The NPR Politics Podcast - Do political scandals matter anymore?

Episode Date: June 5, 2026

As recently as a few days ago, it looked like President Trump’s $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund might prevent Congress from passing funding for immigration enforcement agencies. Even though it passed in the end, Trump's fund made the process harder. We discuss how the president is testing the limits of Republicans’ willingness to push through his agenda. Plus, do political scandals matter anymore?This episode: voting correspondent Miles Parks, congressional correspondent Barbara Sprunt, and White House correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben.This podcast was produced by Bria Suggs and edited by Rachel Baye.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.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting. I'm Barbara Sprint. I cover Congress. And I'm Danielle Kurtzleben. I cover the White House. And it has been another busy week in the world of politics and another week of President Trump pushing the boundaries of Republican support on Capitol Hill. So I want to start there, Barbara. The Senate overnight, early this morning, passed a funding package for immigration enforcement agencies. Immigration is a clear priority for the Republican Party. And yet this was not a simple process. Can you Explain what happened? Yeah, it feels like Groundhog Day, right? It feels like we've been talking about funding immigration enforcement agencies for a long time. And that's because we have. Earlier this year, if we can cast back, Senate Democrats blocked funding the Department of Homeland Security. And this was in the aftermath of federal agents shooting and killing two U.S. citizens at protests in Minneapolis. And Senate Democrats basically said we cannot fund the Department of Homeland Security in good faith unless we see some of the,

sort of reforms and changes that we would like in terms of enforcement policy. That never happened. And so what did end up happening was there was a shutdown, which I'm sure we all remember. Lots of concern over like, how are people going to fly with TSA, everything like that. And then Congress funded the department with a carve out for those immigration enforcement agencies. So like ICE, Border Patrol. Republicans decided to tackle that in a separate bill using a budget process called reconciliation. And that is what passed early this morning. It's a bill that would fund ICE and Border Patrol for another three years. So through the duration of Trump's term.

Well, it looked earlier this week that like Trump's big DOJ anti-weaponization fund, this almost $2 billion fund, was going to really hold up whether they were going to be able to successfully pass this immigration funding bill. But that didn't end up really being the roadblock that it seemed like it was going to be. What happened? Yeah, there was a lot of back and forth on that, wasn't there? I mean, the acting AG said that the fund would go away. Then the president was like, actually, I don't know that it will go away. I don't know that it's actually scrapped. And this is something that has been a concern among Democrats, certainly, but also among Senate Republicans.

And the White House is aware of how Senate Republicans feel about this. And still there was sort of this like murkiness over the fund. And despite several Republican senators being vocal about their concerns about it, there were not enough Republican votes last night, early this morning, to effectively kill the fund altogether. There were some proposed amendments by both Republicans and Democrats that would have limited the anti-weaponization fund in some way. And some of those amendments did receive, I would say, a notable number of Republican supporters. But in the end, the majority of Republicans did not support these amendments to curb the power or the authority of this anti-wapinization fund. And they failed. Danielle, another kind of controversial thing related to the Hill and the president is the president announced this week that he wants to temporarily replace outgoing director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, with a guy named Bill Pulte.

Can you tell us who he is and why that is sort of ruffling some feathers as well? Sure. So Pulte is head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA, and he's also the chair of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now FHFA oversees Fannie and Freddie, which both support mortgage markets. Now, as head of all of that, he has pursued mortgage fraud claims against perceived enemies of Trump. For example, the New York Attorney General Lettisha James, who prosecuted Trump and his organization for business fraud, California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, who was one of the leaders of Trump's first impeachment hearings. So really, Bill Pulte as head of this agency that I think a lot of Americans would see as kind of sleepy or unknown, he really has kind of weaponized it pursuing housing-related claims against these people. But the thing is, like you said, Trump is picking him as acting Director of National Intelligence. Bill Pulte has no known intelligence experience, and this has worried some on the Hill. Senator John Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, told our colleague NPR Eric McDaniel, quote,

I don't see any evidence of any qualifications for that job. And when reporters even asked Senate GOP leadership this week at a press conference about it, they kind of didn't really answer. They kind of demurred and stepped away from the question. There's one other Senator, Republican Tom Tillis of North Carolina, who was very forceful about this. He went on CNBC and he just spoke very openly about how between the anti-weaponization fund and Bill Pulte, Trump is just making their lives on the hill harder. He said, my God, you put forth this restitution fund when we're trying to get Homeland Security funded for three years and you think that's going to go well. And in the same week, you put it incendiary attack dog like Pulte on the agenda.

And he just kind of went on like that. And that really summed up what this week seemed like for Republicans on the Hill. But I should add one thing. Trump has said he doesn't intend Pulte to be permanent. So a big question is how long is Pulte in the DNI position? It's interesting to me the kind of common theme between Senator Corny and Senator Tillis, you mentioned, Danielle, is that these are lawmakers who are not going to be in office after this Congress. Cornyn specifically because President Trump backed a primary challenge to him in Ken Paxton in Texas. And I guess I'm wondering about this, what we've called the sort of yolo

caucus, this group of Republican lawmakers who are leaving and seem more willing to oppose the president because of that, because they're not fearful of this retribution. Is this group of Republicans growing in some way or growing in influence, as it feel like? I mean, I would say, based on what came out of this week on the Hill, they're certainly willing to talk of about how they are willing to push back against the president. They are willing to say how upset they are. But as Barbara said, the anti-weaponization fund was not stopped or even limited in this new legislation. So it's really unclear what actions they're willing to take.

I don't know about what you would say, Barbara. Yeah. I mean, I think there's a temptation to be like, oh, the dam is breaking. This is a turning point. All the Republicans. And I don't buy that at this juncture. I think that there is certainly, as Danielle described, like, a lot of, of difficulty in some of the ways in which the White House is imposing its agenda and its will

on the Republican Congress. And I think that there's a lot of Republicans who are frustrated about that. The degree to which they're going to upend the president's agenda in a midterm year, I think we're not there yet. Now, I'm curious to see, like, as we continue throughout the summer, how the country is sort of reacting to some of the policies and the war. I mean, there's a lot there. All of this sort of intertwines with the midterms. So, you know, there's still stuff to see, but I don't think we can definitively say, like, this is the moment which the entire Republican conference turns their backs on the leader of their party. Totally. It's still isolated at this point. But another kind of high profile member of this kind of Yolo Caucus is Republican Congressman

Thomas Massey from Kentucky. He voted this week with Democrats and a couple other Republicans to pass the war powers resolution, which feels notable to basically attempt to rein in President Trump's actions in Iran. Can you describe what that means, Barbara, that the House was able to successfully pass this? Yes. And I'm glad you pointed that out. And he was one of a handful of House Republicans who did join Democrats to get it over the finish line. You know, the war powers resolution, I think what it doesn't do, maybe it's a good thing to start there. It doesn't immediately stop the war. It's not like the red button and like everything changes from there. You know, it has to go to the Senate. I think it's worth noting that.

last month for Republicans in the Senate, voted alongside Democrats to advance a similar measure. So if we're trying to like tea leaves this out, that's a good thing to have as a data point. But I think, you know, largely this is a symbolic step both in terms of the willingness of a handful, a small percentage of Republicans to voice their dissent with the administration and also a symbolic step about the way in which they're feeling about this ongoing war. Danielle, taking all these things together, you know, challenge. challenging incumbents, starting the war in Iran, pushing for this almost $2 billion DOJ fund that seems to be to help financially support many of his supporters. I guess I'm wondering, it feels like President Trump is making life harder for himself in a lot of different ways.

Do you see it that way? I think so. I mean, I think one way of looking at it is simply about opportunity cost. How is the president spending his time and how is he not spending his time? There was this event he had in the Oval Office yesterday, for example, where he was talking about clean coal, as he puts it. And that is something that a lot of his supporters like is supporting the coal industry. Well, before he got to clean coal, he talked for quite a while about the reflecting pool, about a pedestrian bridge that he wants to build next to the Lincoln Memorial. When Trump is taking up time with the reflecting pool, the ballroom and the military complex. underneath it, an arch, all of these things. With a war in Iran, that is taking up time that he is not spending talking about gas prices, about getting out of Iran, about any number of things that Americans are worried about right now. And so I think that is one way of looking at it, is just what is he

spending his time and energy on. But also, if you're talking about making it harder to get his agenda through Congress. He's sure making it harder in the next Congress if his actions right now cause his side to lose control of either chamber come this November. All right. Let's take a quick break and more in just a moment. And we're back. So there is a new political scandal making the news this week related to Democrat Graham Platner, who's running for Senate in Maine. And Barbara, I feel like this is not the first controversy we've heard about involving Platner. But get us up to speed on what happened this week. Well, yes, you're right.

And just to sort of back up for people who maybe haven't heard of the string of sort of scandals or controversies surrounding his campaign, there were some deleted Reddit posts and online comments from years past where he had beat slurs and trafficked in some offensive language. Old comments about sexual assault that critics said were victim blaming. He has since apologized for those. He had a chest tattoo that was a symbol involved with the SS unit of the Nazis. He's since covered it up. He said he didn't realize what it was when he got it. And then recently there's been these like sexting and marital infidelity allegations. Can you detail those a little bit more in terms of what is actually what actually happened?

There were allegations that early on in his marriage that he was exchanging messages with women who are not his wife. including some that probably could be considered sexting. And I should mention that the story that he exchanged texts outside of his marriage were surfaced by his wife and first reported by the Wall Street Journal. He has not denied them. And he addressed some of these scandals in an interview with NPR earlier in the week. I've not always been who I am today. I grew up in the infantry. The infantry is a place of hyper-masculinity.

It's a place of intense violence. Things that are seen as virtues there are generally not seen as virtues in the normal world. And then I had to struggle with how do I come out of that and integrate back into society? And I think a lot of people recognize that the ability to transform, the ability to change, is kind of just a normal human trait. You know, Miles, the thing that strikes me in hearing this tape is that is two things. One is that I think that a lot of people resonate with this idea that you don't want to be judged for your worst moment. we are not who we were, you know, 10 years ago or longer. And I think that people can understand this point that he's trying to make about,

I'm not who I was all those years ago. But, you know, I think there's another part here that's intertwined that I find very difficult. And in talking with people who come from a military background, who feels sort of similarly like this idea that he is primarily speaking to a progressive audience, right? He's trying to talk to a democratic base. He's trying to talk to independence. And he's saying like, you know, I said these things because I was in the military. I was in the infantry. This is part of the culture.

And, you know, it's just, it's not a fair characterization for many people who serve this country in uniform who have not posted homophobic comments and misogynistic comments. And I'm curious to see what the response to that is. I think it's a, I think it's a difficult sort of broad brush statement to make about a lot of people. I agree with Barbara. And besides all of that, look, it's too early to know to what degree this sinks or does not sink Grand Platner. This being the string of controversies and scandals that Barbara has laid out for us. And the main primary is next week. And so we'll find out then if he is locked in as a Democratic nominee. But there are a few factors going on here. To the degree that this does not sink Platner, and we don't know. But to the degree that it does not, I think. think there are multiple factors that you can point to that are at play here. One is recruitment on the Democratic side and hunger for something other than what many voters see among Democrats in Congress and on various tickets. Many Democratic voters saw Plattenor's opening ad last year and they were so

happy to have a young outsider, relatively young outsider. They were so happy to have someone who is progressive and populist. And let's just say it, Graham Platton, really captured attention because he was a scruffy dude who could exude blue collar appeal. He had a beard. He was in the military. He's an oyster farmer. All of that. And that was a big deal, is a big deal to Democrats, especially after 2024, when Dems just got into a tizzy over finding the Joe Rogan of the left.

So that is a big part of why we're even talking about him besides the fact that he is, yes, in a potentially winnable Senate race against. Ben, Susan Collins. But to that point, I would also add that it is worth wondering how much any of these scandals would stick if Platner were a woman, were he not white, were he not straight, any of that sort of thing. There is so much at work here that it's hard to really tease it all apart. That makes sense. I mean, though I do feel like we're in a different era when it comes to political scandals more broadly too, Barbara. And I think you've been reporting on this a lot this week, just in terms of how people's reaction to scandal and also how the candidates themselves seem to be responding to scandal. When do you think this started changing? I'm so fascinated

by this. I think that there is a temptation to see this sort of new era of scandal standards and sort of the potency or lack thereof of scandals as a post-2016 shift. I mean, you think about like the Access Hollywood tape, which I mean, the predominant wisdom is that something of that magnitude, that date of the campaign in 2016, probably normally would be considered something that would fell the campaign. And it did not. Not even mention the Stormy Daniels stuff, you know? Of course, right. And this is where I think like sort of the Teflon-Dawn moniker for the president, you know, things not sticking to him.

And certainly he's sort of a category unto himself. I spoke to a political science professor at the University of Houston, Brandon Roddinghouse. And what he told me is, in fact, actually, there's a lot of factors for why this is the case and that, you know, Donald Trump did not invent this environment. He's not the first person, but he did take it a step further and kind of perfect the model. One thing that Trump did do really well, though, is to execute a playbook of surviving scandals to perfection. That is to dig in, blame your opponents, and hold on tight. That's a strategy that a lot of politicians have taken. Again, he wasn't the first to do this, but he was the first to do in a really big scale.

The fact that the Access Hollywood tape didn't knock him out of contention for the presidency as it was expected that he would is the first and most primary example of how the scandals just didn't impact him. With Platner specifically, I see this as sort of falling under what Roddinghouse calls sort of like the hyper-partisanship box. you know, in response to some of these, you know, scandals and controversies surrounding Plattner, you see Democratic voters and you see Democratic leaders largely sort of shrugging their shoulders and being like, but Susan Collins, you know, like, as like that is sort of like the guiding light. And the guiding light in politics is to win elections, you know? And so we're seeing people sort of like really embrace that in a way. There's a bit of a cognitive dissonance because a scandal among people in your own party is. something that more often than not you're deflecting or you're defending. And when it comes to the other side, you know, you're more willing to say, wow, can you believe it? And so that is sort of the partisanship box. But it's also the media environment. And there's distrust of media. There's distrust of politicians. There's shifting moral standards. I mean, shame as sort of a construct in society is much different now than it was, you know, 10, 15, 20 years ago. Well, I mean, this does seem like a

Good time to also note that Platner is not alone this campaign season in terms of weathering scandals, the current Republican nominee for Senate in Texas. Ken Paxton is somebody who has kind of followed this Donald Trump playbook to perfection in terms of never backing down. This is somebody who was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives. He has been accused of federal securities fraud, though not convicted. And the fact that we are now not just one candidate, multiple candidates, who seem to be heading towards their party nominations, despite all of this baggage, it does make me wonder if this just is the new normal. Yeah, I mean, I think that this is something that we can't ignore as like a new sort of phenomenon guiding force in our society.

I mean, you think back to like Al Franken, former Senator Al Franken, that was eight years ago. There were allegations against him for sexual misconduct. And, you know, Democrats really forced him out of the Senate. And many say that they regret that today. And he has openly said that he regrets resigning. And I think that, you know, for politicians like him who have sustained a scandal and sort of followed the more traditional playbook that we've seen in generations past, they must be looking at, you know, this current environment and saying, you know what, today I could have weathered that. Because the playbook now is to dig in or deflect. It ratches up that partisanship that we were talking about.

And interestingly, you know, it's not just that politicians face with scandal today have a better chance of getting through it. They also lean into it. And Roddinghouse was telling me like there's actually data that shows that fundraising on your scandal has been successful for some people. And so I think this is a, to your point, this is a distinct era. Yeah. I think that there is something very Trumpian that we might be seeing in. in the Platner case here, which is when Trump was accused of sexual misconduct by many women, one of the things he said was, well, it's a hoax, you know, that some of these women are lying, that sort of thing. And I've heard some on the left say, at least after that Wall Street Journal article about Platner sexting people outside of his marriage, the sense, the fear that this is them out to get Platner, that this is the establishment going. going after him. I think there is this sense, perhaps, the potential sense among voters,

right, on the right and left, that bad things coming out about a populist candidate can be read as a sign that there are shady forces that are coming after that candidate. And that may make it easier to brush things off. There has to be a line somewhere, though, because I will note that we've seen two congressmen both resign because of scandals this year. Republican Tony Gonzalez in Texas and also Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell in California. I'm curious for both of your perspectives then on where is the line where a politician will not just push through and decide, okay, no, it really is time for me to go. Well, let's just start with Donald Trump because we have not found the line with him. Like we should say in this conversation, Trump has been found liable by a jury of.

sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll. There was January 6th. There's business fraud. There is so much stuff about Donald Trump that you could call a scandal, a controversy. I think he is separate from everyone else. The people that you brought up, like Eric Swalwell, for example, who's been accused of sexual assault, he denies it, it does appear to me that certain accusations really do seem to hurt people more. I'm thinking of any sort of misconduct having to do with minors. I am thinking about Roy Moore, who ran for Senate in Alabama as a Republican years ago. I'm thinking of Matt Gates, a former Republican congressman from Florida, both of whom were accused of that sort of misconduct. I'm thinking of Herschel Walker, who had accusations of violent abuse. And far from that is

something like one thing that Graham Platner did, among several, sexting people outside of his marriage. So we are talking about a broad spectrum of scandals here. Yeah. I mean, there is a clear difference in the way in which people perceive in actually legally between crimes and something that is like tawdry or salacious. And so certainly there is a distinction there. The ways in which people are kind of fending off the incoming scandal has changed and what the public will accept has changed. And And that doesn't mean that the public is accepting of everything carte blanche. Yeah, and it also makes sense that, like, societies change on everything all the time, right? And so this is just one of those things we're monitoring as changing in our politics.

Okay, let's take a quick break. And when we get back, it's time for Can't Let It Go. And we're back. So before we get to Can't Let It Go, I do want to tell everyone about a special bonus episode that's going to be in your feeds this weekend. I talked with our colleague Stephen Fowler about how he's using AI tools and is reporting ahead of the mid-end. terms. We'll hear about the cool things he's doing with those tools and also how they fall short. So to hear that conversation, just sign up for NPR Plus at plus.mpr.org. And if you're already an NPR Plus subscriber, thank you so much. Okay. Now it's time to talk about the things from the

week that we just cannot let go of, politics or otherwise. And I'm going to do an otherwise. And it is going to be a can't let it go kind of like that's 40 years old, but also very new to me. I grew up with two brothers. I should start there. Let's start from the beginning. Many years ago. Many years ago, I was bored and have two brothers and was exposed to content only related to content that little boys watched. So I've seen every Bond movie.

I watched the Indiana Jones movies way too early in my life. Star Wars too. Star Wars many, many times. But a movie I had not seen before until recently is The Little Mermaid. What? I knew that you guys would have this reaction, but I have a daughter and we watched it. And Mike can't let it go. is that part of your world is an absolute banger of a song.

Like, we have been putting it on the car. It's like the song I'm requesting that, like, it's that bend diagram of songs that me and my wife and daughter all like. And I am like, unironically, I'm like, this is one of the greatest songs ever written. I legitimately think that. Welcome to 1989. That's what I'm saying. No, but it's okay. Actually, there's a second part of this.

I can't let it go. A, absolute banger. But I was talking to my brother about this recently. He also has two daughters. And I was like, yo, part of your world, though. Have you heard of this, like, small mermaid? And he didn't skip a beat. My brother was like, yeah, but it wasn't nominated for the Oscar.

And I was like, what? Insanity. And they nominated Under the Sea, which I think is a crime. Yeah. I mean, it's a hilarious song. It's cute. But the idea that Under the Sea is a better song than part of your world, I'm just like, yes, 40 years late to this argument, but I am outraged.

I don't know. I think you're both wrong. I think you're both sleeping on poor unfortunate souls. I was just going to say that, Danielle. Which is the great. latest Disney song ever written hands down. I totally agree. Yes. Thank you. So, Miles, what you need to do, which I'm feeling like Danielle and I do already, if I can go out on a limb, is to say, like, when you're having a day, you know, at home, you put on poor unfortunate souls and you sing out.

I mean, it is, it is, it's a great feeling. You should do it. I believe you. My problem is, is I actually haven't heard that one because my daughter's so scared of Ursula that she says, fast forward, fast forward, the moment Ursula comes on screen. And so there's like whole chunks of the movie, I will admit. I mean, I have heard the song. But it's not like, I can't hear it very often because it's a skip. You know, when she goes to bed, you got to be like, all right, I got to watch this. Yeah, all right.

All right, Danielle, what can't you let go of? I cannot let go of a news story I read this week. I read about it in multiple places. The one I have in front of me right now is from The Guardian. But it's about a bunch of people went to see La La Land in Australia, the movie that came out 10 years ago with Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone. And they went to one of those movie showings where an orchestra is there and plays the movie's score while the movie plays. Well, apparently what happened is the composer of the score, Justin Hurwitz, was there. And he, I believe, was conducting the orchestra.

And he comes out and says, our pianist? has fallen ill. Is there a good sight reader in the house? Oh my God. And this 21 year, no, there's this 21 year old guy. He didn't volunteer. His friend volunteered him. She raised her hand and said, yeah, this guy. And his name is Sterling NASA. I hope I'm pronouncing that right. And he got up and he played, including there's a part of the movie where Ryan Gosling plays an improvised keyboard solo. He did that. I saw a video of it. It's incredible. Oh, my gosh. If you've seen La La Land, That score is very, like, piano forward. It starts, you know, bum, bum, bum, bum, but dum, but, bum, and like the whole piano line.

Like, that is, it's all piano. I am so impressed. Well, Danielle, you're a piano player, right? I was going to say, we should note that you're, you are especially knowledgeable on this topic. So a friend of mine who works at NPR, who also plays piano, sent me this article. And he said, hey, you can do this. And I told him, like, is it shameful to admit that I would absolutely love for this to happen? Because it's the dream.

That's what I was just thinking. It's the dream, right? I think about this. I used to play bass guitar. I've not picked it up in a little while. But it's still a thing I will admit, like during tiny desk concerts, I'm like, man, if they asked, like, would I say, could I do it? Like, if I had to.

You have to rise to the moment. Oh, yeah. There was a tiny desk where Pat Benatar, one of my favorite musicians of all time sang, and she forgot the first, like, the first stanza. And she was like, does anyone know it? And I was like, yes, I know it. Promise is in the dark. Yes. And I was too scared. I read it to this day. When I can't sleep at 3 a.m. I'm like, darn. I wish I had sung to Pat. So if it comes for you, Danielle, I say you got to do it. Okay. I will wait for that moment. I'm sure it's coming.

Barbara, what can't you let go of? I don't want to give any spoilers away, but I just, I saw a musical recently and it was just so lovely and amazing. And you know when you have like a new experience? and you're like the newness of it is also an amazing feature because you're like, whoa, I've never experienced this before. It's called Masquerade in New York. And I really, really recommend it. It feels like they're singing to you directly in your living room. You walk through this space. It's interactive. It's fully immersive. And for people who love the show, the musical, which is now not on Broadway anymore, this is like it was one of those experiences. It finished. I started to cry. I was like, I've seen something perfect. So anyway, I recommend. I just got goosebumps. Like, experiencing that with you. And I don't know that you can do an immersive little mermaid. I think that's harder. I was about to go try and start singing it. And I was like, I'm not going to, I shouldn't do that. Next time. All right. That is a wrap for today. Our executive producer is Mathony Maturi. Our editor is Rachel Bay. Our producers are Casey Morel and

Maria Suggs, and special thanks to Christianev Kalimer and Kelsey Snell. I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting. I'm Barbara Sprint. I cover Congress. And I'm Danielle Kurtzleben. I cover the White House. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.