The Daily - A Victim of the Shadow Government

Episode Date: October 24, 2019

Before the career diplomats working in Ukraine discovered a “highly irregular” power structure around President Trump determined to undermine and derail them, a Trump cabinet secretary said the same thing happened to him.Today, David J. Shulkin, former secretary of Veterans Affairs, speaks about his experience with “a dual path of decision making in the White House” and how falling out of favor with President Trump’s political appointees ended his tenure. Guest: David J. Shulkin, a former secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the Trump administration. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background listening and reading:Mr. Shulkin’s story matches a pattern described that career diplomats have described to the impeachment inquiry. Here’s a “Daily” episode about their testimony.Back channels to the White House are at the heart of the investigation.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Bavaro. This is The Daily. Today. Before the career diplomats who deal with Ukraine discovered a shadowy power structure around President Trump that was determined to undermine and derail them. A little-known Trump cabinet secretary said that the same thing happened to him. A conversation with former Secretary of Veterans Affairs, David Shulkin. It's Thursday, October 24th. Do you go by secretary or doctor? Secretary.

Secretary. Yeah. Okay. So I want to start with the email that you sent me because I think it was interesting. You described yourself as somebody who was fired essentially by a tweet from the president. essentially by a tweet from the president. And that that came after an ordeal that you went through that involved political appointees essentially undermining you. And you called the experience strangely, unusually relevant these days

with the issue of interference by outside political influences. And you specifically mentioned what happened to Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. And you said we should perhaps talk about it on The Daily. So here you are. Well, at the time, of course, this all seemed very unique to me. But as I've now been out of the Trump administration for almost 18 months, I have noticed a similarity in the behaviors and the patterns. There's a lot of talk about how the State Department seems to be sidelined in this administration.

The senior State Department official in charge of Ukraine policy, George Kent, told House Committee lawmakers Tuesday he was sidelined from his job by the news that William Taylor told congressional investigators there were, quote, two channels for policymaking on Ukraine, quote, one regular and one highly irregular. Certainly here, investigators want to know more about how Yovanovitch ultimately became benched in this entire thing, how she became sidelined. So I want to get to that and why you think what happened to you is similar. But I want to start with your story, your experience with the Trump administration. How is it that you came to be considered for a cabinet position by President Trump? Well, I was in the Obama administration. I was a presidential appointee. I was the

undersecretary of health for the Department of Veteran Affairs. I had come from the private sector where I'd been running hospitals. And if I was given the opportunity to help, I didn't feel like I could say no. So I spent 18 months in the Obama administration, and I was watching very closely about who the Trump administration would choose for its leadership positions in the VA. But as a political appointee of the Obama administration, I was preparing to leave like everyone else. I had prepared my resignation letter for January 20th. And every day I would hear that there was a new person being speculated on as the secretary of VA. And as time went on, we found ourselves into January, just a few weeks right before the inauguration, without any idea of who that secretary would be. Martha, we begin with the Fox News Alert.

We're awaiting the start of that news conference with President-elect Donald Trump. I happen to have heard that the president-elect on January 11th was going to be giving a press conference. And as I was watching a teaser on one of the cable networks, the reporter at the very end said the president-elect may be announcing the new secretary of VA. Thank you very much. And I thought if I had time, because I had a very busy day, I'd like to watch that. See who he chooses. Yeah. And by the way, speaking of veterans, I appointed today the head secretary of the Veterans Administration, David Shulkin.

And we'll do a news release in a little while, tell you about David. He's fantastic. And I watched the press briefing to find out that he announced me as secretary. So you learned that you will be secretary of the VA by watching the news, and the breaking news on television is literally breaking news to you. Yes. Okay, so you start this job already with a feeling that this is going to be unorthodox. So I'm curious, how does this experience begin? And when do you start to detect what you described at the beginning of our conversation in that email that you sent us as something resembling interference? Well, I started to understand that I should stop thinking about this new administration the way that the Obama administration ran. thinking about this new administration the way that the Obama administration ran.

The way the White House worked from my perspective when I was in the Obama administration, it was a very tightly run ship. In the new administration, there was not a tight approach to how you navigated through the White House and had access to the president. It was pretty loose. So I'm the only member of the cabinet at this point who had been in their job essentially and in the administration prior. So I knew what needed to happen. I had a plan. So this looseness in the White House was something that I actually found very refreshing. And I was able to use, I think, to the advantage of the department and to veterans in that while others were just learning about their agencies, I knew what we needed to do. So the first large part of the year after the inauguration was a time of great productivity.

But I think there were a couple events that started to make me question and wonder whether there was a dual path of decision-making in the White House. One event happened to be nationally televised. I want to thank you all for being here. We were sitting in the Roosevelt Room with the president next to me, and he turned to me and he said, We're having a meeting tonight at what we call affectionately the Southern White House. Seems to be the most convenient location.

Everybody always wants to go to the Southern White House. So will I see you in Florida this weekend at the meeting on veterans policy and veterans issues. So are you going to be at that meeting? You heard about it, right? It's going to be great. All about the VA. And that was the first time I'd heard about it. Even though you are the Secretary of Veterans Affairs? Yes. And so I looked at him and I smiled because I thought it was somewhat humorous, and I just shook my head no. And I remember that time because my daughter, Jenny, sent me an email saying that I was now a meme. And I didn't know what a meme was. So I had to Google being a meme and I quickly learned what

a meme was and saw that there was this meme of me shaking my head no. I had no idea what he was talking about. So the meme was of a cabinet secretary being out of the loop. Yes. Yes. But there clearly were these two paths of information about veterans issues, the ones that came directly from me and the ones that were coming from other people. And what did you learn about who was providing this alternate path of information? Who are these people? I think that there was a group of appointees, political appointees, in the Department of Veteran Affairs that would,

on a regular basis, go over to the White House and have meetings on their own. The Department of Veteran Affairs gets about 30 of these political appointees. They are often appointed because of their political allegiance. They come off the campaign or they're found to be supportive of the administration. And they get placed in the department in key roles. So we had about 30 of them. Okay. So what do you understand about why there would be a parallel system? Like what would be necessary about that? Why would anyone construct a second path of information to the president? I mean, they've got you. Well, part of this is speculation since they weren't willing to surface these issues and policy disagreements with me. But I believe that there were two issues. One was that they didn't feel that

I was moving fast enough and aggressive enough to fix the department. And I think that that is a reasonable point of view. I was balancing what I believed the pace that the organization could handle change and also what veterans wanted. But secondly, there was a basic disagreement over how fast and how far I was willing to take resources from the VA and shift them to the private sector. And what did the background figures you're describing here, what did they want when it comes to privatization? Our biggest disagreement sounds technical, but it turns out to be very important. They're called access standards. And the access standards are the rules in which

veterans can choose to go outside of the VA healthcare system and get their care. To a private doctor that's not in the VA. To a private doctor that's not in the VA. And philosophically, I was in agreement that every veteran should have a choice about where they get their care. But I wanted to do this in a way that would not destroy the current VA system because my belief is, is that the VA is doing things

that the private sector is not doing well. And therefore, we needed to keep this a strong system and actually enhance its capabilities. But those that argued for open access standards immediately, my concern was we would see such a immediate shift in resources before the VA could be fixed that it would ultimately lead to a complete privatization of the department. The way I described it, it was like turning on a faucet. Rather than turning it on full thrust all of a sudden, I wanted to turn it on slowly and give the VA system and the private sector time to adapt to this type of philosophical change. So I believe that that was the issue that I fought hardest on and ultimately

ended up costing me my job. We'll be right back. How does this other faction respond to your resistance to the speed and the scale of what they're pushing for, which is a much broader privatization plan than I think it sounds like you're comfortable with. Well, the legislative proposal with the approach that I believe is the right one gets presented to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, which is a half Republican, half Democratic committee. And the vote is taken in the Senate committee,

14 in favor of the approach that I want to take, and one person, one senator opposing it. Good sign for you. I thought so. But the White House sided strongly with the one senator who wanted the much more aggressive access standards. And ultimately, the bill that got passed was the version that the one senator wanted. I guess I'm trying to understand, when you say the White House supported a different vision in the Veterans Affairs Committee, what does that mean, the White House? Aren't you part of the White House?

You're the secretary of the VA. So what does that even mean? It was a very confusing situation because normally the secretary speaks for the administration and I was directly speaking to the president and had the president's support. So this is where I became aware that there was a dual decision-making process, even in the White House itself. What clearly was happening behind the scenes was that there was a dual decision-making process, even in the White House itself. What clearly was happening behind the scenes was that there was back-channel information being given to the president, ultimately to the point that he must have decided with that information that I actually wasn't following policy that he wanted to happen. But that was a surprise to me. And that back-channel information, as best you can tell, who was it coming from? I have no idea.

So it feels like you're now in this kind of upside down world where you are supposed to be the most powerful person in the VA. You are now fighting your own administration over legislation and people around you are kind of eager to circumvent you and cut you out of the process, but they are leaving you in place.

You are very much the undisputed secretary of the VA. So how or when does that start to change? was going to be making the policy got to the point that this group of political appointees felt that they wanted to see somebody else running the department. And out of frustration, I think, started to resort to ways to try to decrease the authority and the effectiveness that I had. And that's where I believe that they perfected the art of the leak. In Washington, an allegation, even without fact, has a way of taking a life on its own. So there was information leaked about my travel. And there was misinformation that a trip to Europe was an inappropriate trip, where in fact, what was not reported was that this trip to Europe was the Five Eyes Conference, which were the five allies that have met for 45 years, attended by every secretary of the VA previously. years attended by every secretary of the VA previously. And the allegation being that my wife was paid for to be able to attend this trip on a shopping vacation or a European vacation.

In fact, the United Kingdom, who was the host of this event in London, had officially invited my wife, who was a physician, who attended these meetings and lectures. And a travel arrangement like this was months in the planning where everything, especially my wife's travel, was vetted by the VA ethics attorneys, by other staff members in the VA, by the White House, by the State Department. We did not accept any per diems or any other funds associated with this, but there was an allegation that this was done inappropriately when, in fact, I just relied upon the VA who makes my travel arrangements to do this. Now, when a secretary travels, there are two itineraries that are produced. There is a public itinerary about the public appearances, and then there is an itinerary that is prepared for security about every stop and every place that the secretary will be.

Those are confidential. Those were leaked to the press as well. So it sounds like you're seeing leaks, in this case of secure documents that only your internal staff would have access to given to the press to suggest that you are crossing lines. For example, you and your family are cashing in on your position as secretary of the VA. And this is a very intentional sabotaging of your status. People were telling me that I was being sabotaged, that people were working against me. I chose not to make a conclusion until I had facts. And then one day, my deputy secretary brings to me a email that his staff member found left on the copy machine. on the copy machine. It is from the senior political appointee to other political appointees that says, here is the plan. We are going to work to replace the secretary. Wow.

We are going to replace the deputy secretary because he's not politically aligned with us, a lifelong Republican, by the way. We are going to replace the chief of staff, and we're going to replace the acting undersecretary, and we're going to put in place people that are politically aligned with us. Who leaves that memo on the copy machine? It was careless. But it was also very explicit and candid. And now, as a scientist, I had my evidence. I actually now could see exactly what was going on. So I just want to be clear. Prior to all this, you very well understand that there are people talking behind your back about policy, going to the president, telling him this is what should be done, that might differ from you.

But now it's advanced to a different place where these people aren't just happy talking around your back they are trying to stab you in the back they're trying to get rid of you that's correct did it ever occur to you because you are secretary of the va just just to fire a bunch of these people who seem to be very much working to undermine you because you are their boss. It's exactly what I did. I tried to remove them. And what happened? They were told by the White House that they would not be removed. And I was told to stand down by the White House that I could not remove them.

That emboldened them, knowing that they were protected. Could not remove them. Wow. That emboldened them, knowing that they were protected. So tell me the story of how this all kind of came to a head. Well, there had been lots of speculation about whether I would resign or whether the president would replace me. I was talking to the president on a regular basis, and I was talking very specifically to General Kelly, who was chief of staff. And on the day that I was fired, I had heard a rumor that maybe I would be fired that day. So I called General Kelly and I said, look, here's what I'm hearing.

And he said, I don't know anything about it. Let me check into it and call you back. And he called me back promptly as he often did. And he said, David, I checked into it. There's no truth to it. I spoke to the president. You have his confidence. Keep on doing what you're doing. And then about noon that day, the president called me and we had a discussion about what was happening at VA. And I was able

to tell him that we were working very hard and about to deliver three new policy objectives for him. And he was inquisitive about those policy objectives, a normal conversation and said, keep going on doing what you're doing and let's talk more about it tomorrow. And about five hours later. Breaking news from the White House tonight, President Trump fired his Secretary of Veterans Affairs, David Shulkin. The president has tweeted, I am pleased to announce that I intend to nominate highly respected Admiral Ronnie L. Jackson, M.D., as the new secretary of Veterans Affairs, which means the current Veterans Affairs secretary, David Shulkin, has now resigned. And that's really the only and last time that I heard from the president.

Was in a tweet. Yes. I heard from the president. Was in a tweet. Yes. So in the end, it sounds like you see yourself as a Trump appointee, very committed to the mission of your department, who was systematically undermined by political appointees who were really determined to push through their agenda and what they saw as the president's agenda kind of at all costs and that you became an obstacle. And that does sound kind of familiar in this moment. What do you see as the parallels to what has just happened when it comes to Ukraine? I assume you have been following it just as closely as we have. Well, I think being a public servant focused on the mission of improving services to Americans

and then feeling that misinformation is being presented to the president by people who have other agendas that shortens your ability to serve, I think is something that doesn't work for the overall benefit of government. The parallels that I see are that there are outside people who ultimately end up having a big impact on the way the government runs.

And I do think that what we're seeing, the way that the president tends to get information from select individuals, that that really has a big influence on the way that decisions are being made. And it's important that a president get the right information so they can make the right decisions. And my concern is, is that we may put policies in place that have consequences for decades to come. And finally, Secretary, why is this story important for you to be telling? Not a lot of former secretaries in this administration, former generals, former national security advisors talk about these experiences. Yeah, I think it's a duty to share what one's learned in government with the result of trying to make this better. I am not trying to throw mud at anybody or to make

criticisms of any particular political party. I am trying to be transparent about what happened in my experience so that we can learn from it and make a government that works better for all of us. I mean, your book is called It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. That's right. I am very concerned about the future of public service, and I'm concerned about the future for our veterans. And to have people who are willing to come from the private sector like myself and help in government and serve to be put through this type of situation and this type of environment, I think, is going to end up being a big problem for people wanting to come in the future. And so when I say it shouldn't be this hard to serve your country, the scenario of being systematically undermined,

I don't think is a good thing for us in terms of the way that we should be running this country. don't think is a good thing for us in terms of the way that we should be running this country. I wonder, can you confidently recommend if someone comes to you to serve in a position in the cabinet right now? My hope is, is that people will continue to raise their hand to want to serve. But anybody who were to choose to go into this administration needs to understand that it's likely not to end well and that people have to be clear about the principles that they have and their belief system and make sure that they stick to that. Secretary, thank you very much.

Thank you. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. I'm gathered here with dozens of my congressional colleagues underground in the basement of the Capitol, because if behind those doors they intend to overturn the results of an American presidential election, we want to know what's going on. In a dramatic act of protest, House Republicans stormed into the secure offices where impeachment investigators have been hearing testimony behind closed doors and temporarily disrupted the proceedings. The Republicans, all allies of President Trump, demanded that the impeachment testimony be held in public. But because none of the

Republicans are members of the committees conducting the hearings, they were eventually removed from the secure offices. And... My fellow Americans, I greet you this morning from the White House to announce a major breakthrough toward achieving a better future for Syria and for the Middle East. It's been a long time. In a surprise move on Wednesday, President Trump said he would end the economic sanctions he imposed against Turkey for its deadly invasion of Syria just a week after creating them, saying that he trusted Turkey to abide by a ceasefire. So the sanctions will be lifted unless something happens that we're not happy with. But in a sign of bipartisan fury over Trump's approach,

Democratic and Republican senators challenged the president's special envoy to Syria, James Jeffrey, about the original decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, which allowed Turkey to kill hundreds of Kurds and for ISIS fighters to escape from prisons. And you know, Ambassador Jeffries, I have the greatest respect for you. But one can try to put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. One can ultimately call capitulation a victory, but it's still capitulation. And one can ultimately have a retreat and say it's strategic, but it's still a retreat. And that's, I feel, exactly what's happened here. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Babarro. See you tomorrow.