The NPR Politics Podcast - Borders, Bills & Burgers

Episode Date: March 1, 2024

In this week's roundup, we look at the dueling visits to the U.S.-Mexico border taken by President Biden and former president Trump, the continued glacial pace of legislation in Congress, and controversial plans to make a fast food staple a little bit pricier.This episode: White House correspondents Asma Khalid & Franco Ordoñez, and political correspondent Susan Davis. Our producers are Jeongyoon Han, Casey Morell & Kelli Wessinger. Our editor is Erica Morrison. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi. Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Connect:Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi, this is Elise. I'm currently sitting in my car after getting five cavities filled because my dental insurance expires next week. Big thanks to Dr. Schneider and Olivia for helping me out. This podcast is recorded at 12 20 p.m eastern time on Friday, March 1st of 2024. Things may have changed by the time you hear it. And hopefully by then, I'll be capable of more typical speech. Here's the show. Okay, I'm really proud that she's taking care of those cavities, but I'm also like deeply alarmed that we have to do these things based on when we have like dental insurance or health insurance.

Racing to it. Or when, I don't know, it's the same thing as like, have you ever hit your deductible? And then you're like, I gotta get everything done before that deductible comes back up. Hey, shout out to Dr. Shiner and Olivia for fitting Elise in. Well, hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Asma Khalid. I cover the White House. I'm Frank Ordonez. I cover the presidential campaign. And I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. And we begin today's show with a strange yet symbolic split screen at the southern border. Both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump visited Texas yesterday. Join me or I'll join you in telling the Congress to pass this bipartisan border

security bill. We can do it together. You know and I know it's the toughest, most efficient, most effective border security bill this country has ever seen. So instead of playing politics with the issue, why don't we just get together and get it done? And about 300 miles away along the same Rio Grande River, Donald Trump had a very different message and a very different tone. The operation that they showed me is nothing less than incredible. And I'll say this. It's a military operation. I mean, we have a military.

This is like a war. All right. So, Franco, how do you make sense of the fact that these two men stood at the same border and offered rather contrasting visions? Yeah, it was very different messages. I mean, Trump really painted a very apocalyptic image of the border, you know, of the dangers involved, what was happening. He described the situation as kind of needing a military operation. He had a National Guard

behind him. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, toured some of the border there in Eagle Pass, which is where he was, which is kind of the front lines of an immigration or a border battle between state and federal authorities. Meanwhile, Biden, you know, as you heard in that piece of tape, you know, he called for bipartisanship. And, you know, I would argue that ship has kind of sailed on this issue. But what he is trying to do is kind of at least leave a message that he's willing and trying to at least offer a potential solution. You know, he was referring, of course, to the bipartisan deal that senators put together that would have tightened rules for asylum. And frankly, I mean, I think a bigger goal that he has is trying to flip the script on Republicans, you know, not only presenting a real solution or a solution, but also trying to paint Republicans as being unserious about actually fixing the problem and just playing politics. I do think it's an interesting strategy. And I'm curious to see

if Biden does more of it. The border is one of those issues that's just presented the opportunity most clearly. But even in that clip, you hear him. He's sort of running against Congress. He's not saying like my opponent will do X, Y, or Z. But he's saying, join me in telling Congress, tell Republicans in Congress and campaigning against congressional inaction. I don't know if it'll work, but it seems like a new and interesting tactic in that it's actually given the president a response to a question that, frankly, I don't think the Biden administration was very good at answering in the first couple of years of the administration

on what exactly their strategy was for the U.S.-Mexico border. You know, it does seem like these visits for both men were largely campaign trips, right? I mean, they offered a lot of pomp, a lot of mean, they offered a lot of pomp, a lot of opportunities for pictures, a lot of theater, but not necessarily a whole lot of policy. Not at all. I mean, it really was like they were kind of,

you know, when you watched it actually on TV, I mean, it really could have been, they could have been like in a boxing ring with the two sides kind of squaring off. And, you know, to Sue's point, I mean, I absolutely think that she's right, that Democrats do see this as an opportunity to kind of change the narrative. I mean, Biden is really going on the offensive. It took almost two years into his presidency until

Biden went to the border. And here he is going, you know, very quickly after Trump announces his visit. Now, Biden says that's just a coincidence. But this is a real new aggressive approach that Biden is taking. And the Democrats that I talked to, you know, are kind of almost excited about this and say that, you know, the Republicans and Trump, by torpedoing that deal, have given them, you know, a message, an example that they can actually point to on the campaign trail to explain that they are more serious about actually addressing the border. And I actually spoke with Evan Roth Smith. He's a Democratic pollster. And he pointed to the special election in New York earlier this month with Democrat Tom Suozzi, who went on the

offensive over the border after this whole episode. We now have proof positive in this latest election that Republicans are out over their skis again on immigration. They don't know what to do, and they've handed Democrats something they can run on for months or maybe years. This does seem like a very complicated message, though, to sell to voters, because what voters are seeing is a situation at the border that they think is not under control. You look at poll after poll. Right. And you see that immigration is rising in terms of just an issue of concern for voters. You look at the fact that I think a Monmouth poll recently found that a majority of voters say that they want to construct a border wall. And I believe that's the first time ever since that question has been posed directly to voters in that survey that they're seeing this.

And it does strike me that you have to convince voters, if you're a Democrat, that Republicans don't want to do something, even though they could do something. That feels like a really complicated message to sell. I don't think there's any doubt that the Republican Party has a structural advantage on the broader issue of border security. I just think if you ask a voter to say, hey, which party do you think wants to crack down on the border more? Republicans and polling validates this. They have more trust to the public. coupled with the president and Democrats in Congress actually coming up with a policy solution that was ultimately rejected by Republicans because Donald Trump didn't support it, has given them what they haven't had for a really long time, which is answers to these questions. And I think that Swazi's win in a district that is also where immigration is a top issue. This is an issue where the migrant crisis, people are feeling it. It's in constant local news coverage there. It's not like a, it was an issue that resonated with voters there, that if you talk about it and are aggressive about it and say what you're for, that you can win.

But it remains to be seen if that can be replicated across other competitive districts. I don't know. As I've said many times, I'm always skeptical about what special elections ultimately tell us about the general election. But I do think it has changed a calculation in that Democrats were feeling very scared on the issue of immigration in the border. And I think that there is more confidence that they can actually at least have a response at debates and in ads to the what are you going to do about immigration? I mean, the big question also I have, though, is can it be replicated at the very top of the ticket if you have Joe Biden face off against Donald Trump, a man who the very first time he ran in 2016 made the argument that he was running on immigration. Right. He talked about Mexicans, folks coming across the border, not sending their best kind. I mean, that was his rhetoric from day one. And Biden, I think, is now trying to own the situation more directly, showing that he is in control and that he has potential solutions. But again, if you look at his approval rating on immigration, it's rather, rather low. So it is a particular vulnerability for him.

It's interesting that you put it that way, Asma, because, you know, Biden ran on a very different message when he launched his campaign, undoing many of the policies, the most extreme policies that Trump had implemented. And now he's kind of embracing some of Trump's language, talking about shutting the border down and even advocating for this agreement that is really, really strong on border enforcement. All right. Well, on that note, let's take a quick break. And when we get back, we will talk more about the current congressional logjam. And we're back. And let's turn now to Capitol Hill, which finds itself in its new state of normal, which I would say is mild paralysis until the absolute last minute. The House and Senate have each passed a short-term spending bill to keep the government open. My understanding is some agencies will, in fact, only stay open until next Friday.

So not a long-range deal. This comes after the government was set to shut down today had there not been any intervention. Sue, you have covered Congress for many years. When you're looking at what's going on right now, I mean, do you see any room for optimism? I do. Let's end this week on an optimistic note. I feel like I never get to bring the optimism to the pod, so I'll do my best today. One, it is, let's not give them too much applause on Capitol Hill when you consider that these are all spending bills that should have all been signed into law by September 30th. They're already months and

months past the deadline, and they're still not there yet. So no extra credit. But, you know, part of this deal that they passed another stopgap to get through next week, as you noted, Asma. But as part of that deal, bill leaders have announced that they have the terms of an agreement to approve six of the 12 outstanding spending bills. So a deal is upon them. Now, in normal times, I would say this looks like it's on a glide path and a done deal. In this Congress with this House of Representatives, you always have to sort of wait until the moment that it's actually coming up for a vote to have any level of confidence. But it does seem on a glide path to have half of the spending bills signed into law

by the end of the week. And then they say that they'll try to work out the remaining six appropriations bills by March 22. The cause for less optimism in those six bills is Congress is pushing off the more controversial ones. These are spending bills for things like the Justice Department, which not a lot of rank and file Republicans want to vote to fund the Justice Department right now. Or the bills that fund the Labor Department and the Health and Human Services Department are tricky because they have some abortion policies in there. So there's the more complicated bills, still TBD, but it moved towards progress this week versus the other direction, which I guess the other direction is Congress. Well, I appreciate your bit of optimism today for us on this Friday, though I do have this

question about this other big supplemental bill that's supposed to provide further aid for Ukraine, additional aid for Israel. That is something that President Biden has been trying to get Congress to pass. We saw that the House speaker has thus far not brought it up for a vote. Do you have any sense that something might have changed this week to make it more likely to have any traction? I think there's more optimism around Ukraine aid as well. Okay, explain that, Sue. A couple of things have happened both in and outside the control of Congress in Washington. One being the death of Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition leader, was a very resonant and motivating issue on Capitol Hill.

And I think that changed or clarified what's at stake here politically if Russia is on the advance in Ukraine. And I think that the resolve of members who really want to see this past has only dug them in deeper. I also think when that happened, when the death of Navalny was announced, a significant contingent of leaders in Congress were at the Munich Security Conference. And almost to the one, people that spoke publicly about it said that they were pressured by leaders from around the world saying like, where is this money? The money's got to come. and that they gave assurances to allies that it was coming, that it was going to be difficult, but it would get there. And frankly, just the math, it's already passed the Senate, it split Republicans in half, but half the Senate Republican conference voted for it.

Probably not that dissimilar in the House where there is a lot of opposition to it, but I don't think there's any doubt that the votes are there. They have the numbers. It's just tricky internal politics. A lot of House Republicans don't want to vote for this money. They have what is a new and relatively weak speaker who is trying to navigate the politics of his internal conference. But I also have to say, guys, it was notable to me, too, that there was a White House meeting with all the principal leaders on the Hill and national security leaders and the president. And a lot of that meeting, to me, seemed designed to kind of keep the pressure campaign on the speaker to be like, look, we know you've got your internal political problems, but there's a bigger thing at stake here for the world. And like it's time to put on your your leader pants and allow the hard votes to happen. You know, and I'll just add to that.

I mean, those meetings at the White House, they don't generally happen unless there is some kind of opening that they can see for some potential progress. But at the same time, I'm not ready to pop any champagne. I mean, I still see a rocky path. I think I'm with a little bit of the pessimism because I, you know, I think I'm with the, you know, a little bit of the pessimism because, you know, I just look at and Sue, you're the expert here. But, you know, I see the far right, you know, members of that house pushing against him and even threatening to depose him if he allows this to happen. And even Trump has, you know, you know, Trump's put his thumb on the scale here.

He has not supported this. So I think I'll wait to see, you know, I's put his thumb on the scale here. He has not supported this. So I think I'll wait to see, you know, I'll believe it when I do see it. So it sounds like you don't share the optimism that Sue has about where this might go in this moment. You know, I am sort of intrigued by something that the national security spokesman, John Kirby, told our colleague Tamara Keith this week. She asked about the timeline for needing this Ukraine aid to pass. And I believe he said that the timeline's already passed, that it's already too late. And, you know, they've been saying iterations of that publicly. The way he phrased that, though, made it sound like he does not think that Ukraine can afford a further delay. And so I hear what you're saying about the

optimism, Sue, but there's the reality that with every additional day, Russia can make further inroads into Ukraine. And this is potentially going to be a moot conversation in months if Ukraine does not have that money soon. I think that one of the technical but important points here is that there is a path for this to pass the House without the consent of the Speaker. There are procedural tactics Democrats could use, something known as the discharge petition, in which, you know, right now, there's not a lot there. I don't think there's any House Republicans on record saying they would support a discharge petition. But if the Speaker were to say, look, I'll just never bring this to the floor, I think you could see a critical mass of Republicans

break and side with Democrats to force a vote. So like I said, there's paths. It just depends on how ugly and how painful the paths to get there are going to be. But I think right now, compared to three or four weeks ago, I think it is more likely than not that there will be at least be a House vote on Ukraine aid at some point in the coming weeks. Yeah, definitely progress is being made. It's just very slow and it's still perilous. All right, let's take one more break. And when we get back, it's time for your favorite part of the show,

Can't Let It Go. And we're back and it's time for Can't Let It Go. That's the part of the show where we talk about the things that we just cannot stop thinking about, politics or otherwise. And Sue, why don't you kick it off? The thing I can't let go this week relates to politics and what I find a new and curious

trend happening among members of Congress. And that is the un-retirement. Members that have said that they are going to retire and not going to run again and then ultimately change their mind and announce. And as you both know, once something happens three times in politics, it's officially a trend. So the third congressman, Mark Green, he's the Homeland Security chairman, he had already announced that he planned to retire. And in his retirement announcement, he referred to a strong desire to leave Congress. But he announced this week at the urging of many people, including President Trump, he's decided to unretire and will, in fact, seek reelection. Two other members that have done this, Pat Fallon, who is a Texas Republican, was going to retire and run for a local office. He changed his mind.

He's going to run for reelection. And Victoria Sparks, she's a Republican from Indiana, had very publicly said that she wanted to leave politics and then changed her mind and said now she's going to run again. So what do you make of this? You know, it's a weird Congress. So maybe it's just a reflection of how weird the moment is. But it's really weird. It's just generally not something politicians do. Usually a lot of thought and reflection goes into retirement announcements.

So to just like constantly be walking them back is it is just weird. I do wonder if Republicans now feel a little more, let's say, optimistic about what their odds might be heading into November, because all the folks you mentioned are Republican. And look, when you have somebody like Trump calling these lawmakers and saying, hey, please change your mind and run again, that's going to have a pretty compelling effect. But I'm curious to see if it keeps happening because it's also kind of a strange message to your constituents, right? You like quit and then you come back. I don't know. I feel like it's something that like sports people

have done before, like they retire from sports and then come back. And now maybe it's just something all makers do too. I mean, just three out of how many? I mean, I just remember all these, you know, the revolving door of people announcing that they were leaving. I'm very curious if it will, you know, if we'll get more than three, too. So what about you? What can't you look of? So I don't know if you all heard the news that Wendy's was going to try out this thing called surge pricing. Did you guys hear about this? I heard about it, but explain it because I don't know exactly. I'm not exactly sure it's going to work.

OK, my understanding is it's going to be a bit like Uber or that it was going to be because apparently they got so much backlash to this that they decided to shift course a bit. But I felt very impassioned about this because I like to know what it is I'm paying. Like I'm one of those people where I don't want to be tricked or duped and like you show up at the drive-thru counter and you're like, what? My fries are $5? I thought they were only $2. And it's like I don't mind paying more if I know that I'm going to pay more. Does that make sense? Yeah. No, that does make sense.

Like you want to know what it is. You don't want to show up and find out what the cost of a burger is. My understanding was that like surge pricing, you know, when like it's raining and Uber suddenly is like two times X or three times. And that always is frustrating to me. And I totally get why they do it. It's like supply and demand. But anyhow, I just want to say thank you to Wendy's for saying that it will not use surge pricing. To me, it would make sense if it would like, I don't know, there's this thing about surge pricing. It's like happy hours or places that use, you know, like lower costs to get people in the door at different hours. Like that would

work. But if it's like, oh, at dinnertime, we're just going to hike up the price of French fries, that seems like something that would make a lot of people really mad. You know, to that point, I actually do think that they said that it was being somewhat misconstrued and that their intent was not to raise prices when demand was higher, but that they did want to kind of offer discounts at special times. I think that that is what they said that it was going to be and that they never used the phrase surge pricing. It seems that some of that messaging got taken out of their hands. Well, they were also – Messaging 101. I think like Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat from Massachusetts and other senators were like using this to like condemn greedy corporate America practices.

It was not the rollout Wendy's was hoping for. So what about you, Franco? Well, I'm going to stay on the food theme. And what my can't let it go is the demise of hot dog night at Philly's baseball games. Is it because they were throwing the hot dogs? Exactly. Is it really? I was kidding. I'm not, you know, I'm not a Philly fan.

Oh, God, I love Philly. But this is just so fascinating. You know, and I do know a lot of these fans. And, you know, this is a big deal. I mean, for decades, they had this deal where you could buy $1 hot dogs at the stadium. But as you know, Sue, they had this big food fight last year where people are throwing the hot dogs at each other. They ended up on the field. You had like discarded buns on the concourse.

The team responded and said, you know, they want to have a good night for all fans and that this unruliness, they decided to end it. And it's just hilarious to me. I like that they think that taking away the hot dogs will end the unruliness of Philadelphia sports fans. I just can see like every time, you know, some father or mother takes their kid to a baseball game going forward and they, you know, order a hot dog. They're going to talk about, you know, remember that time that they had $1 hot dogs and now they're doing surge pricing. All right, well, that is a wrap for today's show. Our executive producer is Muthoni Mathuri.

Our editor is Erica Morrison. Our producers are Jung-Yoon Han, Casey Morrell, and Kelly Wessinger. Thanks to Krishna Devkalamar and Dana Farrington. I'm Asma Khalid. I cover the White House. I'm Frank Ordonez. I cover the presidential campaign. And I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. And thank you all, as always, for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.