The NPR Politics Podcast - Roundup: Indiana Rejects Redistricting, Trump Bashes Immigrants In Pennsylvania

Episode Date: December 12, 2025

It’s been a busy week in the political world. We discuss the Indiana state Senate's rejection of President Trump's push to redraw the state’s congressional districts, President Trump's speech on the economy in Pennsylvania in which he denigrated immigrants, and the United States' seizure of an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela.This episode: political correspondent Sarah McCammon, senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, and senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and 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.Please let us know what you think of our show and how we can make it better by filling out this quick survey. As a token of our appreciation, three respondents will be randomly selected to receive a $25 gift card.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. We want to hear from you, the supporters of this show, to see what we're doing well and how we could improve for next year. If you can, please take a short anonymous survey at npr.org slash December survey. That's all one word. It takes less than 10 minutes, and especially if you're new to the show or you haven't taken one of these surveys before, you'd be doing all of us a huge favor by filling it out. We will be giving a $25 gift card to three randomly selected respondents as a token of our appreciation.

So extra incentive to fill that out. Again, the link is npr.org slash December survey. You can also click on the link in our episode notes. Thanks so much. Now on with the show. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Sarah McCammon. I cover politics. I'm Tamara Keith.

I cover the White House. And I'm Domenico Montanar, senior political editor and goal. correspondent. It's been a busy week in politics, so let's try and unpack some of what's happened. And I want to start in Indiana. President Trump pressured the state's Republican lawmakers there, like he has others in other Republican-led states, to redistrict their house seats to give Republicans a more favorable chance of success ahead of next year's midterms. But Indiana lawmakers said no and refused with a majority of Republicans voting against the plan. Domenico, other reliably read states, as we've talked about, Texas and Missouri, for example, and the somewhat purple North Carolina have all redistricted at Trump's behest. How surprising was it to see so many Indiana Republicans saying no? Yeah, it's a big rebuke for Trump. I mean, it's probably the biggest pushback he's gotten within his party in the time that he's really been on the political stage, I would say, in many respects. There were many Indiana Republicans who were willing to go along with this plan

to try to squeeze out two more seats from Indiana to try to help Republicans retain control of the House. That's what this was really all about. But voters in the state just didn't want it. They'd seen significant pushback. A lot of these lawmakers were receiving threats as well from the right and still rejected what was being proposed. People were doxed. People had pizzas show up at their home. They had swatting. There were large protests organized by allies of President Trump at the state capital. They were under intense pressure. And they didn't like it. State Senator Spencer Deary is among those who voted against it. And as long as I have breath, I will use my voice to resist a federal government that

attempts to bully, direct, and control this state or any state. Giving the federal government more power is not conservative. And that's a federalism argument, right? It's saying we're the state of Indiana. We should be able to decide what we want to do. And the president and the Speaker of the House and the vice president and all of the people who are lobbying on this. shouldn't tell us what to do.

President Trump is in a vulnerable place. His poll numbers are down. He wants more Republicans in Congress for the rest of his term. And yet here was a group of Republicans who were willing to vote against him. Well, I mean, the reality is that a lot of lawmakers are having to look out for their own jobs, right? I mean, whether or not the Indiana legislature goes along with trying to help President Trump and national Republicans get a majority in the House isn't of that much consequence to them locally. I do think that it's interesting nationally considering this pushback that Trump has gotten and maybe he wouldn't get that kind of pushback if he was more popular.

The fact is Trump is at the nader of his popularity in this second term. He's in the 30s, according to a lot of polls. Recent APNORC poll, for example, had him at 36% approval rating, which was even lower than our poll last month, the NPR PBS News Marist poll, and not by much. And he only had a 31% approval rating when it came to handling of the economy. So people are kind of in some respects looking past Trump. And I kind of wonder what this is going to mean more broadly when we see Trump off the national stage and sort of that, you know, big piece of the dam, the big brick in the dam is removed. President Trump used the best leverage that he's had throughout his political career, which is to say, if you cross me, if you don't do the thing that.

that I want you to do, that I'm going to primary you. I'm going to support someone else to run against you in the Republican primary, and I'm so all-powerful that you will lose your job. And 21 Senate Republicans in the state of Indiana said, all right, you can try. And President Trump really made no secret of his plan to do this. It has worked with members of Congress, who he said he would destroy. And then either they ended up not running for reelection or they did. did lose in their primary. It has worked in the past. The question is whether that power, that ability to strike fear in members of his own party is waning because he is definitionally a lame duck. Is there something about Indiana, though? I mean, you know, this is the state where former Vice President Mike Pence, who of course has broken with Trump in big ways.

This is where he's from, where he was the governor. Does this say something about Indiana politics? or does it say something bigger? You know, I think Sarah would know better than you or me, Tam, when it comes to Midwest Nice and how they respond to threats from bullies. I think that the New Yorker and me and the Californian in Tam probably don't understand it quite as well, except for our reporting when we go to these places and understand that this isn't the kind of way that you treat your neighbor. And I think that that's a key piece of the politics of the Midwest and places like India. and Iowa where so many of us have spent so much time, you know, in other places where this is, they see themselves as more neighborly. And this was certainly no neighborly way to treat people who are supposed to be allies. I think if I can speak broadly to the culture of the Midwest, being from

Missouri and having spent time in Nebraska and Iowa as a reporter. Yeah. I mean, I think it's a broadly conservative place. But it's also sometimes that conservatism means a commitment to institutions and principles. And I think you saw that here in the arguments from some of these lawmakers. You know, Tam, President Trump likes to win. This was a big loss for him. What is he saying about it? Oh, he is saying the thing that he says when he loses, which is, oh, you know, I didn't really care that much. Well, we won every other state. That's the only state is funny because I won I won Indiana all three times by a landslide. And I wasn't working on. it very hard. Would have been nice. I think we would have picked up two seats if we did that.

And then he goes on to, again, say he plans to primary the Senate president, pro Tim, and others who were against him. But like this idea of, oh, you know, it would have been nice, but I wasn't working on it very hard. Oh, no. He was working on it very hard. The Speaker of the House was working on it very hard. The vice president was working on it very hard. And President Trump has said in no uncertain terms that he believes the fate. of his presidency, the fate of the country is on the line because if Republicans lose control of the House of Representatives, which seems entirely possible, then he's going to have a miserable last two years in office. I was going to say I call nonsense on that comment by the president and you

would use a different phrase. So would he. In polite, but among polite company here, I'll say nonsense because the fact is Republicans have a really, really narrow. majority in the House, just a few seats more than Democrats. So every seat here is going to matter. So to say, I wasn't that focused on these two seats, that's just not the case. I mean, they want every single seat that they possibly can get to be able to have the advantage to build in some cushion. Because right now, Democrats have a significant advantage. The wind is completely at their backs. And they are also redistricting, doing this mid-decade redrawing in places like California, potentially Virginia, which could offset a lot of these Republican pushed changes.

And that would basically make the 2026 midterm redistricting arms race a wash. Yeah, someone who doesn't care very much definitely doesn't post in all caps all the time on social media about this very thing. About those two seats that Trump said maybe he didn't care about so much. Indiana has nine House members. the proposed map would have obliterated two Democratic-leaning seats, turning a seven to two Republican majority to a possible nine-to-nothing. So that's where those two come from. Other states' redistricting plans have still kept at least a few Democratic seats.

Do you think a more modest change, like eight-to-one maybe, could have gotten through? I mean, you know, how much more gerrymandered can you get than seven to two, right? I mean, eight to one, nine to nothing. I mean, once you go 7-2, what's the difference between that and 9-0? It's not a huge difference. And, you know, maybe there'd be a couple other Republicans who would feel that way. But I think that clearly the political wins were – and the morals here of doing this were something that Indiana voters didn't want and certainly pushed back on Republicans not to do. Domenico, you've said there aren't a lot of other places to go.

But, I mean, broadly speaking, where does this leave this larger debate about redistricting? This is potentially now. This loss could mean, again, a net sort of even here because we're looking at states like Virginia where Democrats are likely to try to redistrict in the state because they maintained control of the legislature in these 2025 off-year elections. The state like Louisiana and Florida, which are controlled by Republicans, are going to try to squeeze out some more seats on their own. But again, those could be offset by Virginia while California offsets Texas. And we're talking about all this work, millions of dollars spent for nothing, really. For a wash, potentially. And let me just add the other factor here, which is when you take a seat that is really super safe and you draw it to make two seats, neither of them are as super safe as before. Yeah. And that's the political point here that Tam is making is a good one because this could boomerang on Republicans and wind up making a wave for Democrats even bigger if there is a wave. But I will also just step back and say that a very real consequence of creating more seats that are more polarized means a whole lot fewer people in Congress who are willing to compromise.

And that's what we've seen for years now that the incentive is to get through a primary and to be more among the extreme voices rather than toward the center. And that's all this kind of thing, this kind of fight has done over this past year, is going to create even more polarized seats. More people with less accountability and more loyalty to their party than to their whole constituency. All right. It's time for a break. We'll have more in just a moment. And we're back. The midterms remain on President Trump's mind, redistricting notwithstanding. He held a rally in Pennsylvania this week to boost his economic message and to start trying to gin up support for Republicans up and down the ballot. Tim, what is the White House's reasoning for getting Trump out now with 11 months still to go before those midterms? Well, he just has not been out on the road much at all this year. He has been to vastly more sporting events than he has done events to sell his agenda and his policies to the

American public. And as we talked about earlier, his approval rating is in a really bad place. And the thing that used to be his strength, the economy, is now one of his weaknesses. And so they are trying to turn that around. Additionally, they look at the election results from November, these off-year elections, and they took the lesson that when President Trump isn't on the ballot, Republicans don't do very well. So Susie Wiles, who's the White House Chief of Staff, appeared on a podcast called The Mom View. And in that podcast, appearance, she said that the plan is to get President Trump out on the road more. Typically, in the midterms, it's not about who's sitting at the White House. It's you localize

the election and you keep the federal officials out of it. We saw a week ago Tuesday what happens when he's not on the ballot and not active. So I haven't quite broken it to him yet, but he's going to campaign like it's 2024 again. Basically what she's saying there is that they are going to make it like Trump is on the ballot. They want him to be an issue in the midterms, which is a remarkable thing because, as she said, that's not usually what you do because midterms are often a backlash to the president and the party in power. So what's the theory there? They think that Trump is going to sort of carry the down ticket races in a sense, even though he's not on the ballot?

Yeah, I mean, the theory there is that he generates turnout, that he brings out low propensity voters that simply do not vote in midterms for Republicans. I have to say with this strategy, good luck. I mean, this is the problem that Republicans have. Yes, they've had a very hard time turning out conservative MAGA voters who love Donald Trump to turn out at times when Trump is not on the ballot. In 2018 midterm elections, Republicans lost 40 seats. Donald Trump was not on the ballot. And I got to tell you, as much as Susie Wiles, the chief of staff there wants to be able to put Trump on the ballot.

He's not going to be on the ballot in any of these places. He's going to be on the ballot potentially symbolically. They'll make this a referendum on him. But I think Democrats would welcome that when you have a president who is, like I said earlier, at the nader of this popularity, especially in swing districts that are going to decide control of the House. Yeah, he's got these low approval ratings. The state of the economy is a really big concern for a lot of voters. You know, he's been saying that this affordability thing is a hoax. But, you know, that message, it's hard to see that working.

long term. I mean, what is his message going to be as he campaigns in the coming months? So his message at this rally was a lot of things, and we can get into that. But the argument is that they have lowered prices on some things, including eggs, which had seen a huge price spike at the end of the Biden administration, the beginning of the Trump administration, including gas prices, which are maybe like five to 10 cents lower today than they were this time last year. that hardly makes up for the other costs that are much higher, including goods that are more expensive because of his tariffs and all of these things. But the message is, whether it's based in reality or not, things are cheaper and your paychecks are getting bigger. And they are saying that early next year people will see that when they get a tax refund because of the one big beautiful bill act that President Trump signed into law over the summer. Those tax cuts are retroactive. And according to the tax policy, I spoke with a senior fellow there yesterday who said their analysis is that on average, people will see about a $600 tax cut. Now, that has not evenly distributed. People with higher incomes will get a bigger tax cut. People with lower incomes will get a much smaller tax cut. Lots of different variables. But your paychecks will be somewhat possibly bigger. Two things here. One, to borrow a phrase from a former president and use it for this one, sounds a whole.

whole lot like Trumpinomics. Okay. And two, is that what Trump actually talked about at this rally? No. No. And this has been the story of Trump for a decade. He always comes back to culture war issues specifically on immigration and crime and demonizing immigrants. And that's what he's going to continue to do. Anybody who thinks it's going to be any different is just fooling themselves. Yeah, I mean, during this rally, he joked about being off teleprompter most of the time, essentially said, it would be boring if I just deliver the speech that was there, which is one of his bits. I mean, everything is a greatest hit. And one of the more remarkable moments, as Domenico referenced here, is that among the many things that President Trump said at that rally, he

disparaged immigrants from Somalia and Haiti and other countries that he uses an expletive to describe. This is something that it was reported in his first term. He said in a meeting behind closed doors. He denied it at the time. And now at a rally, he is saying the words out loud. We don't want people from these countries. We want people from Scandinavia. Yeah. And that gets back into a lot of the racial dynamics that we've been talking about on this podcast. When we talk about the types of people that Trump wants to let in on visas, for example, only why. Afrikaners from South Africa, but minority groups from other countries that are particularly war-torn or experiencing famine, they can stay out.

Well, even as the administration has been cracking down on immigration broadly, the so-called Trump Gold Card officially launched recently. It allows investors to get U.S. visas if they contribute at least a million dollars. How does this work, Tam? How is it different from other similar offers that the U.S. already has in place? It's sort of a pay-to-play thing. It is somewhat similar to a program that already exists where if people are willing to invest in the United States, they can get a fast track. But this essentially would allow companies like Apple and Google and a bunch of the various executives who were in the room when Trump was making this announcement would allow them to buy a gold card for an employee or prospective employee coming from outside of the United States or maybe they attended. college in the United States but would have to leave if they don't get a visa. And it would give them a fast track to permanent resonance status. When it comes to the gold card, I'm curious about

the optics here. I mean, there's been a longstanding conservative critique of immigration policy that there are, you know, ways for people to skip the line and that that's unfair. But isn't this just another way for people to do that? Trump wants makers, not takers. That's sort of his message. That's not the exact words he uses, but essentially he's like, there are all these people we've led into the country and they're just like sucking our resources. We want people that are going to make us rich. The idea that just because you're rich, you're a maker, isn't exactly the case. You know, I mean, you just basically are paying for your all-inclusive U.S. pass and you just get to pay for it. You can, you know, roam around the United States, have a penthouse in New York,

whatever else doesn't mean that you're necessarily bringing jobs to this country. And again, I'll say that the immigration system in the country, I don't know that you would find anybody on the right or left who doesn't think that it needs to be fixed, that there needs to be some kind of comprehensive overhaul of the immigration system. But it's not something that Trump is interested in doing because he wants to be able to use immigration as an issue in elections. Before we take a break, there's one other foreign policy issue I want to talk about. The U.S. seized an oil tinker off the coast of Venezuela this week. And that comes as part of the White House's continued pressure campaign against Venezuelan president, Nicholas Maduro and the bombing of boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, which the government alleges are part of narco-trafficking operations. What is the government saying about why it seized this boat? They are saying that this is a sanctioned boat with sanctioned oil that could have supported terrorism. There are connections. with this tanker and both Venezuela and Iran.

And actually, unlike the airstrikes on the fishing boat slash drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, there is a sort of a strong legal framework for seizing ships like this oil tanker that are trafficking in sanctioned oil. And it certainly looks like the United States is continuing to take provide. evocative actions when it comes to Venezuela. President Trump does not like Nicholas Maduro, who's a left-wing dictator in Venezuela, but if he actually goes through with some kind of military intervention in Venezuela, it would not be very popular with Americans, including in his own base. There was an Ipsos poll, for example, that showed that 55% of Americans think that the risks of the U.S. taking military action against drug cartels and other countries outweighs the benefits. Only 38% said that the benefits would outweigh the risks. Republicans, two-thirds of them, say that they think that the benefits would outweigh the risks. But still, having 31% of Republicans saying that they would disagree with something like this is a significant rift within the Republican base. Yeah, I mean, this is just a real ramping up of pressure, as you say, on Maduro.

And the remarkable thing is that President Trump ran on no regime change on how terrible the Iraq war. was and how the Iraq war was regime change and for the oil and all of those things. And now you have the potential for regime change in Venezuela. Yeah. This idea of America first. We'll see where that goes. Okay. One more break. And then it's time for 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 from the week. We just can't stop thinking about politics or otherwise. I'm going to start with you. What can't you let go? So what I can't let go of is this thing that happened this week. I was appearing on Morning

Edition and up first talking about President Trump's rally in Pennsylvania. And I was trying to come up with an analogy for like why he always does the greatest hits. And what I came up with is that if you go to a Jimmy Buffett concert, then you're going to be upset if he doesn't play Margaritaville. And I thought it was great, my editor thought it was great, and then make it through the hit and they come down the line in my ear and they're like, Tamara, Jimmy Buffett is dead and you cannot, we need a better analogy. We need a different analogy. And so then it was like this scramble to try to think up what other musical group has the one song that you really expect to hear. And we thought like Eagles Hotel Kelly. And ultimately, I'm happy where I settled. It was the village people and YMCA. If you go to see the village people, you're going to want to hear YMCA. But my question for you all is, like, do you have a musical group? It's like a game, a musical group and the song that they have to play. Well, as an editor also, I think you could have used the past tense and would have been fine. I will just say. Yes. If you went to a Jimmy Buffett concert, you might have expected. to hear Margarita? I'm just saying that would have been okay. Okay, but play my game. Come on. Come on. All right. Well, I guess if you go see Dave Matthews band, you expect to hear ants marching. Yes. I saw Springsteen in D.C. like, what a year ago or whatever that was? But it's like, somebody like, Springsteen has so many greatest hits that it's, you're never going to hear everything you want to hear. So what, didn't he play? I don't think he played. He played Born to Run? You know what? I don't even remember, because I feel like there was a whole list of things that I was like, wait, is he going to play that? Is he going to play that? Is he going to play that? Is he going to play?

that, but now it's been a year, so I don't remember which. Were you in a trance the way Chris Christie is in a trance when he goes to the... I was standing in the pit, which I realized I'm too old for. I mean, everybody at a Springsteen is too old to be in the pit. Seriously. I mean, I was so jealous of the people sitting in the chairs who paid less. Oh, there was a... Speaking of sitting in the chairs, did you guys see the concert at the sphere with the Eagles?

Speaking of the Eagles, and there was a fan that was... took to TikTok and was outraged because of how many people were sitting down the entire time. Like, including the band? No, not the band. Because I've been to concerts where the band is sitting, too. Wow. The people in the audience. But you know, Tam, I used that analogy for years because it is exactly, exactly how it feels. It's like if he doesn't take through certain things, people are not satisfied. Well, and there you go, Rolling Stones. Rolling Stones. Yeah.

Oh, satisfaction. Isn't that the name of the song? I can't get no satisfaction. Yes, there you go. All right. Domenico, what can't you let go? Oh, my goodness. I cannot let go of the story I saw in San Francisco where a woman gave birth in the back of a Waymo. Oh, my gosh.

Do you guys see this? The Waymos in San Francisco are crazy. They're everywhere. Okay. She hailed a ride to the hospital and didn't make it in time and had the baby in the back of the Waymo. The Waymo, you know, customer support team detected, quote, unusual activity in the car. But it's an autonomous car. There's no one to help you. Well, that's not exactly true. You have basically people behind the scenes, you know, who detect, quote, unquote, unusual activity.

And they decided to call 911 to have them check to see what was happening. But she'd already given birth by the time the car reached the hospital. And Waymo, of course, you can imagine. Is there a video? I hope not. You had a Waymo spokesperson said, we're proud to be a trusted ride for moments big and small, serving riders from just seconds old to many years young. We wish the new family all the best and we look forward to safely getting them where they're going through many of life's events. I was just trying to think about whether if this were me, having given birth twice, thankfully in a hospital, not a car.

But, like, would I rather, my first thought was, oh, my gosh, how horrible that it was an unmanned vehicle. But then part of me is like, maybe it's better that it's an unmanned vehicle. Maybe I wouldn't want to deal with, like, the Uber driver who, you know, is playing music I don't like or, you know, has a weird cologne on. Like, maybe I'd rather it was just a waymo and it was just me and the waymo and the baby and the people. I don't know. When I went into labor at work, I had a coworker give me a ride to the hospital. And luckily, the baby was not born in my co-workers. Who was a man?

By the way. You was a man. But, you know, but I have heard from nurses that they would appreciate having maybe an unmanned delivery room sometimes. Although I will say I've been there for two of them and I think I handled myself just fine. But Waymo says as well here, and this is even more weird, some people just can't wait for their first ride. Oh, my gosh. I don't know. I guess they want Waymo babies.

The youngest rider ever in a Waymo. There's a record. By definition, right? Yeah. Sarah, what can't you let go of? Okay, well, it is the holiday season, and we are all thinking about what to eat for the holidays with our friends and family. And this is a story about, I think, just about innovation and aspiration. In South Carolina, the Department of Corrections issued a post on X in recent days.

It says, seems some folks were planning an early holiday Old Bay, crab boil and steak dinner, along with their marijuana and cigarettes. Oh, my God. I saw this. All dropped by a drone at a correctional facility in Lee County. And in the picture, you guys, it's a, there's steak, there are what looked like crab legs, there is a can of old base seasoning. I mean, that's the best part.

Yes. They have good taste in seasonings there in that prison or whoever was manning that drone. Yeah. And, you know, marijuana and cigarettes. And so, you know, I mean, I guess guaranteed to make sure that the steak and the crab legs taste extra tasty. It didn't work, but I have to give them points for innovation, right? Yeah, the worst part of this story is that it was intercepted. I know. I'm rooting for these guys.

Right? I mean, it sounds like a good time. Yeah. Anyway, happy holidays. Hope your celebrations are more successful. And, yeah, points for creativity. Is that where we leave it? I think that is the end of the show. Right there. Or like, you know, here's some, now you've got some ideas. Yeah. Now you've got some ideas for your holiday meal.

Yeah. All right. That's all for today. Our executive producer is Mathony, Maturi. Our producers are Casey Morrell and Brea Suggs. Our editor is Rachel Bay. Special thanks to Christiane Dev Kalimer and Kelsey Snell. I'm Sarah McCammon.

I cover politics. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. And I'm Domenica Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.