The Ezra Klein Show - What the Shutdown Is Really About

Episode Date: October 8, 2025

There’s a serious high-stakes policy fight at the heart of this.The Democrats didn’t pick a fight over authoritarianism or tariffs or masked immigration agents in the streets. They picked one over health care. And the issue here is very real. Huge health insurance subsidies passed under President Joe Biden are set to expire at the end of this year, threatening to make health care premiums skyrocket and kick millions off their insurance.Neera Tanden was one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act and has worked in Democratic policymaking for decades. She is the president of the Center for American Progress and was a director of Biden’s Domestic Policy Council. I asked her on the show to lay out the policy stakes of the shutdown and what a deal might look like.Mentioned:KFF Health Tracking PollThe Time Tax by Annie LowreyOne Big Beautiful Bill ActBook Recommendations:Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. RobinsonThe Sirens’ Call by Chris HayesEnd Times by Peter TurchinThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at [e-mail] can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.This episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Rollin Hu. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris and Kate Sinclair. Our senior engineer is Jeff Geld, with additional mixing by Aman Sahota. Our executive producer is Claire Gordon. The show’s production team also includes Marie Cascione, Annie Galvin, Kristin Lin, Jack McCordick, Marina King and Jan Kobal. Original music by Pat McCusker. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The director of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

You know, So we are officially in a government shutdown. Democrats and Republicans have not been able to come to agreement are nowhere near, as I say this, coming to an agreement, about how to fund the government. The nature of this shutdown, people had lots of ideas over what, if it happened, it should be about? Should Democrats demand concessions on tariffs?

Should it be about authoritarianism? What it is about in the reality we're living in is health care. The Affordable Care Act for the last few years has been supported by tax credits that have made the premiums much lower and have expanded coverage under it enormously. Those credits expire at the end of this year. If nothing is done to keep them from expiring, there will be a huge what's called premium shock and millions of people will lose health insurance. And so I wanted to have an episode diving into the actual policy debates and stakes of this shutdown, the spending fights that led to it, the unusual ways in which

Republicans have been breaking Democratic trust that helps set the stage for it, the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid debates that are now at the center of it. And then the way the Trump administration is trying to bring very particular forms of pressure to bear on the Democrats, trying to break them, make them capitulate. But they're doing so in ways it might actually be uniting them. The person I want to talk about all this with is near a Tandon. Tandon is the president of the Center for American Progress, one of the largest progressive think tanks. She worked. worked in the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations. Under Obama, she was central in helping to craft and pass the Affordable Care Act.

Under Joe Biden, she was a director of the Domestic Policy Council. So she knows all a policy here inside and out. As always, my email, as a recline show at NYTimes.com. Near attendant, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for having me. So if you're out there following coverage of the shutdown, you're hearing a lot about something called a CR. What is a CR? CR stands for a continuing resolution, and it basically is legislation that says that the funding levels of the government will just continue as they are for a specified period of time.

Now, you know, what's different about this CR is that the president has used unilateral powers to kind of end run whatever the agreements are in Congress, but generally speaking, a continuing resolution is an agreement to fund the government. Let's go into that little disclaimer you mentioned there, the end runs around it. This is a debate about another term people might be hearing called rescissions. What are recisions? Recisions are legislation that pulls back funding that has been agreed to. So, you know, it's interesting about the recisions packages as they are not subject to filibuster, so it just takes a simple majority. So if it takes 60 votes to come to an agreement and then it takes a simple majority to claw back funding, that means that whatever you agree to in a bipartisan manner can, be undone in a partisan vote.

So there are often in congressional fights, the things that people following in the news know everybody's fighting about, and then sometimes some more internal procedural things that have completely pissed everybody off. And this rescission's bit is actually, from my talking to people in Congress, pretty significant, because what's happening is that you have Democrats and Republicans coming together, making these funding deals, they need 60 votes for more because of the filibuster. And then, in what's fairly unusual, Republicans then clawing back money for things like PBS and, you know, public media and USAID through rescissions. And so it has created this collapse in, I would not say Democrats trusted Republicans a lot before this, but the sense that they will now go around the deal you just made has created this harder to answer question of, well, how do you make a deal at all under those conditions?

Absolutely. And, you know, I think it's a really combination of things. It's rescissions and then another really self-explanatory term, impoundments. So recisions are up to a subject to a vote. Impoundments are where the president just refuses to spend, the executive branch refuses to spend money allocated by Congress. So the president has just not been spending funds allocated to the National Institutes of Health, to the National Science Foundation, to other elements. of the government. And honestly, I don't think we even have a full picture of what the executive branch has really not implemented of these congressional deals. So I think it's really both of these issues. But it's also the fact that essentially Russ Vote can decide to just not listen to Congress at all. And I think that is really the fundamental threat to Article 1. There are both threats to Article 1, but it's this combination where essentially the executive branch is usurping Article 1 spending powers. I know this is like totally in the weeds here, but Congress is designated to decide how the government allocates funding. And that's really being watered down. And what's

interesting about this debate is I do think probably secretly a number of Republicans, particularly in the Senate. And some in the House who were on these committees, Appropriations Committee, would secretly like the president's powers to be limited because it really is undermining their authority. But I think you're absolutely right. At the end of the day, you know, we have this Washington talk about a clean CR. But fundamentally, this is very different from any other period of time that I've been in Washington where essentially it's not a clean CR because, you know, you can undo it. I mean, essentially, you could have an agreement between Republicans and Democrats on what is called a clean CR, and then a month or two later, Russ Fogg could just decide not to spend, you know, multiple billions of dollars for an agency. And then what does anyone even agree to?

So I think that is a fundamental part of this debate as well. There's also the reality that if recisions become common practice or impoundment becomes common practice, there will be Democratic presidents. And you can imagine them using that authority, right? There is a big spending deal. It funds ICE to a certain level. Actually, we're unfunding ICE to that level. We're not spending a bunch of the money on certain kinds of border enforcement.

It seems very, as you said, it seems in the weeds. But the question of how you do normal congressional procedure when the deal stop holding is a pretty big one here. But I think it would be both selling the Democrats a little bit short and selling the Republicans here and their argument a little bit short to say this is just about recisions. Democrats have,

increasingly come to the view that they can't let Trump run the government this way. There's been a lot of debate over what they should try to draw the line on. Should it be on neo-fascism? Should it be on authoritarianism? Should it be on mass men in the streets? Where they decided to draw the line was health care. And so they're not just asking for a clean, you know, extension of the funding in the government. They are trying to change what is about to happen in the health care markets.

what is about to happen in the health care markets? So under the Affordable Care Act, there's the exchange markets. So this is a way in which basically middle class people can get health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. And these marketplaces exist in every state. And in 2020, there were 12 million people in these marketplaces. And now there's 24 million people in these marketplaces, in part because during the Biden administration, the Congress took two votes to make the marketplaces more affordable. Essentially, they expanded the value of tax credits people receive in order to purchase health care in these marketplaces.

And essentially, that funding is going to run out at the end of this year. So what is imminently happening is that insurers are sending out notices now to people. It's just beginning. It'll increase over the next several weeks because open enrollment, the time where people choose what health insurance are going to have starts November 1st. So people are going to start getting notices about what their premiums will be in the marketplaces in the coming year. And they will be subject to premium shock. The expanded tax credits were really substantial investments. And so people are going to see, according to Kaiser Family Foundation, on average, their premiums double. You know, a family of four, making, you know, $55,000 a year, are going to see their prices quadruple.

So that is a huge price spike. And essentially, Democrats are saying that we should come together and avoid that price spike. And it will note, the Democrats at the end of, last Congress, in the waning days of the Biden administration, they tried to come to a negotiation with Republicans around this premium tax credit. Everyone knew this was coming. People talked about it. Republicans didn't want to deal with it then. So I don't know if people realize how big the increase in coverage was under the changes made in the Inflation Reduction Act. So 2020, 11.4 million people were enrolled in the affordable care marketplaces. So that's Obamacare, as we understood it when Joe Biden becomes president. By 2024, four years later, the enrollment

nearly doubles, depending on how you look at it in some cases, it does double, depending on your years. So who are these people? Who is this massive increase of people flooding into the Affordable Care Act marketplaces between 2021 and 2024? There are people who found the marketplace pretty expensive before and then found it affordable. And, you know, I think it's really interesting because a sustained Republican criticism of the Affordable Care Act after it was passed is that it wasn't really affordable. I mean, they didn't want to make it more affordable, but they just said it was too expensive. And I know that you covered the passage of the Affordable Care Act. I worked on the passage of the Affordable Care Act on the Obama administration. And, you know, the truth is

the marketplaces are really two forms of coverage in the Affordable Care Act. One is Medicaid expansion, which is people who are pretty poor. And then people who are above the Medicaid thresholds. So these are, you know, really like 99% of these people are working Americans. They are disproportionately in small businesses. They work for small businesses or own small businesses. They make, you know, anywhere from $15, $17,000, $17,000 a year. But really go all the way to the income, up the income.

You know, really people are making $35,000, $35,000, individually or as a family. so people are choosing to buy health care in the marketplaces, and it's subsidized health care. The government does help offset a lot of the cost. But as you said, we got, you know, over 11 million people, you know, roughly first 10 years of Obamacare, the ACA, to get health care. But I do think it was really not affordable enough to a lot of people. And President Biden at first in the American Rescue Plan with Congress expanded the tax credits. And then Democrats through the Inflation Reduction Act extended those tax credits until this year. And fundamentally, we learned that actually people really wanted health care if you made it more affordable.

Now, again, everyone has skin in the game. People spend, they have to invest their own dollars, people who at higher incomes have to spend more money. But what we really learned is that people desperately want to have health care that is affordable. And when we made it more affordable, as you noted, it basically doubled the number of people who were getting health care. And I actually think in this country at this point, the fact that we have the lowest rates of uninsurance in our history is a profoundly good thing for the country. So you mentioned that a lot of people we're talking about here are they make a little bit too much money for Medicaid. There's another group, though, which are people who live in red states that did not expand Medicaid. Yes.

And one of the ironies of this fight is that Democrats are shutting the government down to protect and extend tax credits that heavily disproportionately benefit red states because in a bunch of these red states, they didn't expand Medicaid, and it means more people get the tax credits. So you have more than 10% of the population now in Florida, in Texas, in Georgia, in South Carolina, in Utah, using the Affordable Care Act's subsidies. Talk to me a bit about the policy and the politics of that. I mean, the politics of health care has been really odd for these, like, last decade or so, because, you know, while we have gotten 40 states to do Medicaid expansions, there are 10 states that have not passed Medicaid expansion. In those states, you do see a much higher percentage of people on the exchange markets, just because they're so clearly desperate to have.

have health care and they can't really get it. And of course, I think it is kind of insane. We live in a country with states where if you're a slightly higher income, you get into the exchange markets, but really low income people don't have it. You know, I do think that is very perverted and I'm glad that over a decade so many more states have come on. But that does end up being a situation where, as Kaiser Family Foundation has noted, you know, we're talking about 75% of people in these exchange markets being in places that Trump won. So it's just a long way of saying that Republicans are choosing, essentially, to make people in their states who already are struggling. I mean, these are not wealthy people face, again, not just a slight premium increase, but a real premium shock.

This gets to the politics of this an interesting way. The Kaiser Family Foundation did a poll on whether or not people thought these credits should be extended. it, whether or not the tax credit should be extended. They did this at the, sort of roughly at the end of September. 78% of Americans were in support of extending the tax credits. You don't get that high of a number for many things anymore. But that included majorities of not just self-described Republicans, but self-identified MAGA supporters.

It had nearly 60% support from people who said they were MAGA. There was a Wall Street Journal story the other day where Trump administration officials were starting to say anonymously that they're actually worried about this, that they feel that this is actually a tough thing for them to own. It's not going to be great for them if health care premiums skyrocket for millions of people on their watch. The shutdown fight is a partisan fight. The politics of this, the polling of this, who it helps, who it hurts, are not a partisan issue. It does not break along partisan lines. Absolutely. And you know, what's interesting about this is this reminds me of where we were in the ACA repeal debate, which is that was another debate,

you know, now eight years ago where we were talking about President Trump's effort to repeal the ACA. And, you know, in the heat of that debate, we were in a very similar place. 50% of Republicans did not want to repeal the ACA. A majority of MAGA supporters did not want to repeal the ACA. Now, why is that? It's because this program is actually helping people that need health care coverage. And it's helping people in red states. It is, you know, it is a project of government to actually help people particularly. And I also think we're in a moment, which is a little bit different for past moments, where people feel that the cost of living is very high across the board. Now, it's also really important to remember that when you, if these premiums double,

then a lot of people will choose not to get coverage. People choose not to get coverage over. time, you know, we will see other people being impacted by that. Essentially, emergency coverage goes up, hospital shift prices to others. So, you know, we also know that when people lose coverage and the Medicaid, from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which I just struggle to say so often. But from that, we know that when people lose Medicaid coverage, it actually drives up prices for other people in the market. That takes longer time. But I think people totally understand that in this moment, it seems like the opposite of common sense to allow this price spike to happen to people when it's completely avoidable. And the truth is, and just to touch

the law's point you made, you know, Republicans know this is a problem. I do not think it is an accident that last week the Trump White House has a leak into the Wall Street Journal, that they do feel like they have to negotiate this. From what I've heard of the meeting with Senator Schumer, Congressman Jeffries, Speaker Johnson, and Leader Thune with President Trump is that the president really does seem to get that he has to deal with this problem and that he might need to make a deal with Democrats. And then I'd say the last crazy point about this is people seem to acknowledge they have to deal with it. They just don't want to deal with it now, which I think just sounds nonsensical to most people. Well, let me take that argument. So what you hear,

if you listen to interviews right now with Senator Thune, with Speaker Johnson, it's that Republicans are happy to discuss this. They would love to negotiate over this. They understand it's a problem, but only after the government is reopened. They're not going to allow the government to be held hostage on this issue. They will not talk about this issue

while the government is closed. What's your take on that? I just think it just sounds ridiculous to people, right? I mean, people are going to get their premium shack like their notices in the next few weeks. So I think the position of Republicans at this point, which, you know, look, I think it's important that they're acknowledging that this is a big problem.

at least maybe more Senator Thune than Speaker Johnson. But they're acknowledging that this is a problem. But then that's sort of an intellectual trap, right? Because I'm saying like if you, I think you're like a person who's worried about your health care costs going up, how does this sound to you? We know it's a problem, but we'd like you to get your premium notice. And then at the end of the year, after you have to make a decision, you're supposed to start making decisions on whether you're going to purchase healthcare in November, at the end of the year,

we'll deal with that. I mean, who thinks that that's like what you should do to your constituents? I mean, I think once you've sort of conceded this is a problem, then I don't really understand why the argument is we need to deal with it later and not now. And obviously, I mean, I feel like every Democrat in America feels like they can trust what the congressional Republican leadership says in Donald Trump as far as they could throw them. I mean, it's just like a, you know, I mean, I do think it sounds kind of cuckoo when you think about what the arguments people are making right now. I give up your leverage and then we promise you the deal you'll get is great. There was actually a funny moment I thought on the Sunday shows this weekend.

I was watching Speaker Johnson be interviewed and he's being pressed. Okay, you say this is a real problem. You say you need deal with it. Are you saying that you support the extension of the subsidies? Do I hear you correctly that you as Speaker of the House want to see the tax credit extended at a future date? Is that what you were saying? No, I haven't staked out any position on it yet because that's not how this process works. We're in a deliberative body.

Right, I'm asking you your position because you said you would be willing to talk about it. I'm the speaker of the house. What I have to do is draw consensus among 435 members of my body. I don't get out and project what the final conclusion is going to be. He very, very clearly did not say yes. The other Republican argument is that what Democrats are really trying to do here is give health care subsidies to, as they put it, illegal aliens. What is that argument they are making?

Okay. I just need to say this is like the most deeply cynical, ridiculous thing. But I will... I watch your shoulders actually fall. I can't believe I have to deal with this bullshit. I mean, it is really funny to me. It's like you can, I mean, I worked in the White House, and I could just imagine them sort of dowling up an illegal immigration argument as they have to deal with confrontation on health care, which, of course, they know that they have to deal with anyway, so it's just totally odd. But, okay, the best case of their argument is that during the one big, beautiful bill act, the Republicans limited Medicaid coverage to legal.

immigrants in the United States. It took, they made it more difficult for legal immigrants. No, no illegal aliens, no undocumented people, nobody crossing the border. We're talking about people like Afghani refugees, Ukrainian refugees, people subject to domestic violence who get protected status. So these are all people who have legal status in the United States. Now, they are doing a card trick to call them illegal aliens. They have legal status in the United States. They are not illegally here.

They've, like, shown themselves to the government. We know who they are. And Democrats put forward, and, you know, basically they said, we'd like to undo everything you did in the Medicaid, like, on your attacks on Medicaid, and this was one part of it. But really, the substance of their argument was undo the massive cuts to the Medicaid program. So that is, like, just false that it is covering. illegal aliens. They are not illegal aliens. It is currently illegal under federal law for federal dollars to go to health care subsidies for people here illegally. Yes. That is like the number one

point to just say about this, which is the truth is that for those of us who were old enough to remember, and I have some battle scars over this issue, having worked on the legislation, There's a big, robust debate about whether people are illegally here, illegal aliens, undocumented people could get access to the ASEA, and there is literally a provision that says, by statute, you cannot receive health care. The premium tax credit cannot go to any illegal aliens, undocumented people, whatever you want to call them, that is illegal. And that is why they've had to do this mental gymnastics to basically transform people who are illegally here into illegal aliens. This is like two different words, they have two different meetings, and they're just conglomerating them in order to have some shred of making a lie true, but it is still a lie. So we've been talking primarily about the Affordable Care Act private health insurance marketplaces. But when we started talking about the questions of immigrants of different forms, that gets you into Medicaid.

And as you mentioned, a lot was changed in Medicaid. The expiring tax credits come actually from Democratic bills, right? These were, you know, tax credits set to expire. And as you mentioned, the Inflation Reduction Act. The Medicaid changes were in the OBBBA. Talk me through the Medicaid changes. Yeah, I mean, this is the biggest seismic shift in health care and my 25 years of working on it in a negative way.

I mean, this is the Republicans essentially put forward a transformation of the Medicaid program. They adopted a series of regulations that will mean that millions of people will lose health care. They instituted work requirements, but those work requirements, you know, just are honestly about so much paperwork that it just really becomes hard for people to keep their health insurance. Yeah, you use the complexity of the paperwork to kick people off the programs. My wife, Annie Lowry, is literally writing a book on this. It's called The Time Tax. I know. I know. I mean, I'm a great student of her work. We did a lot of work in the federal government to go the other way.

make benefits easier. But essentially, that is kind of the hack. The hack is that they make it so complicated to access your benefits that people will lose their benefits. And, you know, this is a highly contested debate, you know, during the consideration of the bill. But the fact has always been clear that states that have used systems of complexity have last coverage, you know, Arkansas instituted work requirements with complicated paperwork and

lots and lots of people lost their health insurance because, you know, you ask them to verify every month. The whole system is sort of designed to keep people out of health care. So just to step back, and I know there was a robust debate about the one big, beautiful bill, but the heart of that legislation was fundamental. It's a complicated tax bill, But the truth of that legislation at its most base components was that unlike any legislation that has been passed by a Congress in at least my life, the legislation itself provided a massive tax cut to the wealthiest. It extended middle class tax cuts, but a big innovation was large-scale tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, a lot of corporate tax cuts. but really the structure of the legislation at and cuts to snap and Medicaid. And, you know, Republicans really had this big argument about fraud, et cetera.

But that was all also just honestly, can I say bullshit on this? It was just BS. It was just ridiculous. And the fundamentals of that is Republicans have been trying to undo the expansion of the welfare state. Lots of people got health care coverage over the last decade. and they really think that we're spending too much on that. And that's really fundamentally why the legislation was so unpopular. Because, you know, there's a lot of ways they can be in step or both parties are up for grabs.

But fundamentally, I think Americans did not think that the big problem in America is that too many people had health care. One reason you know that Americans didn't think that is that Donald Trump never runs saying that. He continuously runs saying he's going to protect Medicare. he's going to protect Medicaid, he's going to fix the Affordable Care Act, give this country the health care it deserves. And to a large extent when I talk to congressional Democrats, to them at this moment, the Democratic Party's brand is not shining, shall we say? I think that's fair. This is their big political opportunity. This is the issue that Americans care about, that they also trust Democrats on.

this is the issue where Donald Trump is repeatedly betraying promises to people, saying he wouldn't cut Medicaid in doing so, saying he would fix the Affordable Care Act and then allowing a gigantic premium spike to happen. I had somebody who's very involved in the Democratic effort to take back the House, say to me basically, look, the most dangerous thing Donald Trump is doing is his effort to sort of corrupt the government to do an authoritarian tool. But the most effective tool Democrats have against him

is health care policy, that they believe that the way they're going to win the House back is on health care. Yeah. I mean, look, there's a fascinating

marriage of convenience between sort of the pro-welfare state kind of populists and the libertarians. And you know that this isn't popular, not just because Donald Trump didn't run on it,

because also Donald Trump never talks about this. He never talks about OBBBA. He never, you know, I mean, I need, I knew we were winning this debate during the consideration of the bill. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where public opinion actually dictates how congressional leaders act. You know, they were dedicated to, they sped up the debate because it is so unpopular. But I think, you know, I think what's really important to think about is, you know, how people hear these things, right? And we're, I mean, we could talk for hours about there are a lot of people who pay a lot of attention to politics or a lot of people who don't pay a lot of attention to politics. That has always been the case of the United States. There are always people that, like, we've always ran elections that way. And I think this is a really crucial part of this discussion, which is in a world where

lots of people are not paying attention to politics and they are pretty stressed out in their lives, you know, what are the things that feel real in their lived experience? And, you know, I'd just be candid that I just, I am genuinely petrified by what the president is doing. And, to weaponize the U.S. military against cities. But I also think we have to acknowledge that a lot of people live in places that are not in cities and they're kind of not paying attention to the news every day and they're struggling to get by. And it is totally legitimate. And I think we have to say this. It is totally legitimate for that person to be pretty anxious about making ends meet and hearing about health care costs for them going up. And I think, I think,

think the truth of the country that we're in right now, and maybe we wish everyone talked about one issue versus another, but people understand this cost of living problem. I mean, what's fascinating about America, but it's not just America. It's around the world. We just kept us, ran a conference with leaders, you know, pro-site of center left, leaders, progressive leaders from Western countries, you know, Europe, Canada, Australia. And three years after, nine percent inflation in the United States, people care about cost of living today as much as they cared about it back then, which says to me that there is like an overall sense that people are feeling out of control of how they kind of afford their life. And so in that world,

you know, democracies mean leaders have to meet voters where they are. There's no like referee. The voters win. And this is an issue where, I mean, I think there's, actually more opportunity. I mean, the thing that's so fundamentally amazing about the first eight months of Trump, which, you know, I expected a lot of the authoritarian threat. I am genuinely surprised by their creativity, but it is horrifying. But the thing that is most remarkable and amongst the things that is so different from the first four years of his administration is he is actually getting away with hurting working class people this time. His big legislation in the first four years that would have hurt working-class people

was the repeal effort to undo the Affordable Care Act. And we stopped him. Democrats stopped him. This eight months, he has passed legislation to me that will mean that people's health, they lose their health care, working-class people lose their health care, utility rates will go up, and he has a tariff policy.

That means the price of goods will go up, and who faces that cost disproportionately, working-class people? So we have to have alternatives for people, but what you talk about really matters, particularly when you're in the opposition. And I think it is crucial that we talk about the pain that Trump and Republicans are delivering, having voted on it or delivered it through his executive actions on tariffs, they are delivering pain to working class people every day. And we have to keep our eye on that ball. One of the arguments that I made about a shutdown and that others made about a shutdown is that it's an intentional event. The problem Democrats have had is not that they don't have a message. They have lots of messages, arguably many too many messages, is that nobody cares what they're saying because they don't have power. And the shutdown, what it's already doing is forcing a debate. I mean, you turn on the news and you see Johnson and you see Schumer and you see Jeffries and you see Thune and they're talking about health insurance subsidies. They're talking about the Democrats. best issue. We are devoting a full show to it here because there's something happening

on it, right? It's not just out there as one of the million policy problems flitting about the ether as Donald Trump sends a National Guard into cities. You know, Democrats have been very skittish about using the leverage they have. I think people don't actually realize how much leverage they have not been using. They didn't just skip the shutdown in March, but they're, you know, helping to get closer on the National Defense Authorization Act and all kinds of things. They are not throwing sand in the gears and creating crises as much as they could because they've been, I think, quite frightened about, well, what do they get out of it? And what happens if Donald Trump moves into a reprisal mode, which we'll talk about in a second? But one thing they

get out of it is a modicum of control over attention. And then they actually have to win the argument, right? You can't pick a bad argument and lose. It's not going to help you. But already, you see the Trump administration's starting to take their own danger on health insurance subsidies seriously. Nothing matters in politics if people don't know about it. Nothing matters if people either can't feel it or even if they are feeling it, but there's not the attention to tell them how to interpret what's happening to them. But one thing that shut down is doing, it seems like it's working, is shining light on this issue in particular, which is, you know, what Democrats on some level, in addition to whatever negotiations they have set out to achieve. Yeah, I agree with that.

I guess I would just, I might offer an amendment, which is, I think the reason why this is getting coverage is because Democrats have leverage on the 60 votes. And I think that, look, Republicans, Democrats, we all live in a media ecosystem, which is a challenge of it is there is a lot of news created by the Trump administration. But also, you know, if something feels like a fate of complete, it does not actually get that much attention. I'll give an example, which is Republicans nuked the filibuster, essentially nuked the filibuster in the lead-up to the OPPA, and we don't have to get into the really hard to explain details, but essentially they blew that up on a 50-person vote. They blew up the filibuster on being able to package nominees together.

You know, Democrats basically didn't go along. They blew up the filibuster. And like, you know, no one in America knows about this. you know, that might have been a big debate a year or two, three, four, or five years ago in normal politics, but in a world in which Trump is, you know, threatening the National Guard into cities, it does seem like kind of a minutia. And so I think the real issue here is having a fight over a major scale issue and also having the ability to, like there is some sense you could possibly win the fight. And at a time where part of the Democratic brand is poor, because, people perceive it, even Democrats, perceive it as weak. And that is why it is important for all leaders within the party to use opportunities where they have leverage to speak out. And just to say, you know, leadership is a social contract. Wherever it is, it's a social contract. It's like, I'm going to follow you and you are going to protect me or look out for me or do something for me.

And here we've talked about some of the authoritarian threat in the country in a real sense of anxiety and fear amongst Democrats about how much our country is transforming in our eyes. And it is not unreasonable for in that moment when you are scared to look for your leaders to be strong. And so I think that is also part of the politics of all of this, which is here's an opportunity for Democrats to stand up for, you know, not just like willy-nilly something that helps them, but something that actually helps the American people in a way that every voter can understand, as you can see from this poll. Like, it's not an intellectual exercise about congressional powers versus Article 1 versus Article 2 versus Article 3. It is a real life debated by people's lives. And that is an opportunity that has not come before and may not come again before the midterms. So the Trump administration's

response on this, separate from their messaging, is you think it's shut down its leverage for you? No, it's leverage for us. You probably saw that President Trump tweeted an AI-generated music video of Office of Management and Budget Director. And as he put it, Project 2025 fame, Russ Vote. Nice of him to acknowledge a year after the election. Right. Tweeted this music video of Russ Vote as The Grim Reaper. He builds a pen, the funds and the brain Here comes the Reaper Dem's your babies

Comes the Reaper Gotta tie your hands The idea is that the shutdown gives Trump and vote powers To remake the federal government In some wholly new way That they can do things during a shutdown That they couldn't otherwise do

And Democrats should fear What they're going to do? What powers does it give them? I mean, legally, it doesn't give them more powers. Legally, it's actually supposed to give them less powers because it's illegal to fire people during a shutdown while they're furloughed. That is actually in the law. Now, I appreciate that law is sort of questionable with the president, but I think there's two things going on here. One, Trump uses fear as an asymmetric asset, right? I mean, this Grim Reaper meme is exactly

him trying to get Democrats to give in out of fear. And, you know, I just think Trump is like any other bully. And the more you fear at his discretion, the more you're going to do what he wants, which is pre-kauer. I mean, that's the power of bullying. It makes you do things that the bully wants without him actually have to throw that punch. But I also think there's something just completely different about this, which is, and I think this is like an underrated part of all this, which is, We have never had a negotiation over the budget of the Congress, between the Congress and the president. We've never had a negotiation take place like this while the president is fully committed

to unilaterally closing down agencies. I think the American people blame Trump because he's been closing down agencies or trying to close down elements of this government for eight months. You know, I just think the public just sees everything as they're not deciphering news. separately, they see all this against a backdrop. And, you know, I pay a lot of attention in news. Do we even know if the U.S. Department of Education is fully functional right now? I mean, he tried to close the agency, then a court reopened the agency, then they kind of lost a decision. It's really hard to keep track what's open and closed. And honestly, in a government shutdown, it feels like it's just like a matter of degree, not a matter of just existence of

whether these agencies are working on that. So I think fundamentally, I don't think you should give into the bully, just threatening people, and it's kind of horrifying. And we shouldn't reward this kind of behavior. But also, I mean, I personally understand why people care. They care about human beings, and I do, do. But fundamentally, he's going to get worse if he's not stopped. This is the other part of all of this. We're in month eight. This is an opportunity to push back. What is really crazy, I think, and really just terrible is Republican House and Senate members have lost power to the president. And this is a system that Trump has hacked that, you know, our founding fathers expected congressional leaders to care about their power over. That is like the idea of separation

of powers is that while the president might have a lot of power, members of Congress of both parties would jealously guard their power. That is what he has hacked. He has hacked as like scaring his own members into like basically seating power to them. And so what really should happen here as Republicans who actually care, she's like basically secretly hoped that Democrats win this debate so they can get back to being like, I mean, I'm also, I just wonder every day, like, do you look in the mirror and just have dignity? Like, I just wonder what these people think they're doing. The specific argument that they're making about what vote can do is that they can do mass firings.

Yeah. I think there's like two things worth talking about with that. So one is, as you say, that is facially under the law illegal. Now, they've done a lot of illegal things. Supreme Court seems to be relatively, um, accepting. They're relatively eh of the illegal. Yeah, about things who would have thought were illegal, but there's that. And this would be, you know, pretty flagrantly illegal.

The other, though, is, I think, a more fundamental conceptual question. This idea that destroying a federal government that you run is like a good move for you. They're treating the federal government, which they are in charge of, as a hostage Democrats need to stop them from shooting. Yeah. And to be clear, I do not want to see the federal government shot.

But usually when you're the president and you run the executive branch, you don't want the executive branch to fall apart. And if you've been listening to some of Trump's cabinet appointees, they don't seem to want their agencies gutted.

I mean, I believe this is why Doge functionally stopped. So I guess you could just try to attack things only Democrats like in government. I think that would be illegal. But I'm curious for how you think about that, because my view is that if they had wanted to continue gutting the federal government, they would have. They have the power to do it. The fact that Russ Vote has not been doing much more than he's been doing suggests to me that the Trump administration actually has not wanted to do all these things at a certain point now they're running the federal government and they needed to work for them. And that a lot of this is, you know, smoke and mirrors. They would be like shooting at their own administrative body now as opposed to. to just something it's the Democrats' job to protect and manage.

Yeah, so I think that what's fascinating about this whole, like, I'm going to shoot the hostage that is actually my agency, is, look, I have been on the other side of this. I was in the White House in the last four years where, you know, we were worried about Republicans shutting down the government.

And the truth is, we, you know, I think, honestly, people generally think that the president is in charge. And so you do, the president is always worried, or they should always be worried about owning a shutdown. But also when you have a shutdown, it really matters what happens in the first 24, 36, 48 hours. So, I mean, if you're thinking rationally about this, this is what I think is so interesting, is they basically threaten to have the firings, right? And so the moment that you should really want to scare everybody would have been Thursday.

You know, I really thought Resvote was going to start his mass firings, you know, Thursday, Friday morning in order to pressure Democrats very quickly to reopen the government. That didn't happen. And I think the reason, and it still hasn't happened. I mean, they keep threatening it still hasn't happened. Now, I don't wish it to happen. I hope they don't. I hope it doesn't happen. But I actually think that when Donald Trump does things like this, it makes clear to people, he's kind of relishing the whole situation.

and that he owns a shutdown more than anything else. It basically looks like he's in control of the situation that he's basically using it as an excuse to fire people. It literally says, I'm going to fire people from Democrat agencies. Now, what is that? What is a Democrat agency? The agencies that help working class people, the agencies are like, is laborer, whatever, who knows?

But essentially, I think fundamentally the weird back and forth, and I think Republicans are clearly back-channeling. to him not to do this. I mean, I think it makes them look like they own the pain to people because they do own the pain to people. Well, that's another piece of this. The other thing that they have been doing is freezing money for

projects in blue states. It speaks to the irony here of Democrats pushing a shutdown to try to protect tax credits that help red states and Republicans responding by freezing infrastructure money in blue states. I've been talking to Democrats about this and universally what they're saying to me. is it it is uniting their side and hardening their resolve.

I think there's a bit of an analogy to the tariffs here. Trump has used tariffs to break a bunch of other countries and try to bring them closer in line with what he wanted. And in trying to do that, say, to Canada, he united Canadians and destroyed the political career of the more Trump-like, you know, right-wing figure who was expected to be the next Canadian prime minister. And that's in large part how Mark Carney got elected.

In Brazil, it has united a lot of support around Lula. When people feel that you are punishing them unfairly, even if it is hurting them, right? New York does not want to see money for the 2nd Avenue subway frozen. It tends to turn them against you. People don't enjoy being bullied. And so I think these two levels, right, normally what the president does during a shutdown,

when the shutdown is pushed by the opposition party, say, listen, I'm a thoughtful, reasonable person here. I would love to negotiate over anything. What I want to do is turn the lights on, and I'm not going to let you hold the federal government hostage. And instead, Donald Trump, what he's saying is that I am so excited to use the shutdown as cover to push an extremist agenda I wouldn't even have done three weeks ago.

I'm going to freeze a bunch of money from blue states, and I'm not really going to negotiate with you. it's not a way of deflecting blame. No. And I think people, you know, like I think people sniff the stuff at. I think it's really interesting mentioning Carney. You know, look around the world. Who are the leaders who are actually popular in their countries? Carney, Lula, in Australia, Prime Minister Albanese. These are people who are actually gaining in popularity because they are standing up to Trump. You know, what's so far. fascinating about this moment is that Trump is basically like he has a modus off brandy that has worked against a series of institutions over those last eight months. It is to bully and scare you and to use the power of the federal government against them in a world in which media networks are caving, law firms are caving, some universities are caving. This has

been a very effective strategy for him to just literally scare the shit out of people. And I think the truth of it, though, is bullies work by bullying. If you are not bullied by the bully, then like half of their job is gone. So I think the irony of this whole situation is that he has a way of working, which is to try and scare you. And if you just hold firm and let it pass, it will be okay and that people would prefer. I mean, I've heard from people in agencies who are worried about getting fired, but they think it's more important for Democrats. to hold firm to Trump because they know if he is allowed to get away with this, it will only get worse.

It's also a long-time strategy that Trump's various opponents have used against, which is to provoke him into overreaction. Yes. And also, I think here, like, this is a great example to me of an overreaction. He closes the Second Avenue subway. He's closing all these construction projects that affect New York. I think the idea was to punish Chuck Schumer and Hakeemey's in order to maximize pain. but then, you know, these projects, a variety of these projects, affect New Jersey as well,

Gateway Tunnel, other projects. So it's not just limited to New York City. And then, of course, that raises a question of what does everyone think about that? So, Mikey, Cheryl, the Democratic candidate for governor immediately attacked the president for unnecessarily closing down this project, stopping this project. And then the question went to the Republican candidate. And, you know, he basically said, no one's asking me about this. You've really. really is avoiding saying Donald Trump done something wrong, even though I think there's 95,000 jobs at stake. And so I do think it creates interesting counter pressures

in ways that perhaps Republicans have not thought through. It gets to this what is usually the question of the shutdown. A shutdown over time will cause pain. What Trump is trying to do is accelerate with the grants and the funding. He's trying to cause pain to blue states faster than a shutdown naturally would. if rest of vote begins, you know, laying off fast amounts of the federal workforce, maybe that would cause pain faster than

things otherwise would. But we're pretty early in this. Yes. The thing that will happen is that functions of the government, if there's not a deal, will begin to either degrade or to shut down. You know, you might not have air traffic controllers getting paid and you begin to have flight delays.

You might have national parks close. Usually you try to stay out of the way of that and blame the other party for it. But talk to me a bit about what that that might look like. If this week there's no deal, if next week there's no deal, I mean, if we're, if we're trying to look at a shutdown of four weeks, five weeks, six weeks, when this stops just being a media story about a negotiation and begins to be something that's happening to Americans, what will they feel? Yeah, I mean, look, there will be stories about people

not being able to get passports as easily and stories about the national parks. And there will definitely be stories about, you know, veteran services and things like that. I think what is, interesting about this shutdown debate, which I've been in various shutdowns, but there's two issues in people's heads, like what does the government do broadly? And then, you know, if Democrats are capable of holding onto this line, which I think they will be, is there'll be another pain in people's heads as well, which is premium shocks. And I think these are two things. And right now, I mean, what's been really interesting about this shutdown is that there hasn't been as many stories as we usually get in a shutdown in the first couple of days of problems and other things, in part because I think there might be a little bit more of people an newer to those kinds of stories, given the world we're in. But there will be more and more stories like that.

I mean, everyone sees things online. The argument of Republicans for the last year has been we should do do doge. We should do doge on steroids because the federal government is useless. And now they're the big champions of keeping it open. I just think at a fundamental level, people understand that this is sort of bullshit. So, I mean, the whole thing this debate comes down to is like Democrats basically being, let me help you. Help me, help you.

You don't want these premium tax rights. And, you know, if I were Thune and Johnson, I would know that Trump basically wants to make a deal as well at some point. he's not going to like live like this forever. And I'm sure he's like much more focused on the National Garden Cities. But fundamentally his voters are going to be hurt by this in a world where his economic approval numbers are already low and cost of living numbers are already low. Anyone rational in the White House will know that they want to make a deal eventually. And do you think he's going to be so loyal to Johnson and Thune to not basically pull the rug under their underneath them? No. So I mean, my take on all of this is this, I think maybe

before we get the mass firings, we will get a deal. Do you have any sense yet of the outlines of what that deal might look like? Do you think that is clear? I mean, people talk a lot about Gene Chaheen, Democratic Senator from New Hampshire, has become a key go-between with the Republicans. Are you hearing outlines of something taking shape or not yet? I mean, what I hear is that there are a lot of conversations, but that none of them are engaged with Zoom.

and you have to engage the leader and he's holding on to his posture of really not negotiating on this and maybe things will change. I think, you know, I think Republicans had a lot more confidence last Wednesday that Democrats would fold. I think they expected the Republican message machine

to work on immigration, which it is not. People are not buying this immigration debate. Two to one, Republicans even think this debate is around health care or not immigration. So I think the fact that they went to their to obscuring people about illegal immigrants and not, it hasn't worked. And, you know, the coverage really still is on health care. And again, it's going to get worse and worse and worse on health care because people are going to get these shocking premium hikes in the mail and then

people will have to decide. People will decide not to get coverage. You know, these are going to be stories we all live with. So I fundamentally think that the challenge here, you know, and just to be honest, Mike Johnson basically saying he's not going to take up this legislation. He's not even, doesn't even have the House in this week. I mean, how seriously are they taking this? It really has made it difficult for moderate Democrats to say, well, like, yes, we can negotiate because whatever deal they strike with Thune has to get agreed to by Johnson. Otherwise, like, what are they all doing? And then, I mean, but fundamentally, this will come down to Trump. Then always our final question. What are three books you'd recommend to the audience?

My absolute top recommendation is why nations fail. by Darren Asamaglu and James Robinson. The essential theme of the book is that inclusive political systems create inclusive economic systems, exclusive political systems, create extractive economic systems, which basically, to boil it down is saying that democracy is good for capitalism and markets and actually people's economic success and that maybe we'd describe oligarchy is really bad for economic growth and it is why countries tend to fail. So I think it is a description of our history, but also a warning sign about our future. Sirens Call by Chris

Hayes. And here, that's a very slightly different, but I think the thing, and you've talked a lot about this, the most important element of politics is attention. We talk a lot in politics about political leaders' biography and geography and their ideology, but like fundamentally their ability to convince people of their position and what they, where they want to take the country and defend against attacks and have a vision for the future, all depend on, you know, how much people want to hear and listen and be led by them. And that is all, really is all a function of people being first willing to pay attention to what you say. So, So I think that is a kind of really interesting understanding of the world.

And then end times by Peter Churchin, which does fall a little bit on the, why nations fail, but kind of gives a sense of why we are in this moment itself and what explains the Trump era based on essentially how people probably have felt stuck for a long time. and it makes me think about how we need a political system that is answering more fundamental questions than perhaps it has so far. Near Attendin, thank you very much. Thanks so much for having me. This episode of The Isfranches produced by Roland Hu.

Fact-checking by Michelle Harris with Kate Sinclair. Our senior audio engineer is Jeff Gelb, with additional mixing by Alman Zahota. Our executive producer is Claire Gordon. The show's production team also includes Annie Galvin, Marie Cassione, Jack McCordick, Marina King, Kristen Lynn, and Jan Kobel.

Original music by Isaac Jones, Carol Sabarow, and Pat McCusker. Audience Strategy by Christina Samaluski and Shannon Busta. The director of New York Times' opinion audio is Annie Rose Strasser. Thank you.