. You're an inch further than you were, you know, in 1960. So shouldn't you be proud of that? And so I'm kind of wondering, like, are we out of place, do you think, Anna, of the radical

consciousness that is necessary in order to really challenge these economic systems that have locked people into positions of poverty or to your statement that I heard you say, hovering around poverty. Yeah, I have to agree with what you're saying, right? And I think when I say turn things upside down, I'm really referring to more so checks and balances of anything. But I agree that it is a great revealing, right? It's a great revealing of what power and greed has done to this nation.

And what has always done to the nation, right? I think that if you know history, you know that it's always been power and greed have been main characters for a while, right? Mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm. do I think that we are on the precipice of people becoming conscious about what power and greed has done? I think we're almost there, actually. Now I'm an optimist. Okay.

Right? So there's people who are like, no, like people are still very blinded. Clearly people voted for this particular individual. And so, you know, they don't understand it. But I'm like, yes, right? And to your point, I think a lot of that really boiled down to what I like to call inverted identity politics, right? sort of rallying folks around shared grievances about different identity groups. And that was a real driver for, you know, how 45 got a second term.

But I do think that we are on the precipice of the working class at least, realizing just how badly power and greed has gutted them. We're on the precipice. And I think that when you're on the precipice of something like that, what matters quite a bit is the kind of information that people are getting. and sort of a shared agreement of what the facts are. So if we're talking about what's happening with the United Healthcare CEO and the alleged shooter, you know, there seems to be a little bit of a divide between pundits and the folks who think for a living,

right, out loud. And I would argue pretty much anybody who consumes that content and any kind of content. And you're seeing it, I don't, like I was saying that I think the only politician really who's named it, Shout out to her. Senator Elizabeth Warren. I talked about it. Yep. Big Liz.

Yeah. She's named it. I haven't seen a lot of other politicians name it. But it really boils down to everybody agrees with the facts. And what I mean by the facts here is people agree with the facts that the United Health Care, you know, company as a company, has not done well or not done good by the people it claims to serve. that seems to be a fact that regardless of your political position, regardless of your class outside of the ruling class, right? That seems to be a shared fact.

Everybody seems to be agreeing with that because it's not just that it's in the numbers, but it's in the stories, right, that people are sharing. And so I think that if that's the case, then, researchers in social sciences especially are about to be playing an extremely important role in how we think about the facts around how marginalized the marginalized actually is. What kind of issues the working class are really dealing with.

And this is why I always tell, you know, my colleagues in academia, my professors in academia, like not enough of us are talking to the public. And that's a problem because if people don't have a baseline of facts or a baseline of a shared reality, they fill it in with whatever is willing to explain what reality they're going through. And that's where we get misinformation. That's where we get disinformation. And so I do think that on the precipice of radical consciousness are the people who think consciously and who drive that conversation.

It can be the everyday people, but I actually think it lies quite literally in the activists, in the organizers, in the thinkers, in the artists, right? Ta-Nehisi Coates, right? Nikki Giovanni, may she rest of peace. These are people who push us past just like a, hmm, that's a weird quirk to wait. Maybe there's something happening here. And those are the kinds of folks that are, I think, going to stir the pot in a way that is going to counter the reality that we're about to face. Yeah, you know, and I appreciate that so much because I do think that it is necessary to stir the pot right now.

And I think that those that have pushed back on and not recognize that this dystopia that we are living in was manufactured by the greedy. And so when you can look at and when we can recognize, like, the question that I've been asking is like, who gets to be identified as a murderer? Killing is killing. Humanity is humanity. And so denying the claims of 30 percent, 32 percent of sick people that are paying. into a system that are then denied, right? The ability to live a healthy and full life is draconian, is disgusting. But we just say, well, that's just business. And so I think that there is a necessity in this moment to stir the pot. And I think that we are on the precipice of something. I don't know

what that something is. Right. Do you have hope in what is coming is the question that I will ask? I do. And that might make me a fool. It might. Or it might make me somebody who believes in the good of humanity. And I guess I'll say this. I look at my peers, right? So I'm 28. Mm-hmm.

Look at my peers. I look at those who are coming up after us. I look at those who have paved the path. And I think one thing that sticks with me is that history is a circle. There's always a fight to have been had, unfortunately, especially if you're black, right? But that fight almost always is worth it. always, actually. I have two little nieces. They're not even five yet. This is personal for me, right? The world that we fight for is personal. And I think for most people, it is a personal endeavor. Some people want to be,

you know, like, oh, like I don't really care. But you do, right? You got loved ones. You have people who are going to outlive you. You're going to care about this. You're going to have to. And I think that alone is why I have hope. I have hope that there will be. enough motivations just from that for people to push against anything that threatens their life, threatens their loved ones, threatens their communities, but also just threatens the good of humanity. I don't think people are going to roll over and allow anything to happen to them. And I think that's kind of what Senator Warren was ultimately saying that everybody has a breaking point. And the powers that be need to recognize that before they take people there. Well, Anna, this was exactly the

conversation that I wanted to have. I'm like getting emotional. And I so genuinely appreciate you and your your work. Folks, the book is The Black Agenda, Bold Solutions for a Broken System. And if you're not following Anna on Blue Sky, you should be. I appreciate you so very much. Thank you for joining the new abnormal. And I do hope to have you back. Thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate this. Andy Levy. How are you closing out this wild week in the United States of dystopia with your fuck that guy? It's a joint honor this week or joint dishonor. And we like to give couples smush names like Brangelinea and whatever for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie back when they were a couple.

So I'm going to dub this cinemanch. We're not talking Don Tina? I'm not doing Don Tina. I'm going with Cynumatch. And it's Kirsten Cinema and Joe Manchin, both of whom used to be Democratic senators. They're both on their way out. They're both also, I believe, no longer Democrats. But they are still part of the Senate Democratic caucus.

So the Democrats were trying to confirm a new term for the head of the National Labor Relations Board chair, a woman named Lori McFerrin. And had she be confirmed, that would have kept a Democratic majority. on that board, it would have been three to two through, I think, 26. And that's kind of important, given that people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have come straight out and said that they believe the NLRB itself is unconstitutional and there are now court battles to that effect. But they are obviously, there are a lot of very powerful men who are anti-labor, anti-union, anti-worker who want, at best, want a very weak National Labor Relations Board. So, 48 members of the Senate Democratic caucus voted yes to confirm Lauren McFerrin.

Two members of that caucus voted no. And those two would be the aforementioned CIN match. So she was not confirmed as the chair. And that means that Donald Trump will be, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, Republicans will be, you know, nominating a chair for the board and that it will probably be a three-two Republican board. And the extent to which this fucks over, again, workers, unions, you name it, probably can't be understated. This is a, this is kind of a big deal. And we have Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin to thank for it. And Manchin don't care. He's going to be on his

yacht. And Cinema don't care because she's probably going to get some cushy lobbying gig, which is really all she's ever dreamed of since she was a little girl. Mm-mm. They just do not, they don't give a fuck. And that's why they get a fuck that guy. Oh, I like what you did there. Thank you. You know, here's the thing.

Like, I'm not surprised. I don't even know why at any point in time that they were referred to as Democrats. Because, you know, why? Because they caucus with and they enter in a room with Democrats, but then often side with Republicans. They are Republicans. And they're disgusting. They vote against people.

They voted against LGBTQ rights, women's rights, you know, workers' rights. Like, I hope to never hear their names again. That's the only upside of this is that like let this be the last, you know, squawking that comes from the two of them. And I hope to never hear from them ever again. They are terrible fucking people. And that is what they will be remembered for. Greed and disgust is,

their mantra. Fuck those guys. All right, Danielle, close out this week. Who is your fuck that guy? You know, there are so many serious things that are happening and I know that there are, but my fuck that guy is going to the New York Times. And like, the New York Times, they're just so weak. Like, they just are so weak.

And it's why people are ending their subscriptions and the like. but why am I designating them fuck that guy this week? Because they have, apparently, from an internal messages that were leaked, apparently they were leaked to Ken Clippenstein, found out that they are not posting pictures of Luigi Mangione, the alleged gunman in the UHC murder, because apparently he's too good looking. Like apparently, like, they don't want to, like, rile up the public by showing his face and also not wanting to, I think, share his alleged manifesto as well. It's kind of wild that you can call yourself a journalistic outlet. And then, I guess, pit and parcel what it is that you're going to show the public and what you're not. It's not as if the man's face is not literally all over the internet and literally. on pieces of merch that are being sold right now.

So the decision just seems stupid and ridiculous. And I don't know who they're trying to appease in this moment. But for that and so many other things that the New York Times has done over the last several years, it's just, you know, fuck those guys. It's just ridiculous. Yeah, it's just that they're very selective about this stuff. Look, I don't know, you know, that this has anything to do with people finding Louis hot, attractive, however you want to describe it.

What they're saying, or what was said in these leaked documents, was that the news value and public service of showing his face is diminishing, which, okay, fine. But there are other occasions where that doesn't stop them. And Ken Klippenstein actually gets at this in the piece he wrote. That famous picture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the T-shirt, in the white T-shirt with his hair all mussey after they caught him, that picture could not have been more widely disseminated.

And I'm not saying it shouldn't have been. It should have been. But it's interesting to note always what they choose to do on the one hand and what they choose not to do on the other hand. Running a newspaper involves making editorial decisions. But those editorial decisions should be scrutinized. And I think that this is one of them. I guess I don't really care if they continue to publish his picture or not.

What I really care about are the reasons behind it and why those are. Those reasons are not or don't seem to be applied across the board. So, yeah, fuck those guys. Hope you enjoy checking out this episode of The New Abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going. This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production by Jesse Cannon and Seamus Calder. Want more great listens?

Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at thedailybeast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.