The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: Thursday, June 7

Episode Date: June 7, 2018

President Trump prepares for a summit with North Korea's Kim Jong Un while heading to Canada to defend his trade tactics to the G-7 allies. Republicans try to reach an agreement for an internal debate over immigration. And Trump cancels a meeting with the NFL. This episode: political reporter Asma Khalid, White House reporter Ayesha Rascoe, national political correspondent Mara Liasson, Congressional correspondent Susan Davis and editor and correspondent Ron Elving. Email the show at [e-mail]. Find and support your local public radio station at npr.org/stations.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi, this is Leila calling from Singapore, where preparations are underway for next week's U.S.-North Korea summit. Hey Leila, that was a very apt timestamp because we are going to be talking about North Korea. This podcast was recorded at 3.15 p.m. on Thursday, June 7th. Things may have changed by the time you hear it. Okay, here's the show. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast, and we're here with our weekly roundup of the biggest political stories. We'll talk North Korea, trade, and tariffs. Plus, Republicans met this morning to find a consensus on immigration policy, but the immigration infighting continues. And the defending Super Bowl champs, the Philadelphia Eagles, were supposed to visit the White House, but Trump uninvited them.

I'm Asma Khalid, political reporter. I'm Ron Elbing, editor correspondent. I'm Mara Liason, national political correspondent. And I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress. All right. So let's start with the press conference that just happened. President Trump was with the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. They were talking about the preparations going on for this North Korean summit. And what struck me is there were sort of two big, I would say, news nuggets that I found really intriguing. One was when the suggestion came out that President Trump would meet with the North Korean leader at the White House if, quote, things went well. But he also seemed at the same time willing to walk away from things.

I mean, Mara, where does this sort of leave us in this point? Is he trying to, again, lower expectations? Well, I think he's been lowering expectations for quite a while. He's talked about this would be just a first meeting. At one point, he called it a get to know you session. He said that it probably will take many meetings. But he also does keep up this refrain that he thinks it'll be very successful. And of course, today, he said he'd even be willing to invite Kim Jong Un to Washington if the talks went well. And don't forget, quite a while ago, I think he said that he'd invite the North Korean leader to America and give him a big

juicy hamburger. No, I didn't even remember that. So it seems like the expectations are constantly changing. Well, no, I think they're going in one direction, which is they're getting lower. And he said the other day, he didn't want to talk about maximum pressure pressure anymore because we're getting along so well. Of course, today in the press conference, he said that's still our policy. That's something that Japan cares a lot about. It doesn't want to see the U.S. back off from those sanctions or cut a deal with North Korea that would protect the U.S. from long-range missiles, but leave Japan vulnerable to North Korea's short-range missiles. Ron, you have some great, I would say, historical sense for us. On the fact that this, we have been presented as being extremely historical in nature.

In fact, there was even, I think, a question or two at the press conference about this idea. And this is constantly the refrain we hear from the Trump administration about this. Even if it doesn't go well, this is in historic in itself of just the meeting happening. Well, the Korean War goes back to 1950, and it has never actually formally ended. We've only had a ceasefire, if you will. We've had a kind of agreement to stop fighting, and North Korea and South Korea have remained more or less at each other's throats for over 65 years.

This is an extraordinary relic, if you will, of the first half of the 20th century. And of course, it would be enormously historic to put an end to that, to in some sense or another reunite the Korean peninsula, and of course, to denuclearize this confrontation. All of those things are marvelous goals and aims. But among the things that Abe was trying to bring to the fore today is a reminder that there are a lot of interests here for Japan that are not necessarily perfectly aligned with those for the United States. We've gotten some of the hostages back that the North Koreans had taken, American citizens. But what about all the people who were abductees from Japan back over decades? People who had been taken by the North Koreans for a variety of reasons off of the Japanese islands and never returned. And we don't

even know exactly how many there are. You hear everything from scores, dozens and maybe scores to hundreds of these people. But the Japanese consider that to be an absolute necessity for any kind of real normalization of relations in that part of the world. And Mara, Abe did talk about the Japanese abductees today. Yes, I thought that what was interesting about that is, first of all, that's an easy thing for them both to talk about. And it's an easy thing for Donald Trump to promise Abe, yes, of course, I'm going to press hard for this, because it's a really important issue for Japan. What Abe refused to talk about and said he couldn't talk about, even though they had discussed it in private, were all the other issues, how Japan feels that the US and other

countries should approach the entire issue of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and what would be the trade-offs there. That, to me, is the real fraught issue in this conversation. What is Donald Trump willing to give up? Was he willing to reduce the level of U.S. troops on the peninsula? Is he willing to settle for a freeze? There's been no indication so far that North Korea is willing to give up its nuclear weapons. And as a matter of fact, remember that big letter, kind of the size of a publisher's clearinghouse check that the North Korean official presented to Donald Trump last week? The president was asked today at the press conference, what was in the letter? Because it was so large. He said, well, it was just a nice,

greeting, warm message. I'm looking forward to meeting with you. Like one of those oversized Valentine's Day cards. So both of these men are now going to go on to Canada for the G7 meetings. And, you know, I don't know, I'll be candid, too much about what's going to be on the agenda there for the G7 meetings. But what I have found remarkably fascinating are the reports that there is a desire for other world leaders to join together and pressure Donald Trump around trade. Do you have a sense of whether that will resonate, Mara? I don't think it's going to move the president, but I think they're going to try,

and they've been trying. They're horrified. They're shocked. They're appalled. They're infuriated, whatever adjective you want to come up with, that the United States president, the leader of the free world, the country that helped write the rules of international trade, cooperation, and order, has decided, based on national security grounds, to declare that our allies selling us steel is somehow a national security threat. That's the reasoning that he's used to put tariffs on the EU and other of our allies on steel and aluminum. So they have implored him, begged him not to do this. There are other tensions. He pulled the U.S. out of the Iran deal. That's something they wanted to stay in. He pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement.

They wanted to stay in. So there's a lot of tensions. And some people have said it's the G6 plus one or G7 minus one. That's how much of an outlier the Europeans are now seeing Donald Trump as. But even that pressure of all of them joining up together, right, against him, because I feel like we've seen these individual points of criticism, right, whether it's a phone call between Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump. But when you have six of them all together, coming up with sort of a uniform platform against the President of the United States, you don't think that that exerts any pressure on him? No, I don't. They already came out with the communique where they in very strong language language, disagreed with what they consider to be protectionist moves. And no, what leverage do they have? I mean, the other thing is Europe has its own divisions. Europe is having a lot

of problems. Look at all of the pressures against the EU, Brexit, and the new Italian anti-euro government. So I don't see the European countries figuring out some successful way to change Donald Trump's mind. And also, we always have to ask ourselves, how is this going to play on television? What is it going to look like to the supporters of Donald Trump in the United States? It's going to look like Donald Trump against the world. Donald Trump, America first president, saying, we have our interests and you have disrespected us and I'm going to stand up for our interests. Whether or not that's justified, whether or not that plays well on the international stage, whether or not it ultimately pursues a greater America and its

interests in the long run, all of that needs to be set aside for the moment when we consider how will Donald Trump's supporters see that particular dynamic. And I suspect that they're going to think it looks pretty good. They're going to think that this is Donald Trump doing exactly what he promised when they voted for him in 2016. But you know, every time, Ron, he thrills his supporters, he loses someone or fails to get someone else that he could convince. That's the whole, his whole strategy of firing up his base, he's gotten them more and more ardent, but he hasn't expanded his coalition. So Sue, talk to us a little bit about that, right?

Because to Mara's point, it is not as if this isolationist trade policy has entirely resonated here at home or even with arguably members of Congress. You know, on this issue, I'm not sure that it is one that really fires up the base. I do think that to this element of people that are Trump supporters, no matter what, I think Ron's right, that they agree with him. And this is him keeping his promises, right? This is him negotiating better trade deals. But trade is still the one area where I think not just Republicans on Capitol Hill, but Republican voters who, like Trump, are still very willing to criticize him. You know, the recent decisions he made over tariffs with Mexico and Canada and the EU has leaders like Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan on record saying that they oppose him. I think Mara was exactly right that people that are looking at their congressional majorities in places like Iowa and the Dakotas and the border states and Texas, farm states where they export a lot of their products to places like Canada and Mexico are really nervous. And if you want to know sort of a very politically astute voter in

this country, talk to farmers. They really understand this economic policy and what it means for them. And the fear that a lot of Republicans have is that they have the story to tell about their tax cuts in a booming economy. And do these tariffs have a counter economic effect that mitigates the tax cuts and the economic growth that kind of takes away the story they're trying to tell in the midterm elections. And, you know, there are people, for steel manufacturers and aluminum manufacturers in the U.S., this is great. But there are a lot more companies that buy steel than make steel. Every little manufacturing business has to buy steel from somewhere.

And it's, guess what, it's getting more expensive. And the thing that Sue just said about, you know, he promised to negotiate better trade deals. He hasn't actually negotiated any better trade deals yet. But what he has done, kind of the bigger context of that, he promised to give the finger to the elites and to all those foreign countries who he says are ripping us off. So as a general cultural moment, I think his hardcore supporters will like this. But if it has economic effects between now and November, you know, that could hurt Republicans. So does that not just set up the usual dynamic, which is that Donald Trump acts a certain way and talks a certain way and creates a certain impression of what's going on, and at the same time is signaling people in some

other way, whether you're talking about China or you're talking about North Korea or you're talking about Europe and the G7, that he is open for business and that ultimately he will make a deal and he will keep this from being such a net negative for farmers, for businesses in the United States that use steel and aluminum, that in the long run, they're going to come out ahead as well. But in the short run, what's important is to go on television, as you say, giving the finger to Europe. I mean, I think, though, trade is one of these very complicated issues that doesn't entirely cut across party lines.

I was just out in eastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania, looking at the story of a very unusual steel mill. It's actually parent company is a Russian. It's a Russian company owned steel mill. It's actually parent company is a Russian. It's a Russian company owned steel mill. And it's one of these strange scenarios where I met so many people who were Donald Trump supporters voted for Donald Trump. And long story short, because this company imports its raw steel before, you know, melting it down into these coils, it's being hit by the 25% tariff. And these guys are telling me, you know, yes, I voted for him. And yes, I think tariffs are good, because I've seen so many mills just move away from this area.

But I didn't know it would affect our mill, right? Because we're in this era of global trade where things are complicated. You can have a foreign company that employs over 700 workers in Western Pennsylvania. And to these guys, that's an American company. Surely, surely. And the car manufacturers who are making cars in the United States that are called things like Toyota or BMW, they think that they're American workers and that they're working for an American company. You know, on this issue of trade, there was news that came out this morning from the Commerce Department that was very fascinating. There is a giant Chinese telecom company, ZTE, that has agreed now to pay a $1 billion fine and to allow the U.S. to more closely inspect the company in exchange for the

U.S. lifting sanctions on the company. And I found this super fascinating. I didn't have to actually have the ZTE Commerce Department. Very off-brand for Donald Trump. He even had tweeted about ZTE that we're losing too many jobs in China. All of a sudden he wanted to make China great again. So what happened? What happened was ZTE was fined and sanctioned because it violated American sanctions on selling certain kinds of military equipment or equipment that could be used for military purposes to Iran and North Korea. So this is about as bedrock of Donald Trump policies you can get. Also, ZTE was considered to be a national security threat because the Defense Department and other parts of the

intelligence community thought that some of their phones could be used as listening devices. So they were sanctioned, they were fined, and they were about to go out of business. And then, you know, Donald Trump, who really depends on the leader of China, Xi, for his plans to put sanctions on North Korea, he decided to make a deal. So now you have this incredible contrast. They're letting ZTE off easier while they are putting tariffs on steel and aluminum from our allies. And this already has gotten pushback in Congress. Marco Rubio, Republican senator from Florida, tweeted today, I can assure you with 100% confidence that ZTE is a much greater national security threat than steel from Argentina or Europe. Hashtag very bad deal.

So talk to us a bit about this, because to Mara's point, we have already begun to see reaction from members of Congress suggesting that ZTE poses a pretty severe national security threat. So this is all happening at a really interesting time. And going into next week, we could see the Senate take what might be, since President Trump has been president, the most confrontational votes towards his presidency. Two groups of competing bipartisan senators have already announced plans to introduce amendments to the National Defense Bill. The National Defense Bill is an annual piece of legislation, generally very bipartisan, that outlines sort of just the broad Pentagon policies for the year. But it has, the timing has just worked out that this is the perfect vehicle to have a debate over ZTE and trade. So there's one group of senators that plan to introduce an amendment on ZTE that basically puts the brakes on this deal and says that it can't move forward until Congress has decided the defense priorities for the country. So can I pause you right there? Is that something that Congress can do?

When the Commerce Department, when the executive branch actually forms this new deal and lifts the sanctions, does Congress have the ability to slow the president's role there? They can. But it would take, you know, and the administration can fight them on this. And this is why I'm saying it has the potential to be very confrontational. But on the ZTE amendment is Marco Rubio, as Mara alluded to. Susan Collins of Maine is on it as well. Tom Cotton of Arkansas is one of the Republicans on this. So that also shows you ideologically that not everyone who really supports Trump on Capitol Hill is behind him on the ZTE thing. On the other end, on the tariffs addressing Mexico, Canada and the EU, which also has bipartisan opposition on the Hill, another group of bipartisan senators led by Bob Corker of

Tennessee and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, they're both Republicans, would basically require the president to seek approval from Congress if he intends to impose any tariffs citing national security concerns. The problem a lot of senators have is they don't see Mexico and Canada and the EU as national security threats. So the bipartisan interest in the Senate to kind of rein in the presidency on these two fronts is really interesting. Now, I don't know if they'll get the votes, but we haven't really seen a really robust debate in the Senate questioning the president's decision making. Even if this got to President Trump's desk, presidents aren't inclined to sign legislation that curbs their

own power, right? Like they know this. Tom Cotton, to me, is the biggest indicator here. Tom Cotton is about as Trumpy a senator as you can get. But he understands that this ZTE thing, this is not Trump's brand. This is totally off brand to do something nice for a Chinese company that violated our sanctions against North Korea and Iran. That is really off brand. OK, so we'll have a lot to look forward to next week around trade and whether or not Congress can even potentially limit the president's power there. Mara, I know you've got to jet. So goodbye. But thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. And we'll be right back to talk immigration.

Support for NPR politics and the following message come from Rocket Mortgage by Quicken Loans. Rocket Mortgage gives you confidence when it comes to buying a new home or refinancing your existing home loan. With Rocket Mortgage, you can apply simply and understand all the details so you can mortgage confidently. To get started, go to rocketmortgage.com slash NPR politics. Equal housing lender. Licensed in all 50 states. NMLSconsumeraccess.org number 3030. Hey, it's Sky Roz here, host of How I Built This, and I have some very exciting news to share. We are hosting our first ever How I Built This One Day Summit, sponsored by American Express. You'll have a chance to hear from and interact

with some of the world's most inspiring entrepreneurs and founders, like Airbnb's Joe Gebbia, Katrina Lake of Stitch Fix, John Zimmer of Lyft, and many, many more. We'll have breakout sessions with experts and guides, and the summit will be a chance for you to meet other innovators and builders. The How I Built This Summit will take place on October 16th at San Francisco's Yerba Buena Center for the Arts. You can go to npr.org slash summit to find out more and to get your tickets. We're back and we've got one of our White House reporters, Ayesha Roscoe, with us now. Hey, Ayesha.

Hey. So we do need to admit that this part of the podcast was recorded a couple of hours earlier than our first segment. So we are doing a little bit of time travel right now. Time shifting. Exactly. And Ayesha, can you do the honors and tell us what time it is right now? Yes, I am sitting in the NPR White House booth right now, and it is 12.42 p.m. Things may have changed after this. Brilliant.

Ron was like eyeing his watch at the same time just to verify your time check. Because I have a hard time with time. So I need backup. All right. Well, we are in the studio right now because, Sue, House Republicans just got out of a rare multiple hour meeting on immigration. And there's been a lot of infighting, it seems, between moderate and more conservative Republicans about whether or not the House should bring up any immigration legislation for a vote this year, particularly that it's a midterm election year. Did we get any resolution on any of that today? A little bit. What we do know is that not much has changed in that if Republicans had an immigration bill that they could pass with Republican votes, they would have done it by now.

And they are still in sort of a quest for what has been described to me as a unicorn bill that could somehow please both the conservative and moderate wings of the Republican Party. What's so interesting about this debate is we know we're going to have a House floor fight over immigration this month. But it is so rare, especially in the House, for essentially the rank and file to take over the floor and to force the hand of party leaders. The House, by design, is a top-down, leadership-driven, majority-driven institution. Sue, you just mentioned leaders. We actually have a clip of tape from Speaker Ryan. This was just today, right after the meeting let out. We just had a very productive conference meeting in the House

Republican Conference to discuss solutions to our broken immigration system. Members were very engaged, and it's clear that there are a lot of areas of consensus. I'm pleased that members on all sides of our conference are engaging directly to find a solution. So when leaders say that a meeting's been productive, but then they can't tell you what the meeting produced, the meeting wasn't very productive. I also feel like his take on that was very different than the take that I'd been seeing about the meeting. Was it actually productive? What he is told reporters after the meeting is what they think that they have a loose agreement on is to try and write a bill that goes back to the four pillars that had been outlined by

President Trump earlier this year when the Senate tried and failed to pass an immigration bill. Again, if that bill could have passed the Senate or Congress, they would have voted on it already. But it seems like from the leadership perspective, they are making a decision that they'd like to at least try to have a House vote on something President Trump supports. Okay, real quick, Ron, can you actually just walk us through what those four pillars are? Sure, sure. The president wants, number one, a path to citizenship for the 1.8 million people who are eligible for deferred action for childhood arrivals. This would include all the people that we have been referring to as dreamers. Number two, of course, the president would also like border security measures, including a $25 billion commitment to fully fund building a wall on the Mexican border.

And then number three, the president said we should end the diversity visa lottery program. This has been a controversial part of the immigration law. It has obviously brought in a lot of people who are enormously productive, and it's obviously brought in a lot of people who are enormously productive, and it's also brought in a couple of people who have caused problems. The president has focused on it. And then fourth and finally, restrictions on family-based immigration so that a spouse can come in, minor children can be brought in, but not siblings or fiancés or kids over the age of 21. And in adding to the drama of this is these moderates who have been working with Democrats have a little pocket ace

in these negotiations. They've been working on something called a discharge petition, which if they get 218 signatures on it, and right now they have 215, although again, this may have changed by the time you hear this,

then they can force the hand of the House to vote on immigration legislation. Now, the reason why party leaders don't like just discharge petitions is it's basically, I always describe it as sort of the inmates taking over the prison. It overrules party leaders and their ability to control the floor. But it would allow for votes on multiple immigration proposals, sort of a choose your own immigration adventure on that floor of the House, so everybody could kind of cast a vote on the bill that they support. If they can't get a consensus bill, the moderates are still saying they will move forward with that

discharge petition, even as Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy and everyone else is saying, please don't do this. So is it fair to say that the productiveness of the meeting today, from the standpoint of the speaker and the majority leader, is just that they've gotten the discharge petition pushed off a bit so that it isn't an imminent threat to them? Maybe they've bought a little more time? That was the posturing of leadership. I am not as confident as they are that members are going to hold off on this because they have been asking their members not to sign and not to sign. And we are very, very close. And I think if these rank and file who want these votes, if they don't feel like they're actually going to get a bill,

you know, they're only three signatures away. And I think they've made a smart leverage play, right? They're so close that they really do have sort of a pressure campaign against leadership, which we don't really get to see. This doesn't really happen very often. And do they have all the Democrats on board at this point? More or less. I think it's like single digits of Democrats who have not supported the discharge petition. But Sue, is turning as if they went ahead with that discharge petition, does that really turn it over to the Democrats? Or would it just allow everyone, as you said, to kind of vote on what they think is best? Like, does it or does the discharge petition really give power to the Democrats? The fear is, and this has always been the problem with immigration, the votes exist

in Congress to pass immigration legislation, period. But the only way you get that passed is by cutting a deal that brings half the Democrats on board and half the Republicans on board. And President Trump and party leaders just don't want to do that. That is not the bill that they want to write. That is not the deal they want to cut. But even if they do pass something, I mean, to you, Aisha, it seems like the president has very clearly outlined what he will and will not actually sign. And we've seen, you know, Mitch McConnell say he doesn't even want to bring up anything that the president will not be on board with. Yes, the president has made clear he

has, as you outlined those four pillars, that's what he laid out. And as Sue said, there hasn't been support for that. But one thing that President Trump has said at a rally in Tennessee recently, he said that he feels like immigration is a great issue for Republicans. And he thinks that ahead of the midterms, this is something they need to focus on. Gosh, I find that such interesting political strategy because you can look at poll after poll. You can look at what Google trends are showing and you don't see immigration near the top. We saw it at the top in 2016. Now I consistently see health care at the top. So I don't know exactly why he thinks it's a winning strategy. Because it won for him. Yes. And that's how he judges what is a winning strategy.

He says the Democrats are bad on policy when it comes to immigration. So I think that if he can characterize it as these Democrats, they're caring more for criminals and people coming over here illegally than they care for citizens. And we're trying to protect you. Our laws are horrible. We're trying to fix it. The Democrats won't let us. He feels like that's something that Republicans, that is a message that will stick with voters. If you choose your issues to emphasize on the basis of what kind of reaction they get from a crowd, like the crowd in Nashville, or the other crowds that President Trump attracts wherever he goes,

that is going to give you a very specific and perhaps distorted view of what is overall going to appeal to the greatest number of voters in November. Can we talk politics real quick? Because I am so intrigued, Sue, that this is all coming up just months before a midterm election. I don't exactly understand why anyone in the House would want to do this. My understanding is when you look at public opinion polling, there's a pretty clear mandate that most of the public wants a pathway to legalization for these dreamers. Even you'll see a majority of Republican voters say they want that. So what is the benefit in bringing this up right now? Well, I think you have to look at sort of who sparked this recent round of immigration wars.

And it was a number of House Republicans who do come from districts, and there aren't as many as there are Democrats, but there are a significant number of them, who do have Hispanic populations in their districts, who have more diverse districts. And, you know, remember, House races are fought, you know, one by one by one by one. And in this orbit of races, I think there's a couple of lawmakers that we focused a lot on. One is Carlos Corbello. He's a Republican from Florida. Hillary Clinton won his congressional district. You know, almost half of the population of his district or close to it was foreign born or has a member of their family that was. And this is the identity issue of his district.

So that's where we are. And it is a difficult position for the Republican Party, which has had a schism over immigration now for a long time. There is a real division among Republicans and among different kinds of Republicans as to how to proceed on the immigration issue. Because even with the president's, his pillars, there were some conservatives who were critical of what the president laid out. And they felt like he was doing amnesty and that he went too far

with trying to allow or trying to allow some of these people who are here to get citizenship. And we were just talking about dreamers, right? In the president's pool. Gosh. Well, I feel like this entire debate hits really at a perennial question that it seems like we are constantly debating in our politics. And that's, you know, who gets to be an American? What does it mean to be an American? And we actually saw that same question I feel about American-ness pop up earlier this week on a totally different topic. And that was the NFL. So let us shift gears for a bit and talk about that. The Philadelphia Eagles question I feel about American-ness pop up earlier this week on a totally different topic, and that was the NFL. So let us shift gears for a bit and talk about that. The Philadelphia Eagles were supposed to visit the White House this week. It is a typical celebration that happens when you

win the Super Bowl. You get to meet the president, you give him a jersey, you take a few photos. It is a fairly apolitical moment. But at the last second, President Trump canceled the party. I mean, he legit uninvited the team. So Ayesha, what is going on? Well, at first, President Trump said that the Eagles were uninvited. There was supposed to be a celebration of them this week. He said they were uninvited because they were sending a smaller group of players because they were upset that he demands that people stand for the national anthem. After that was said, people looking into this said, well, the Eagles didn't have anyone during regular season or postseason that was kneeling during the national anthem, which has been President Trump's issue. And so there was a question of, OK, so how is this

about the anthem? And then the White House says that the Eagles tried to reschedule, but they knew that the president would be out of town. So basically, the White House was trying to say that this was some type of stunt or that the Eagles were acting in bad faith. And so ultimately, it didn't happen. We ended up having this celebration of America. Celebration of the American flag, I heard. It was a celebration of America, but it was not a long celebration. It was about, I would say, about 15 minutes. America did not get a lot of love that day.

No, it was like President Trump, he talked for a few minutes. They played God Bless America. They played the National Anthem, of course. And they played, I think, America the Beautiful. And that was it. Good music selection. And the president left. So I think ultimately it gave President Trump a chance to once again talk about this issue of standing for the flag. And let's also remember that the NFL in recent

weeks has caved, basically, to the president and his demands that no players be allowed to go on the field and kneel during the national anthem. So they struck a deal where players were told, if you can't stand with your hand over your heart throughout the national anthem, you should stay in the locker room until it's over and then come back out on the field for the game. That was essentially what the president wanted them to do. And they agreed to it. And some of the NFL owners at the time warned, this is not going to appease the president. This issue is not going to go away.

And if there is another opportunity for the president to thwack us on this particular issue and say you are not being sufficiently loyal to the United States, he'll probably take it. And it didn't take very long. And he did. So and even with this, he said, you can't go to the locker room. So he's saying that even that policy is not enough. I do want to say, I think that what gets lost in this at times is that the players who did kneel, and it wasn't the Eagles, they say that they are kneeling not to be disrespectful to the flag or not to be certainly not to be disrespectful to the troops, but because they are concerned about police brutality. One thing I was so intrigued about in this whole sort of back and forth is that the White House put out a statement where it said

the Eagles team decided to, quote, abandon their fans. Sue, you're from Pennsylvania, so I'm going to assume you can speak on behalf of all Philadelphia folks. Happy to. But is that true? I mean, does the team have the sense? Do you have any sense of if that's true? I have several points on this. I would also say as speaking for all Philly fans, if this was an honest conversation, I would be able to curse a lot more in this podcast, but I'll try to keep it family friendly listening. One point I think is worth making again, when we talk about the Eagles specifically, is they were a team that no player kneeled during the last season. So that was one of the

interesting dynamics of the president sort of suggesting that they weren't supporting patriotism is that they as a team, which made a decision that they weren't going to do that. So I would say in some ways, what happened this week at the White House was the perfect ending to the last NFL season, in that it culminated with a Super Bowl with the New England Patriots versus the Philadelphia Eagles. And if you are an NFL fan and paid attention to sort of the sports narrative of that season, it was largely seen as Trump's America versus the non-Trump America. Hold up. Are you saying that the Patriots are Trump's America? Because the Patriots owner Bob Kraft and Tom Brady were sort of seen as the owner

and the player who were the most aligned with Trump and had spoke highly of him and met with him. You know, Brady had the Make America Great Again hat in his locker room. And the Phillies or the Philadelphia Eagles were like the wokest team in the league that they talked a lot. So many of their players are involved in social justice. Malcolm Jenkins, who Aisha talked about, is known for doing ride alongs with the Philly police. He visits prisons. Other members have donated their salaries. They never kneeled. They kind of made like social justice part of the identity of their team. And was supported by their owner, Jeff Lurie, who I think also makes sense for why the White House canceled this.

Because Lurie was quoted earlier this year calling the Trump presidency disastrous. So it was sort of seen as like the teams that embodied the cultural divide we have in our country right now. You make a compelling argument. And that the Phillies, the Eagles, who have never won a modern Super Bowl, ultimately won, you know, go Eagles. And they were seen as the underdog in the league. And they kind of embraced this, I would say, grievance or victim mentality that we know well that nobody believed in us. We could never do this. And there was a real we get no respect vibe to their victory. And that was, you know, I was at their Victory Day parade in Philadelphia and that they joked about it there. So then also

then being uninvited by the president is the end of this is like the perfect ending to this very the narrative of what happened in the Super Bowl season this year. It doesn't sound very much as though the Eagles abandoned their fans. No. And also, I feel like Eagles fans will always pick the Eagles over any president. It doesn't matter what your party affiliation is. I think that's right. As long as the Eagles continue to win Super Bowls, there is no doubt where the loyalty lies here. And I think with Trump, with President Trump, this whole thing of uninviting people, he does this.

He did this with the Warriors as well, the Golden State Warriors, when they won the NBA finals. He said that they had said they probably weren't coming, and he said, you're uninvited. I feel like that's so tacky though would you do that do you actually like have a party and then find out that the guest list isn't what you anticipated so you just uninvite folks change the party because then you go look it's not that you don't want to be with me I don't want to be with you I do wonder if this is like part of a new trend because as we're going right now through the uh the basketball finals and it's the Golden State Warriors versus the Cleveland Cavaliers, and there's already a conversation there that whichever

team wins, they're not going to want to come to the White House either. And it is interesting because these events have felt so apolitical, right? I mean, this is not something where these teams only went under a Democratic president in the past, right, or only under a Republican president. They just, they went. And it was sort of like this, it was this pageantry, right? It was a ceremony. It would be almost I would, you know, like if we had a monarchy, it's like the role of what the monarch would do. It's very apolitical. And I would say that these were always opportunities for a president to be very bipartisan, that a lot of times, whatever the team is, they would invite the congressional delegation and, and people that work in government that are fans. And it didn't really matter who you voted for. And it was you were allowed to

have these sort of kumbaya moments at the White House that celebrate American greatness in some way. On that note, we're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, can't let it go. Hey, Sam Sanders here. So there are a lot of stories in the news lately about the right to free speech. But most people are surprised to learn where that right exists and where it does not. We get into all of this with the former president of the ACLU. This week on It's Been a Minute from NPR. And we're back.

And we're going to end the show like we always do with what we cannot let go this week, politics or otherwise. But first, we've got to talk about the one woman the internet seems to never be able to let go, and that is Kim K. Last week, Kim Kardashian lobbied the president. She wanted a pardon for a woman whose name is Alice Marie Johnson. Alice had been in prison for more than 20 years because of a first-time drug conviction. Here's what Kim told Mike.com about why she was

sticking up for her. I'm just at a different place in my life. So I thought, well, if I could put the money into a shopping spree, which sounds ridiculous, to save someone's life and do that once a year, then that would make me just my heart fuller. Seems like from one celebrity to the other, right? I mean, Kim K got results. Yes. And Sylvester Stallone got a posthumous pardon for legendary boxer Jack Johnson a couple weeks ago. So it definitely doesn't hurt and probably helps a lot to have a celebrity in your corner. There is some conflict when you look at where the administration's Justice Department is going

and what President Trump did in this case. But for Alice Marie Johnson, this is really a lifesaver for her. If there's no parole for federal prisoners, so if she didn't get this commutation, she would have died in prison. I feel better knowing that Kim K's heart is a little fuller and feels a little fuller. And I'm sure that Alice Marie Johnson feels much better about the prospects for her future than she did. There's a great deal of context around this. There was a policy change that was made by the Trump administration that actually made it more difficult to address the inequities of sentencing that had led to this extraordinarily long sentence for a first-time conviction for this particular defendant. And there's a certain irony then in having the president come along and say, oh, in this case, that looks unfair. So I'm going to commute that one sentence. All right. And now time for our own Can't Let It Goes. Sue, would you like to go first? Embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has had maybe more controversies than any figure in the Trump administration to date, who is under multiple internal government investigations for abuses of power and abuses of taxpayer dollar.

The latest twist in it this week that was released in documents via congressional Democrats on an oversight committee. He had one of his top aides attempt to purchase a used mattress from the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. A used mattress. That's it, guys. I can't let that go. What? Did we ever find out why he wanted a used one? Was it just a cheapness or was there some specific use that he felt he could get out of it? There is an actual transcript of the conversation with committee investigators in this aid. And you can tell that the investigators are like, so wait, back to the mattress. What did he want to do with the used mattress? And she's like, I don't know the answer. I don't know the answer.

She only knew that she had made the request and she had to call the hotel. She was not able to say whether he ever purchased the used mattress. Also, can I just say, as somebody who really loves to buy stuff on Craigslist and stuff, mattresses are one thing I refuse to buy that are used. Especially from a hotel. Yeah, a hotel is nice.

It's not like your sister's getting rid of a mattress and it's her guest room mattress. And you're like, yeah's getting rid of a mattress and you want to, and she, you know, it's our guest room mattress. And you're like, yeah, I'll take that. A hotel mattress, especially for someone who's other controversies include things like only wanting to fly first class, only wanting like top, like wanting to soundproof his office, like doing all these things that are super A-list bougie decisions. And then wanting to use mattress is just, I can't, I can't rationalize it. Is it possible that this was supposed to go into that condo that he had under the rather hinky arrangement with the lobbyist, et cetera, et cetera, and that he was replacing something there and thereby did not want to spend a lot

of his own money because he wasn't going to sleep on it himself? He was, the aide was actually asked what he intended to do with his mattress. She said she simply did not know what it was intended for. Well, how many things can a mattress be? She didn't want to ask. Who wants to ask? Who wants to know? All right. Who wants to go next? I'll go next. I would like to introduce a bit of an upper into the podcast, which is usually the opposite of my role. I can't let go of the fact that Washington, D.C. is obsessed with something right now besides politics. And it is the Washington Capitals. Yes. The hockey team that is on the brink of winning its first Stanley Cup.

And they are ahead three to one over the Las Vegas Golden Knights. I didn't even know that, Ron. We will not get into all of the wonderful contrasts between Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas Golden Knights. I didn't even know that, Ron. We will not get into all of the wonderful contrasts between Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas, Nevada, or any of the shared characteristics between the big casino on the East Coast and the big casino in the West. We'll just say it's been a delicious series. The caps are up 3-1.

And if they should win, it would be the first time that a Washington sports team, the name of which we can actually use in our podcast, has won a title since the 1970s. That's a long, long time. But we could have a Stanley Cup and it could happen very soon. My favorite thing about this is I love the hashtag. Hashtag all caps. And it's all and it's in all caps. I love that. Yes. All right. I'm going to go next. Mine is not such an upper like yours, Ron. It is Ramadan these days, which if you don't know, means that Muslims fast from dawn till dusk, which may be why you hear my stomach growling in the back a

little bit. And when you break your fast, you have these big dinners called Iftar dinners. And so the White House, for the past couple of decades, has been having these annual Iftar dinners. They invite a number of American Muslims to come and celebrate, eat, feast with the president. But last year, Donald Trump broke with this tradition. He nixed the annual dinner. This year, guys, he brought it back. It was last night and he had this dinner, but there was just one thing missing from his dinner. Any actual American Muslims. No way. Is that possible? The White House did not release the actual guest list,

but according to a number of reports, no one could find any actual American Muslims who were invited. They seem to have invited a group of diplomats. There could find any actual American Muslims who were invited. They seem to have invited a group of diplomats. There were about like around 50 people, just random diplomats from Muslim countries. But I saw this interview with Trump's number one Muslim supporter. I don't know if you guys remember, but there was this guy at the Republican National Convention who's Muslim, who gave the benediction. He leads this group called American Muslims for Trump. And he has someone interviewed him. He said he was very disappointed that he did not receive an invitation given that he is a big Trump supporter but uh long story short guys the White House iftar dinner is back just without any

American Muslims it seems well and I can say that I was here yesterday at the White House and they were grilling like lamb and all the stuff. It smelled so good. At first, I just smelled fire and I thought this isn't good. But then you could smell the barbecue. Oh, my goodness. It smelled so good. So their menu seems to have been on point. Yes, the menu, it smelled delicious.

So he did invite Muslims from the diplomatic corps, just not any American Muslims. It is. That's what it seems like. But, you know, like to that point, that is very interesting. And I don't want to like belabor the point. But to me, you know, the president has, I think, really created, I would say, fissures in terms of how he views certain groups. Right. And Muslims would be one of these groups where they're constantly viewed through the lens of foreign policy, being others, being not Americans. So, you know, to me, it raised these really serious questions of like historically,

like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, they always made a point of this being an American Muslim tradition. And it sort of flips it on its head. Okay, so what I can't let go of this week is the War of 1812. That's a long time ago. It's a long time, but go with me now. So CNN reported and some other people have reported that President Trump was on this tense call with Justin Trudeau, the prime minister of Canada. Canada, they're upset because the U.S. has imposed these tariffs on imports of aluminum and steel from a lot of countries, including Canada. And they say it's a national security issue. Canada is upset because they're like, how can we be a national security threat? And so President Trump apparently said, according to this, we haven't confirmed,

NPR hasn't confirmed it. He said, didn't you guys burn down the White House referring to the War of 1812? And so I want to take this kind of out of the political realm and out of the issue of Canada couldn't have actually burned down the White House in the War of 1812 because it didn't become a nation until 1867. So I take it out of that and say, how long do you hold a grudge? When do you let something go? But it was the Brits, right? It was not the Canadians I was just like, let me just check my history It was the Brits

And if he wants to bring this up with Theresa May I have no problem with that If he wants to do that But it does seem like a long time So it's acceptable for you to hold that long of a grudge Only if you're holding it against the right country They did make us a colony as well that long of a grudge, you think, with Theresa May? Only if you're holding it against the right country. They did make us a colony as well, you know.

Well, yeah, so it was the British who did it and not the Canadians. But I guess what he's saying is, look, you never know where the threat could come from. So you Canadians, you're not innocent. That's very generous, Aisha. I'll give it to you. I, for one, am glad we have a president ready to confront the Canadian threat. All right. Well, we are going to let that go right there.

And, guys, every week we talk about what we cannot let go. And our Twitter feeds and inboxes are often filled up with what you all cannot let go. So we want to try something new. We would like to ask you if over the next week there is something that you just cannot let go of. If you record it, you can just take your little cell phone, record it on your iPhone, or if you don't use an iPhone, an Android, and email it to us at nprpolitics at npr.org. And maybe you'll hear yourself on next week's episode. That is a wrap for today. I'm Asma Khalid, political reporter. I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress.

I'm Ayesha Roscoe, and I cover the White House. And I'm Ron Elving, editor correspondent. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.