The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart - Confronting the Chaos with Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)

Episode Date: February 6, 2025

Amid the disarray in Washington, we're joined by House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries to discuss leading the opposition during Trump's second term. We examine his strategy for countering Republican overreach, explore what resistance looks like this time around, and consider how Democrats might harness this moment to forge a more responsive and effective party. Follow The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart on social media for more:  > YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@weeklyshowpodcast > Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklyshowpodcast > TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@weeklyshowpodcast  > X: https://x.com/weeklyshowpod   > BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/theweeklyshowpodcast.com Host/Executive Producer – Jon Stewart Executive Producer – James Dixon Executive Producer – Chris McShane Executive Producer – Caity Gray Lead Producer – Lauren Walker Producer – Brittany Mehmedovic  Video Editor & Engineer – Rob Vitolo Audio Editor & Engineer – Nicole Boyce Researcher & Associate Producer – Gillian Spear Music by Hansdle Hsu — This podcast is brought to you by: ZipRecruiter Try it for free at this exclusive web address: ziprecruiter.com/ZipWeekly Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bagel? Bagel. Bagel? Bagel? Bagel. Bagel? Bagel. Gel?

Bagel? Bagel. Bagel? Bagel. No, wait. Bagel. Bagel. B-A-G-E-L.

Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel.

Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel, bagel, bagel, bagel, bagel, bagel, bagel, bagel. Whatever you call them, we have them. Bagels and bagels, available now at your local Cobb's Bread. ["The Daily Show"] Hello everybody, welcome once again to the weekly show podcast. My name is Jon Stewart. I will be your host for the day. We recording this. It is February 4th. It is a beautiful Tuesday. I'm gonna say morning. It is sort of morning ish. It is fucking freezing here. And the news is moving in a manner that I have not quite seen it move in quite some time. The deluge is very much that Maxell commercial where you're sitting on the chair and it's just blowing past you.

I don't know. By the time this gets to your Sony Walkman, as you're listening to it, people still use those. Is that correct? Is that still the device of choice for the young people? The Sony Discman, Wongtman? I don't know what will be happening. Everything I am saying to you right now could in fact be moot. Here's what I would imagine that the war with Canada is entering its third day. Our targeted smart bombs at their syrup factories have been effective.

It has limited, hopefully, civilian casualties and spread an air of fear and delicious smelling smelling maple all throughout the land. The border is in fact packed, I would think, with Americans fleeing towards Canada and Canadians standing there pushing us back, trying not to let us get in there and fuck up their lower rents than ours. I've not seen, actually, anything like this, the chaos of launching tariff wars in the morning, calling them off by afternoon and claiming victory, as though somehow in the intervening six to eight hours of bluster, the countries that you had challenged had fallen to their knees in prayer. No, dear Lord, not our wheat, not our lumber. We'll do whatever you say. It is obviously the strategy of create chaos, act like you've solved the chaos by calling down the chaos when you realize the American public is turning against your chaos and then claim victory and expect to be praised for it. It is very reminiscent of it's something my dog used to try to pull the dog. I can recall he used to vomit on the rug.

And I apologize to any of you who are listening to this podcast in a cafe. Uh, but the dog would, would vomit on the rug and then he would eat it. And then he would look up at me like, huh, how about that? I just cleaned up for you. How about a treat? And I'm like, but you fucking threw up. That's you. You did that. You don't get a treat.

And so that is my plea to the American people as the Trump administration vomits on the carpet of our great nation. The metaphor is about to break up, but then eats the... I think I've made myself understood. I cannot think of really a worse lead- in to the very respectable guest that we have on our program today. So I'm just going to get to that and hope that you don't remember any of this, that there is a neuralyzer that just went off for you. But we are delighted to be speaking with a gentleman today who is in the center of the storm, who is trying to find a way to hold back those things that will be corrosive and corrupting to this

American experiment. So let us get to the guests now. All right. So we're very excited today. We are pleased to be joined by House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries representing New York's eighth congressional district since 2013. Brooklyn, sir, how are you? Good. It's great to be with you. It's very nice to see you, sir. How are you holding up? It's, I assume for me, even just doing a television show about what's happening in Washington, it is utterly chaotic. So I can't even imagine being down there right now. How often does your phone ring or your blackberry ding or whatever it

is, however the communications are happening down there, where there is a, another five alarm fire reversal of policy trade war on trade war off. What's, what's the pace going on down there? Yeah, it's intense, probably as intense as I've experienced during my time here in Washington, D.C., which included the first Trump administration, included serving as an impeachment manager during the first impeachment trial, included being here during the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6th.

But this is a flood the zone strategy that's very intentional. And they are trying to overwhelm the American people with a parade of horribles. And we've got to push back, we've got to be strategic, but we also have to be relentless in how we push back and define what's happening for the American people, why it's wrong, why it will hurt them, and of course, offer a positive vision for what life could be like if you had more enlightened policies in Washington DC. Right. Because it does seem, and look, what we're seeing now is the execution of a plan that has been in development, I would imagine for 60 years, maybe longer. It seems like there's three pivot points that the Republicans

want to kind of redefine America's relationship with government. The first one's probably the biggest one, I would say, is the New Deal. They've been kind of after that for quite some time. They've been kind of after that for quite some time. Do you see that as, you know, this initiative as part of a plan to redefine kind of to repeal the new deal, to redefine the Civil Rights Act, to redefine the Immigration and Naturalization Act? Is that? Boy, they have a strategy. They got a book, Project 2025. They've been working on that with think tanks and everything else. Are you seeing them executing it as a particular, very pointed strategy? It's a great observation. It's a great question. I think there

are three periods of time that many far right Republicans or even some traditional Republicans would like to roll back. There's the FDR New Deal period, there's the civil rights slash great society moment in the 1960s, and then there's the Obama era. And there's a real effort, I think, to try to strike back at all of those things. The Republicans have had a problem with Social Security for decades. They have a problem with Medicare and Medicaid, which came out of the Great Society era in

the 60s, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, for decades. And they certainly are trying to do everything that they can to either launch a frontal assault against those issues, to end Social Security as we know it, end Medicare as we know it. Certainly they want to end Medicaid as we know it, as well as rolling back the progress that has been made in society. Do you think, I always wonder if the idea for them is privatized, privatized, privatized, their position is government can't do anything right. As though if we leave it to corporate interest, well, they'll act on behalf of the American people because, you know, corporations are people and they're lovely and they're good neighbors.

Is everything moving towards privatization? Is that their goal for all of these programs? Well, there's definitely a strategy which is demonize, downsize, privatize. They want to demonize the functions of government, local government, state government, federal government. And look, of course, can we find additional efficiencies? Yes. Do we need to make sure government is effective in every possible way? Yes. We need an efficient government, an effective government, and an equitable government.

But they want to attack government, and in this case, civil servants, demonize the government as part of their effort to then downsize the government. When they downsize the government so that it can't function properly, so that it can't deliver services that the American people rightly deserve and need, then you make the argument, well, because government is so ineffective and inefficient, because we downsized it, now we should privatize it. So it is definitively a scheme. Perfect.

It's a scheme. Now what's at the root of the scheme? What's at the root of all that we're seeing? The effort to steal taxpayer dollars, to freeze funds, right? To shrink these agencies. At the core of it, I believe, is that the Republicans in the House, the Senate, the administration, they want to enact massive tax cuts for their billionaire donors and wealthy corporations.

Follow the money. That's the reality of what's taking place. And in the process, they want to stick working class Americans with the bill. And this is a continuation of an effort where there have been people in this country in power who've been jamming working class people, middle class people, and those who aspire to be part of the middle class, jamming them up for decades. And so, as you've indicated, John, consistently, the American people are understandably frustrated. They are understandably upset. They know that the deck has been stacked against them.

Now, as Democrats, we probably have to do a better job of explaining that we understand that, and we certainly have a plan to tackle and dismantle it so we can bring economic opportunity to life for every single American. I'll tell you that. So that feels like the nugget, the core of all of this. If we're really looking back and we're thinking, and we're hearing now of this, you know, if we're really looking back and we're thinking, you know, and we're hearing now the, you know, there's a new DNC chair and the Democrats are really going to reflect on what went wrong. But if I'm thinking about the difficulty with the Trump era is I think a lot of the diagnoses that he puts out there resonate with people. You know, government is not responsive to your needs. I think that really resonates with people because I think people do feel that.

And for all that the Democrats kind of talk about working people and, and all those, those different things, I think they've lost the thread in some ways, certainly in Washington, about tying government effort to the reality of people's lives. My experience down there has been that, that it's a really insulated place. It's overly lobbied. It's very hard to understand. It's very hard to understand how these programs are addressing real value. It's sort of the money spent versus the value the efficacy of it. But I'm surprised the Democrats don't have that book, right? They

don't. Where is the Democrats Project 2025? Is that underway? Everything you're saying feels right to me, the Democrats have to make this point. Where's the infrastructure to do that? And who are the leaders taking charge of that effort? Because when I listened to, I believe his name is Ken Martin, is that correct? The new DNC chair? That's right.

That's right. He kept saying it's a messaging issue, as though, no, everything's going right. You just don't realize it yet. As opposed to we've gotten away from New Deal values. Does that make sense to you? Well, I think there's a few things going on here in terms of how we better communicate with the American people, Maya Angelou said it best, people won't remember what you say, they may not even remember what you do, but they will always remember how you make them feel. And I think what we have to do a better job of is making the American people feel that we understand the pain that they've been in economically for a long period of time.

Now, this moment, you have a situation where you have post-pandemic inflation that hit everyday Americans hard. And of course, many Americans are going to see the economy not through the lens of macroeconomic numbers, what am I paying for food or groceries or gas or housing? And the cost of living in America is too high. And we've got to be clear that our top objective is to do something about it, to make life more affordable for the American people, to bring down housing costs and food costs and gas prices and childcare costs and utility costs and the cost of insurance where it's out of control and it's robbing people of the ability to

own homes. But we also have to zoom out a little bit because there's been a decades long march to sticking it to working class people. And I think as a result, you have every now and then people who can come along the political scene and exploit the pain economically that people are in for their own political gain. But you make a great point. And I think it in some ways amplifies the thing I'm trying to get at, which is you just said it's a decades long march. Where have the Democrats been over those decades? Like if I'm living in an area of entrenched economic

pain, right? And I've got a party saying, we've got to, we've got to understand what you're going through. And we've got to do something. At a certain point, those are just platitudes. You know, you've got Trump out there going, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to deport these people, trans people. They're the ones that are causing your problem. These people are going, everything is specific and pointed and planned. Right? Where is that? Like what, what's the playbook to express in specifics the very thing you just said? For decades, this has been going on where there's a disconnect between the pain of the people and the power and actions of the government. Where have we been?

So, politically, I think one of the reasons why we've seen the pendulum swing back and forth, it went from George H. W. Bush to Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton to George W. Bush, George W. Bush to Barack Obama, Barack Obama to Donald Trump, Donald Trump to Joe Biden, Joe Biden, back to Donald Trump and- You're getting me dizzy. It's a dizzying swing of the pendulum with very different people who have very different ideologies. What's consistent? The American people have a constant desire for change. Why? Because no one has solved the fundamental problem. That's interesting. All right, quick break, and then we're right back. We are back. Leader Jeffreys.

Now, here's the thing about Democrats. Under Barack Obama, we did deal with the healthcare affordability crisis. The Affordable Care Act has been transformational. It has ensured that tens of millions of people who otherwise would not have had access to high quality healthcare have it. That's progress for the American people, but we of course have to do more. Under Joe Biden, you did see steps that were taken to try to bring down costs, particularly in the area of prescription drug pricing and steps to bring jobs back to the American people

through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Chips and Science Act, all design, how do we bring domestic manufacturing jobs back home to America enough with our jobs going in the other direction? So we were doing the work, perhaps we were not speaking as forcefully as necessary to say, you know what? We understand that y'all have been getting jammed up in the communities that I represent. It's been happening. Right. And John, here's the thing.

You can actually point to several different ways in which the deck has been stacked against everyday Americans. Poorly negotiated trade deals, the outsourcing of good paying American jobs, the dramatic decline in unionization, and the rise of automation. And yes, the innovation economy is important and we have to continue to lead developments in the innovation economy, but automation has cost good paying American jobs. No question. You add those factors together and you have a middle class that has been in decline in

relative terms. And the American people are smart enough to know, wait a second, my life was supposed to be better than the lives of my parents, whose lives were better than their grandparents, and my children's lives, consistent with the American Dream, should be better than mine. But that appears to be broken. So we have to fix it, and we have to fix it decisively. But in order to convince the American people that we're prepared to fix it, we have to be very clear that we understand that this has been a problem for a long period of time

and we haven't yet collectively been able to turn around this dynamic with the comprehensive, decisive action necessary. So I think that's a fabulous way of sort of laying out the task at hand. And it's a big one. I mean, let's not let's not kid ourselves. It's a difficult one. I wonder if in your mind when you're down there with the Democratic Party, do they understand that their role in creating that world? So like we talk about NAFTA and through the Clinton, you know, you

laid out very nicely these different eras, there was sort of HW and then Clinton and Bush and then Obama, but things like NAFTA, things like allowing the sort of trickle-down policies to continue through deregulation. Do they understand that maybe even the way that Democrats want to help people access these good things, they have to rethink how government delivers those services. Let's talk about a specific example, which is the ACA. You brought it up, which I think is really interesting. It has gotten, I don't know how many millions of people health insurance,

but the way that it's done it is sort of a Republicanized, almost like a privatization. It's kind of, if you will, a subsidy to the insurance companies. A promise that like, look, if you take people with pre-existing conditions, we'll give you from the government $500 a month to subsidize these plans that we will have access to, but we're not gonna fix what's at the heart of our healthcare system, and we're not gonna fix what's at the heart

of our healthcare system, and we're not gonna fix what's at the heart of our insurance system. So those two frustrations still exist and they get compounded by the overwhelming cost of this program. Are the Democrats not thinking big enough to change the relationship between, this whole idea of having to fight to lower insulin costs as though that's like, you know, oh, we've got 10 drugs that we can

now negotiate with. Like, don't they have to be clearer, stronger and change that relationship to get government to deliver these services directly and effectively. Well, I think the Affordable Care Act has been an interesting journey. I like that phrase. No, and a very important one. Yes. In terms of what has happened, transformationally, you're talking about more than 100 million

Americans with pre-existing healthcare conditions who now have coverage because of the Affordable Care Act, who otherwise would be left to the public market, the insurance market, and healthcare insurers, many of whom would have no intention of allowing them affordable access to the healthcare that they need to live. That's more than a hundred million Americans. Young people who have transitioned out of college or hit age 21, but were in the workforce since high school, at that point they would generally have lost their insurance

coverage. They could not continue to be on their parents' plan. Now that was extended to the age of 26. That's been transformational. We've made the point through the Affordable Care Act that being a woman is not a pre-existing condition. It is not a reason to deny healthcare coverage. And before the Affordable Care Act, it had been. But I think the biggest success in some ways of the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans

for eight years obsessed about taking down until finally politically the American people said enough and we took the House back in 2018 and they've pretended not to want to touch the Affordable Care Act ever since, but if they got a chance they would, is that when that battle was being waged and I wasn't in Congress at the time, it was still unclear, John, in America whether healthcare was a right or a privilege. That was an open question. It's no longer an open question. We at least understand that access to high quality, affordable healthcare is a right in the United States of America.

Now we have to continue to bring that right fully to life. Right. I think that's kind of my point is the ACA has done some really great things for people, but doesn't it reinforce an existing corrupt system? Because if you think about the Republican strategy, right, the Republican strategy is people, but doesn't it reinforce an existing corrupt system? Cause if you think about the Republican strategy, right, the Republican strategy is I'm going to get rid of abortion in America and I'm going to work for 50 years and if we can't make it illegal, we'll make it impossible, but we are relentlessly focused on this goal,

which is to make it illegal. And they're going to take the court track. They're going to take the, okay, if you're going to provide that care, you need to have an anesthesiology and you need to, don't make it impossible financially for places that want to accomplish that. I think Democrats maybe, my point is, are they too comfortable Are they too comfortable within a system that seems not to be delivering? And do we need to take an approach that is more clear and direct to say to people like if healthcare is a right, I'm not sure that the ACA is the most efficient way of delivering that right.

I think it's a fair question, certainly that you're asking. But you know, the way that healthcare has developed in the United States of America has been a far too cumbersome and complicated system. And what we've seen is a series of steps that have been taken to try to make it as equitable as possible. You've got Medicare and then Medicaid and then the Child Health Insurance Program that was put in place during the Clinton era, and then the transformational work of the Affordable Care Act, and then the subsidies that were enhanced during the Biden administration. Now, that's a long journey,

but that's taken us to a place where about 90 to 95 percent of the American people now have access to insurance, in addition to, of course, what takes place in the private market with employer-based healthcare. But there are still gaps. There are still flaws. My point is, in your perfect world, would you say this system, first of all, we don't need to tie healthcare to your job. That limits people's liberty and freedom.

And we don't need to give subsidies to an insurance company. It's almost like what Trump understands is, I can use the government to bully, right? I wonder if Democrats can take that message and say, oh, right, why aren't we playing by that same rule? If we were redesigning the system, is this the way we would design it? And if not, then how do we take a hard line to get that system to deliver? Yeah. Well, I think that point that you make about leveraging the ability of the government

to bring about the best possible result for the American people. It's something that certainly we have to continue to lean into in the healthcare space and in every other space as it relates to improving the quality of life of the American people. I will say that one of the most important things that was accomplished in the previous administration is to give the federal government the ability to negotiate drug prices on behalf of the American people using the federal government's bulk price purchasing power. The idea was now it's limited to Medicare recipients, that's tens of millions of people and we got to expand it out. Which is crazy. Right? We got to expand it out. But here was the theory, John. Wait a second.

Walmart and Target and Best Buy are able to use their bulk price purchasing power to negotiate lower prices that they then present to the consumers and it increases their profitability because they can get a broader share of the market. Shouldn't the federal government be able to use that same market-based principle on behalf of the American people? So that is what we're working on. We have made progress in that direction because now the federal government can do it for Medicare recipients. The Republicans rejected expanding out that power to everyone. We'll continue to press forward for it.

Does this change the way that you look at the presidency, what's happening right now? Like, do you think in your mind now, well, the next time we're fortunate enough to create a message that resonates enough with the American people and we get a Democratic president there. First day one, executive order number one, the government negotiates drug price deals with the drug companies, benefit managers out of the game. Like we're going to attack this much more directly. We are not going to the din of all the lobbyists of all these different industries. We're cutting that out and we're making this much cleaner to the way that we want to operate.

We definitely got to make the system as clean as possible and continue to build upon the work that has been done. I will say that given the flood of outrageous behavior, extreme behavior, thinking about 2028 at this moment for me is a luxury. It's a luxury. It is. I would admit that. So you had an emergency meeting with the caucus, yes?

That's right. Was that the House and the Senate or just the House? That was just the House. That was last week. It was a virtual meeting because we were all spread out across the country, back home in our districts. And that was in response to the unlawful, illegal Office of Management and Budget, so-called funding freeze that was clear overreach. The American people rose up.

I think it was announced on January 27th, this funding freeze. By January 29th, it was rescinded. But they said they only rescinded the memo, the freeze is still in place, or is that incorrect? Yeah, well, I think what they were referring to is that the blanket freeze is gone. Now it's temporarily gone and we're going to continue to press forward to make sure that it's permanently gone, what has not been rescinded were some of the executive orders that froze precise funding in certain areas that he issued on day one or day two, for example, the freeze as it relates to foreign aid. Marshall S. Lutz Oh, that's the USAID. And that wasn't, is that even the President or is that Vice President Musk? Is he the one who froze USAID?

It's a reasonable question to ask who's actually running things right now because Elon Musk seems to have an extraordinary amount of power and certainly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, House Republicans, are bending over backwards to do his bidding. Can I tell you my favorite tweet that he put out was something about last week and about agencies. It was something about like, who are these unelected bureaucrats who have all this power over our lives? And you're just like, I think they're you. I think you're that, I think you're that person. All right. Quick break. And then we're right back.

And we're back. What recourse is there other than outrage? I think the frustrating thing for a lot of people watching at home is at this point, the recourse seems to be, let's put Chuck Schumer on television to give as non-dramatica reading as he can of the outrage. What is the real recourse? Can there be temporary injunctions?

Is there a Congress? Have the Republicans just decided, we're just gonna give it all to the executive and we no longer have the power of appropriation? We're just gonna go along with all of this. What is the recourse for an opposition party that doesn't control the House, the Senate, the executive or the judiciary?

It's an all hands on deck effort. We gotta make sure that we push back in the Congress, push back in the courts, and push back in the community, particularly as it relates to shaping public sentiment, which we have seen can be decisive. Abraham Lincoln once made the observation that public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed. Public sentiment rose up in response to the funding freeze, they

backed off. Public sentiment rose up in response to the overly broad tariffs related to our North American allies. The market also weighed in and all of a sudden they backed off two days later. So we are seeing that public sentiment can be an important vehicle, but we also have to push back in Congress. And by the way, at the end of last year, when both the incoming president at the time and Elon Musk tried to tank a spending agreement that had been negotiated in a bipartisan way, because they demanded the nerve of these people. They demanded that we give the president a four or five trillion dollar blank check by

suspending the debt ceiling for the entirety of his presidency so he could pass massive tax cuts for his billionaire friends and wealthy corporations. Our response was not simply no, politely, it was hell no. And the Congress defeated that bill. The Democrats and a handful of Republicans, but Democrats could have done it on our own. And we showed that in that context. And so there will continue to be legislative pushback. And I think it's also important, John, to understand that, listen, Donald Trump won the popular vote this time around. He lost

the popular vote in 2016. He lost the popular vote in 2016. He comes into Congress. There are 241 Republicans in the House, only 194 Democrats. This time around, so-called mandate, he wins the popular vote, and currently there are 218 Republicans in the House and 215 Democrats. It's the narrowest majority since the Great Depression. Dr. Justin Marchegiani Oh, that's not—that doesn't portend well. Anything that relates back to it's the last time that happens is the Great Depression. That's not a good sign. Dr. Bui Not a good sign. And then what happened immediately thereafter was FDR's election bringing about a true golden age for America or the beginnings of it as he battled through

the Great Depression. So I think we certainly are going to stick together. Listen, we'll work with anyone in order to solve the core problems, which how do we drive down the high cost of living for the American people? How do we bring the American dream to life? But we're going to push back against far-right extremism whenever necessary. The courts will do that as well. I think that executive order related to birthright citizenship was issued either on January 20th or January 21st, two or three days later.

A judge appointed by Ronald Reagan struck down the effort to eliminate birthright citizenship because it's unconstitutional. And we've seen now more than 20 different lawsuits have been brought related to 11 different executive orders, and that righteous litigation will also continue moving forward. Are there people within the Republican caucus now? I know that people always say what they say on CNN or Fox or MSNBC is not necessarily how you guys talk with each other. I would imagine there's a good bit of trepidation even amongst the Republican caucus about a little bit of the chaos that is being brought through this first couple of weeks. Are there guess it's two fold are there allies that you think.

Will have the courage to work with you on reasonable stuff cuz even though the majority that they have in the house is less. The house is zero sum game if you got one extra you control everything. It's not like the Senate. So you really are on the back foot, hoping that Chip Roy is crazy enough that he'll tank whatever it is that they throw out there. But are there, is there any political courage to curb the worst excesses of the vindictiveness? Because you don't sort of see it. Like they're talking about, we need to make government more efficient. And they basically got rid of all the I.G.s, which are their reports, which Congress generally ignores anyway. But at least they identify areas of waste fraud and abuse generally.

Yeah, I think it's a it's a great question. It's absolutely the right question in terms of the congressional dynamics. And here's the thing. All we need is three. Right. On any given issue to stop bad things from happening, particularly as it relates to the congressional power of the purse, which you brought up.

By the way, this is a constitutional thing. Right. I thought my colleagues were originalists. I thought they believed in the text of the Constitution, which is that the power of the purse belongs to the Congress generally. And in Article 1, I think it's Section 9, Clause 7, the House in particular. Did you just Section 9, Clause 7 me me leader Jeffries. How, if that's, if you just pull that,

very pleasing, that's very pleasing to me. That's like talking to Doris Kearns Goodwin for God's sakes, throwing out clauses and articles and things that are going on there. Is there someone you call, like, do you call Mike Johnson and go like, so are we just not, are we not active anymore? Like, or have we over the

years done emergency powers to the president and Trump is just using those levers in a way that's legal and won't be objected to by these congressional members because they're fearful. Like even that idea of we just need three. I don't know if there's three courageous individuals in that caucus. What I can tell you is that there's definitely 15 or 20 who are in swing districts who if they are seen as supporting or excusing or remaining silent about the extremism, the efforts end medicare or medicaid or social security as we know it basically rob from the american people they gonna face some electoral consequences in the general election in twenty twenty six in the question is are they willing to step up We just need three on any given issue. You're right. I have said to Speaker Johnson

in my conversations that Congress has to reassert the power of the purse. We can't have a situation where we are agreeing to appropriate money in the best interest of the American people, it's then signed into law and a president based on a signature can wipe it all away. Now we believe that at the end of the day, the courts will take much of this activity down, but we have an opportunity over the next month or so as we continue to negotiate the upcoming spending agreement to reassert ourselves for the American people, for the good of the American people, as opposed to what some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to do. They want government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, and for

the billionaires. Give me a break. We can't let that happen. Do you think that the Democrats are in a position or have they eroded their credibility with working people over these past decades to the point where that argument can resonate enough. It's always something that strikes me a bit with the argument of billionaires have to pay their fair share and couldn't agree more. But I think it doesn't resonate with people if they're worried that that money won't be spent to give us value directly.

You know, is that part of the calculus as the Democrats figure out their path forward? How do we not just speak the rhetoric of working class, but how do we regain the confidence of people, the trust of people that this government money will be, because if we don't tie it to value, the Republicans are doing the opposite. Their thing is, I'm gonna get rid of all of USAID.

So we're going to destroy the government without concern for value. The question is, can Democrats convince people we're going to rebuild it with that concern for value? Yeah, I think we have to, this takes it back to the core issue of what as Democrats are we trying to accomplish. And I think our core proposition is, look, we have to rebuild the American dream. It's been broken.

And here's what the American dream means to us, that when you work hard in America and play by the rules, you should be able to provide a comfortable living for yourself, for your family, educate your children, purchase a home, go on vacation every now and then, have access to high quality and affordable health care, and then one day retire with grace and dignity so you can enjoy your grandkids. That's not too much to ask in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, but for far too many people, it's not available. So I think first, we have to connect with everyday Americans on the core value proposition that we're offering, which is bring back to life the American dream. And then we can discuss the policy proposals that we have in order to accomplish that.

The particulars that would get there. And who's doing that work, I guess, is while you guys are in the maelstrom as chaos reigns around you, the Republicans seem to have an infrastructure funneled by their right-wing billionaires that have a real ideological bent to them, plans that are as specific and laid out and they've got a little book. So who builds that book? Who directs it? And are the Democrats organized enough, unified enough, and unified in that way to build that, the specifics of that, that can redefine and reanimate that New Deal spirit that worked to connect with people and value in the 30s. Who's doing that now?

DL Well, that's definitely an ongoing conversation that can now intensify, you know, as we are engaging in the day-to-day legislative battles in the trenches. And we have to continue to do that with intensity. But at the same period of time, think about what the next year and what the next midterm look like, and how do we communicate with the American people in a more compelling fashion. And so that's a conversation between House Democrats,

Senate Democrats, between the governors, and between the DNC. We also need the DNC to make sure that we do build out that robust communication mechanism so we can reach the American people where they are, and not simply through the traditional mechanisms mechanisms because we'll never reach the people that we need to reach who only casually at best understandably follow politics because they are living day to day, week to week, month to month.

That's why one of the things that we try to do as House Democrats is stay connected, stay on the ground, stay in the community, talk to the people that you represent about the problems they actually want us to solve. That's the best focus group, the people that we actually represent. Do you think these answers are going to come out of Washington? You know, I think sometimes we forget that there's real leadership at the state level. There's a lot of really talented and committed people working at the state level, at the local level. I remember coming to Congress when we had our first burn pit bills. We got together that for country caucus. It was Republicans

and Democrats. We talked to them about, here's this situation that veterans have been facing when they come back from the war on terror. Here are the terrible consequences. Here's the list of diseases that are. And they said, oh, this is terrible. We would love to do something about this. Could you write that bill up?

And I remember thinking like, wait, what? I thought that was, you know, does Congress have the ability to juggle that? You know, I still feel like this country is held together by hundreds of legislative aides that are working, you know, tirelessly, first ones in last ones out making these things work. But do you think it's something that's actually going to come more from? Are the states and the localities more equipped? To bring that to bear what you're talking about that connection to the people. Well, I definitely think it's already above everybody who has the opportunity

to serve in public office has to engage right at a maximum level because that's what the moment calls for right now. By the way, we also need people to run for something. Everyday Americans. All right. What do you need? Talk to me. What do you want? Mayor of what?

What do you want? Anything. All right. Anything. I think you'd be an amazing candidate because you keep it real. Right? I'll try to. And it's how you make the American people feel.

But I do think this point about making sure that all of us stay connected on the ground is incredibly important because the American people are thinking about a lot of different things. And many are outraged and horrified at what's taking place, but there's a flood of activity. It's the flood-the-zone strategy and it's on us to kind of clarify what is taking place that is designed to do them in, that Republicans are stealing taxpayer dollars. But at the same period of time, be very clear. Look, we want to make sure that we drive down the high cost of living because we know America's too expensive, that we have to secure the border but at the same time we're going to defend

dreamers and families and farm workers and that we've got to keep our community safe as well. These are things that we have to make sure that the American people understand as a baseline we're committed to doing and they aren't. They talk a good, but they're doing the exact opposite in so many of these areas. And the only way to do that is really to engage, engage with intensity and authenticity to the people that we're privileged to represent, whether that's in the House or the Senate, the governors, the state legislators, the city council members, the county legislators, all of the above.

You touched on something really interesting there, leader Jeffries, that I want to make sure I follow up on, which is it's almost a vision of a law and order progressivism, if that makes sense. For too long, I think people thought progressivism or liberal values meant permissiveness or a lack of common sense within. Even when I think about deportation and they're saying like, oh, we have criminals here who are here, they don't have the documentation and they are criminals and we haven't deported them and you think, well, isn't that the law?

Why wouldn't we do that? Is there an understanding now that people in impoverished communities, like if you don't feel safe, if you don't feel secure, everything builds from that. Investment, the ability to, from that investment, the ability to, you know, feel that your life will be your life. Is that a new direction for the left? Well, I definitely think that people feeling safe and secure in their community shouldn't be an ideological issue.

It's the reality of how real Americans think about their life. Listen, I grew up in central Brooklyn, Crown Heights, went to church in Befriest-Ivison, came of age in the mid to late 80s into the early 90s, golden era of hip hop music, but also in the midst of the crack cocaine epidemic. The streets were hot. It was violent. You're talking about 2,000 plus homicides. And you never knew when you left your home or left school or left church or left work, whether you'd get struck down by a bullet as a result of some gang turf war that was taking place. And every single person in those predominantly black communities that I grew up in cared about public safety and nothing has changed. And so of course that has to be a foundational principle

that we're committed to keeping communities safe. And that there's got to be some semblance of order of course in the context of what we're dealing with right now, order at the border. But at the same period of time also make clear that dreamers add amazing value to our communities. Farm workers add amazing value to our country and our communities. Why are we breaking up families when we should actually be going after violent felons? And that's what we're going to hold the administration to account as it relates to some of the activity that we're seeing. Do you think that's part of what people lost confidence in that they looked at the Democrats as being not common sense with that value of safety and security?

They kind of looked at some of these, you know, different rulings that were being passed down that were letting people back out on the streets when you would look at 17 arrests or undocumented people that had committed crimes that are still here and still committing crimes. Is that, was that a missed opportunity that the Democrats didn't? Because the way you're describing it feels different than the way it had been executed over these past, I don't

know how many years. Yeah, I definitely think that there's work to be done as it relates to making sure the American people understand we're committed to securing the border and we're committed to fixing our broken immigration system, but we need to do it in a bipartisan way. We also are committed to a criminal justice system that doesn't just lock people up, that has unleashed mass incarceration on the American people.

And that's hurt communities of color, black and Latino communities, poor white communities who have been swept up into the failed war on drugs and mass incarceration. And by the way, John, during the first Trump administration, I worked with Doug Collins, who is now a member of the Trump cabinet. Georgia. From Georgia.

Yeah, he's a VA secretary now. VA secretary. Yeah. I think, you know, you'll probably be interacting with him a lot and you may disagree with him on some issues, but he's a very thoughtful individual in my experience. I worked with him on criminal justice reform. We passed the First Step Act. It brought together the left and the right, progressives and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, the NAACP and the Koch brothers, all on a bill that was ultimately signed into law by Donald Trump. And so we can

find common ground on the issue of public safety and on criminal justice reform. We've done it in the past and we're committed to it, but we do have to make sure that the American people don't think that Republicans have some monopoly on keeping people safe, particularly when we've seen a Republican party, by the way, that has signed off on pardons that were issued to violent felons who brutally beat police officers and have now been unleashed on communities all across the country where they're continuing to commit crime. I'll go you on further along the lines of that absurdity,

but a party of law and order that continues to basically allow our streets to be flooded with illegal weapons. I mean, you've got Mexico, here's how bad it gets. You've got Mexico fighting cartels going, yeah, we'll try and stop fentanyl from coming into your country. Could you try and stop weapons from coming into ours? So I agree with you completely. I love that idea. It's a difficult needle to thread, but that idea is nuanced. We must control the border, but we can do it in a way that doesn't

We must control the border but we can do it in a way that doesn't demonize those. What it feels like in this country we're still lacking the conversation around immigration or safety or got it the conversations it seems we can't. Find our way to have which is what is the level of immigration that we as a country want and can handle? What is the level of resource guarding that may happen amongst communities? Cause you hear it all the time. I'm having a struggle and why are we sending money to Ukraine? And why are we giving undocumented people access to, you know, some of it. Reasonable, some of it, an absolute, uh, an absolute exaggeration of what's actually happening and chewing gum and walking at the same time.

But those conversations are never litigated in the face of real demagogue and that's kind of what you're up against now. Are you able to have those conversations privately? When I say privately, I mean in the chambers, that broader conversation of do we want to talk about what is the level of immigration that makes sense for a country of our size that continues to want to grow, but also wants to remind people that that we are not abdicating that basic principle of safety.

Yeah, I think that we should have this conversation that America is both a nation of immigrants, that's our story, that's our journey, that's been a big part of American exceptionalism, and it's one of the reasons why we remain the envy of the world, but at the same time, we're also a nation anchored in the rule of law, and we remain the envy of the world. But at the same time, we're also a nation anchored in the rule of law. And we should be able to do both. And that's why we have to have a broader discussion legislatively, and we're going to lean into

this around fixing our broken immigration system. And we got to do it in a comprehensive, in a bipartisan way that recognizes the value of pathways toward citizenship for people who are simply trying to come here, be part of the continuing American journey, and based on what we've seen for centuries, will add value to our communities. Leader Jeffries, I can see why you guys are screwed because nuance. will add value to our communities. Leader Jeffries, I can see why you guys are screwed because nuance, you're bringing nuance to these conversations. I know I see why this is also difficult.

Well, listen, I think on the policy, you gotta deal with nuance, but we definitely have to lean in in terms of the messaging in an aggressive way, in a clear way. We say often in these parts, if you're trying to break through with a message, you got to deal with simplicity and repetition, a simple message that you repeat over and over and over again.

At this moment, at least, you know, we're committed to making clear to the American people. We're going to drive down the high cost of living. The Republicans talked about it. They haven't been about it because they are all about rewarding their billionaire donors and wealthy corporations. And if they are allowed to continue to do that, they're simply going to continue to jam up the American people, which has been happening for decades. And we got to bring an end to it.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, I thank you so much, sir, for taking the time to spend with us. I want to tell you just as a Nick fan, good luck out there at the Park Play Center because my guess is you're going to get the top pick in the draft and then you're going to be able to turn this thing around as well. And if you've still got hope there, well, then this country still has hope as well, sir. Yes, that's right. Listen, a lot of my constituents ride for the Nets. I'm all day, every day for the Knicks.

Boom! That's what I'm talking about, sir. And that is the bold leadership that we in this nation need. Knicks Nation, baby. I appreciate you. And yeah, no, listen, I'm all day, every day. I didn't get one of my favorite Knick quotes in, but maybe next time. Oh, uh, yeah, no, listen, I'm all day every day. I didn't get one of my favorite Nick quotes in, but you know, maybe next time. Oh, let's hear it. The great Michael Ray Richardson, the ship be sinking. I think at the end of the day, that's what's going to go on with the Trump administration. The ship be sinking. Yeah. Thank you, sir. Leader Jeffrey. Thanks. Thanks for coming on and spending the time, really appreciate it. All of us. Baaah!

Speaker Jeffries! Did I say speaker? I meant leader. You know, you get so confused of the titles. If you're in the minority, you're still leader. And if he gets into the majority, then he's speaker. I have to tell you, and maybe this is the design of the system, And by the way, we're being joined by obviously, Gillian Spear, Lauren Walker, Brittany Mamedovic, our illustrious production team that kicks ass every week.

I got to tell you, I feel like Leader is a title that is better than Speaker. Speaker feels like you have the speaking clam or speaking shell, whatever. Leader feels more imperial. Yeah. Yeah, wherever you go, you're the leader. Speaker, you're just a mouthpiece, yeah. Follow the leader. See, follow the speaker?

No. Not the same. That's right. Let me ask you, let me put it to the focus group. Did you come away feeling more confident in their ability to put up a unified and effective front or less confident? Let's start with Jillian. Well, first I'd like to say he actually is my congressman.

What? So yes, I am. Brooklyn. Yeah, Brooklyn's in the house. All right, all right. It's the first time I've ever had outsized influence in politics. Yes. I'm enjoying that.

You should have jumped in, man. Yeah, I feel more confident. He speaks with such authority. I do feel like there's still this protectiveness of a certain era of democratic politics that's kind of pervasive in the party. Like I got a fundraising text the other day from James Carville. I'm just, we got to break up with that. I'm surprised it's a text and not a handwritten letter from the Carville era.

I'm surprised it's not a Civil War missive. He's very savvy. Dearest Jillian. Yeah. But I find that interesting and maybe that's the point is, and I was trying to gently work my way around that idea of like, access to a broken system is still a fucking broken system. Yes, with healthcare, absolutely.

Are we going to change the system? Lauren, more confident, less confident? I didn't go in so confident. So I'm more confident now. And the reason why I wanted to give a little snippet of why I wasn't very confident. So in preparation for this conversation, been looking at what the Democrats have been discussing as their strategy. And one thing I noticed that Dems have been using, and I don't know baseball very well, but this seems contradictory, which is that Jeffries has been out there saying that

Aaron Judge is his favorite because he does not swing at every pitch, right? He did not follow the World Series, clearly. Brutal. I'm sorry. Brutal tape down. Yet Chris Murphy of Connecticut says right now you have to swing at every pitch. So it seems like there might be some disagreement among Democrats right now about the strategy. There is a disagreement in that particular Democratic infighting. I've really got to go

with leader Jeffery Sear because I don't know of a baseball strategy where you would go up to the plate and someone would say, you got to swing at every pitch and still have a job within any kind of professional baseball organization. His name is Kyle Schwaber. We're going inside. Brittany, did you feel good? Did you come out of it?

Yeah. I mean, when he was like thinking about 2028 as a luxury, I really felt that. Just because I feel like I don't even know what's happened this morning, let alone like what's happening in how many years? Three, four, whatever. I don't even know anymore. I've got to try and get out of that feeling of relitigating the past so much. I think I find myself falling into that in a way, like when he says like law and order and things like that, you're like, right, so maybe we should have done more at the border or when he would say something like we need to show them we're on their side. And you're like, yeah, we should have probably done that 20 years ago in a way that was much cleaner and effective.

Like, so it's, it's very hard for me to get out of that mindset, especially when the way forward still seems so lacking in specificity because that's where they're getting their asses kicked. I feel like there is, it's, let's continue the sports metaphors. There is a football team that has a playbook and there is another team that is, they are a playground team.

They're like, what if we all just go long? Like they don't have the infrastructure and playbook to counter effectively the specificity of what's coming at them and I really hope that that changes and can change quickly and it can if there is some sense of leadership and unity and vision. But you had asked that like who's writing the playbook and I don't know if we got a specific answer. Well, right now it's the two competing visions between swing at everything and don't swing

at everything. And then they're going to move from there. Once that is litigated, whether or not to take every pitch or swing at every pitch, then we can begin to move on to the other things. But I was pleased that I was nervous that it would be all politics speech and no real real and I didn't feel that to the same extent. So I felt positive about that. How are the viewers feeling? What do we got on all that? Viewers, listeners?

Do we call them viewers or listeners? They're both. Yeah, I think they're both. Whoa, you just blew my mind. Lauren Walker coming in with, that's some Zen shit right there. They are both. The Heisenberg principle of podcast. What do we got? Since shaming, ridiculing and fact-checking don't work, does MAGA have a kryptonite? Yes, the narcissism of their leader can be used, I think, against him. There is still that feeling of wanting to be loved and important, and I think that can be used again there. But I would take issue with shaming, fact-checking,

and what was the other one? Shaming, fact-check factor. Riticuling. And ridiculing. Riticuling, probably so, but shaming, if they feel that the shaming is sustained, will not go away, has stamina, and some semblance of public acceptance and appeal, I do think it'll be effective. As we saw, I think with the Terra4, all it took was six hours of the Dow to have them go like, oh yeah, let's just fucking save face and claim victory and we'll be done with this. So I, you know, I think we're in there.

I think, I think it can be done, but, but by the way, that's the least that can be done. What needs to be done is what we talked about earlier. With the leader. BD – Yeah. AMT – All right. AMT – Yeah. John, who are you rooting for in the Super Bowl? Go Birds? BD – It's an excellent question, Brittany. They're not playing it this year. AMT – It's just commercials and Kendrick Lamar. BD – That's right. Apparently, what they've decided to do because of lack of interest is it's going to be a

Kendrick Lamar concert and they're just going to play Not Like Us 10 times. Cut away to Taylor. Dre is just going to walk in and go, I see dead people. They're just going to hit it 10 times over and over again and then you're just going to hit it 10 times over and over again. And then we're just going to see just what Pepsi is going to do this year. And then we're all going to go home. Because from what I've heard is if the Eagles win, they will not be awarded the trophy because that just can't happen. Here's what I want. I want Saquon to have a really good game. I want him to be great and I want the Eagles to lose.

And that's just because they have to. But I think I recently saw you in the Eagles jersey. Now that, okay, so I thought we were friends. Sorry. So, months ago, I had made a bet on Jalen Brunson's podcast that he said if the Giants beat the Eagles in the regular season, that I had to come to Madison Square Garden in a Saquon Barkley Eagles jersey. Now, for those of you at home and in this podcast who know anything about football,

you are saying to yourself, that's the dumbest fucking bet I've ever heard in my life. Awful. That's awful. That's a terrible bet. In fact, Nate said to me, my son Nate said to me, he goes, why would you bet that? They had, they're like, they were three and 50. You knew they were going to suck. You knew the Eagles were great.

You knew they added the best running back in the league. Like, why would you ever accept that bet? And I was like, it was on stage. He sprung it on me. I didn't know what to do. He goes, why didn't you bet him that the giants would have a better draft pick than the something that you had a chance. Or that they would score at all. Or that they would write. Get some points, do a prop bet, do something. So I lost. He called me out on it. And so this weekend was the weekend

that I went with Nate in our Saquon Barkley Eagles jerseys and I added an extra touch of humiliation and Eagles bucket hat in the hopes that I could maybe hide myself. When we were shown on the Jumbotron in Madison Square Garden on the big screen. I was booed in a way that New Yorkers, I feel like Bin Laden wouldn't have gotten booed like that. Even in New York, I got hit with a wave of boos. I think I shrunk. Maybe, we got to the point where Nate, as we're walking out, just kept turning to people and going, we don I shrunk. Maybe if I, we got to the point where Nate,

as we're walking out, just kept turning to people and going, we don't like them. It was a bad, we don't actually like them. Aw. Take pity on me. Who are you? Me. We paid it off, man.

I for it, at one point he says to somebody, I didn't want to, he forced me. Like. But John, if you had to pick, you have to answer the question. Oh, oh, if I had to pick a winner? Yeah. Brittany, I think the American pub, I think, to be honest, I do think the Eagles are going to win.

I think they are. They've shown themselves to be a better, more balanced team this year. I know you never want to discount Mahomes and Andy Reid and Kelsey and their defense. And he does, Mahomes has better weapons now than he had at the beginning of the season, but it's hard to pick against the Eagles the way they're playing right now. I mean, they, brutal, brutal.

We'll see. But what are the, how do they keep in touch with us? What are the socials? How do we? Hit us up. Twitter, we are Weekly Show Pod. Instagram threads, TikTok, Blue Sky. We are Weekly Show Podcast.

And you can like, subscribe, and comment on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. Fantastic. My friends, always a pleasure to see you. As always, lead producer, Lauren Walker, producer, Brittany Mametovic, video editor and engineer, Rob Vitolo, audio editor and engineer, Nicole Boyce,

researcher and associate producer, Jillian Spear, executive producers, as always, Chris McShane and Katie Gray, fantastic man. Thanks very much. Join us again next week and we'll see you then. Bye-bye. ["The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart"] The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy Productions.