Mona Charen

Yeah, 100%. And I would just add that, you know, it is sort of a staple of right wing commentary, you know, to dunk on, you know, bureaucrats. And I mean, even this goes back decades.

Yeah, 100%. And I would just add that, you know, it is sort of a staple of right wing commentary, you know, to dunk on, you know, bureaucrats. And I mean, even this goes back decades.

I mean, Reagan used to make jokes about federal bureaucrats, and some of them were pretty funny, you know, like they were saying, there's so many bureaucrats, like a guy is crying at his desk at the Department of Agriculture, and somebody says, what's the matter? And he says, my farmer died. So that was 40 years ago or more.

I mean, Reagan used to make jokes about federal bureaucrats, and some of them were pretty funny, you know, like they were saying, there's so many bureaucrats, like a guy is crying at his desk at the Department of Agriculture, and somebody says, what's the matter? And he says, my farmer died. So that was 40 years ago or more.

There is something in the bulwark water because JVL also got a cat like in the last few weeks.

There is something in the bulwark water because JVL also got a cat like in the last few weeks.

But the fact is, the truth, the dirty little secret of how we do things in our federal government is we actually don't have more bureaucrats now than we had like 40 years ago. We don't have a huge amount of bureaucrats. We do it through private contractors. And maybe some of them are not efficient. I'm sure they're not.

But the fact is, the truth, the dirty little secret of how we do things in our federal government is we actually don't have more bureaucrats now than we had like 40 years ago. We don't have a huge amount of bureaucrats. We do it through private contractors. And maybe some of them are not efficient. I'm sure they're not.

Government is never as efficient as a private business by its very nature, and it never will be, no matter how many Elon Musks you try to bring in, because the incentives are different. But the fact is, you can't just say, I'm going to fire 20% of the federal workforce, and then it'll all be leaner and meaner. No, it's just not going to work.

Government is never as efficient as a private business by its very nature, and it never will be, no matter how many Elon Musks you try to bring in, because the incentives are different. But the fact is, you can't just say, I'm going to fire 20% of the federal workforce, and then it'll all be leaner and meaner. No, it's just not going to work.

100%. Not that part in particular because, I don't know, it's very much of a sledgehammer and you would need to know in particular cases whether these particular workers need to be in the office. I don't know. But I'll tell you, I do not like DEI stuff. I think it is destructive. I think it's a really, really bad idea to encourage people to think in racial terms.

100%. Not that part in particular because, I don't know, it's very much of a sledgehammer and you would need to know in particular cases whether these particular workers need to be in the office. I don't know. But I'll tell you, I do not like DEI stuff. I think it is destructive. I think it's a really, really bad idea to encourage people to think in racial terms.

both to encourage minorities to think of themselves as oppressed and to encourage majorities to think of themselves as guilty. I mean, I don't think that's healthy for society. If I had a magic wand, yeah, I'd get rid of all DEI programs. That doesn't mean I'd get rid of affirmative action. That's different. But DEI is a particular thing.

both to encourage minorities to think of themselves as oppressed and to encourage majorities to think of themselves as guilty. I mean, I don't think that's healthy for society. If I had a magic wand, yeah, I'd get rid of all DEI programs. That doesn't mean I'd get rid of affirmative action. That's different. But DEI is a particular thing.

By the way, it also encourages anti-Semitism in many instances. It's a mess. Okay, but there is a difference between saying, I like this particular outcome, or I agree that DEI is very problematic, and doing something in a completely high-handed, lawless way. If Congress has mandated... programs, then you can't just change it. You have to ask Congress to rescind it.

By the way, it also encourages anti-Semitism in many instances. It's a mess. Okay, but there is a difference between saying, I like this particular outcome, or I agree that DEI is very problematic, and doing something in a completely high-handed, lawless way. If Congress has mandated... programs, then you can't just change it. You have to ask Congress to rescind it.

By the way, last time I checked, he has control of both houses, right? Right. I mean, hello. Just do it.

By the way, last time I checked, he has control of both houses, right? Right. I mean, hello. Just do it.

So the podcast is, I mean, I was reluctant to part with Beg to Differ, which I loved doing. We did that for five years, my great colleagues. That's crazy. It was five years? It was five years. Amazing, right? I know. I know. We've been living in this reality for such a long time.

So the podcast is, I mean, I was reluctant to part with Beg to Differ, which I loved doing. We did that for five years, my great colleagues. That's crazy. It was five years? It was five years. Amazing, right? I know. I know. We've been living in this reality for such a long time.

That's absolutely right.

That's absolutely right.

You know what I mean? Yes, Tim, 100% true. And also, let's recall that the part of the government that they are focusing on is such a small part of the federal budget. I mean, if they were actually serious about cutting spending, and we do seriously have a debt problem, hello, then they would be grownups and say, okay, you know, we got to talk about reforming Social Security and Medicare.

You know what I mean? Yes, Tim, 100% true. And also, let's recall that the part of the government that they are focusing on is such a small part of the federal budget. I mean, if they were actually serious about cutting spending, and we do seriously have a debt problem, hello, then they would be grownups and say, okay, you know, we got to talk about reforming Social Security and Medicare.

But as we said earlier, they're not doing that. They won't do that. And, you know, all of this other stuff is just nibbling around the edges, honestly, if it's a matter of cost savings. I mean, on the matter of policy, it is significant.

But as we said earlier, they're not doing that. They won't do that. And, you know, all of this other stuff is just nibbling around the edges, honestly, if it's a matter of cost savings. I mean, on the matter of policy, it is significant.

But anyway, so, but I felt like with the, with the election and the new era that we're living in, I felt a strong desire to have a podcast where I can go deeper on some of these issues and, and talk to the experts and, and devote one podcast per subject matter, or at least per guest and let the guest have a little bit more opportunity.

But anyway, so, but I felt like with the, with the election and the new era that we're living in, I felt a strong desire to have a podcast where I can go deeper on some of these issues and, and talk to the experts and, and devote one podcast per subject matter, or at least per guest and let the guest have a little bit more opportunity.

What I was trying to say is that, well, first of all, throat clearing. There's the whole problem of it being completely unconstitutional to try to change this via executive order. It's in the Constitution.

What I was trying to say is that, well, first of all, throat clearing. There's the whole problem of it being completely unconstitutional to try to change this via executive order. It's in the Constitution.

I didn't see it.

I didn't see it.

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Okay. So first of all, it's completely bogus. And so said a Reagan appointed federal judge. I said this was laughable. But the other part of it, though, is a matter of the meaning of America. And that is exactly what the executive order was labeling, the meaning of American citizenship. They said they were upholding.

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Okay. So first of all, it's completely bogus. And so said a Reagan appointed federal judge. I said this was laughable. But the other part of it, though, is a matter of the meaning of America. And that is exactly what the executive order was labeling, the meaning of American citizenship. They said they were upholding.

Actually, they are destroying it because birthright citizenship is tied up with the fact that we are a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of people who came here and became Americans. We were something else before everybody except Native Americans came here. And this is not a country of blood and soil. It's not that we all have the same ethnicity or ancestry or language or color or any of that.

Actually, they are destroying it because birthright citizenship is tied up with the fact that we are a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of people who came here and became Americans. We were something else before everybody except Native Americans came here. And this is not a country of blood and soil. It's not that we all have the same ethnicity or ancestry or language or color or any of that.

It's that we have chosen to be part of this great experiment. And every person who is born here is. is as legitimate and perfect and pure and American as any descendant of the Mayflower. And that is a very equalizing concept. And it's important, I think, to maintain that because otherwise we're going to have tiers of citizens.

It's that we have chosen to be part of this great experiment. And every person who is born here is. is as legitimate and perfect and pure and American as any descendant of the Mayflower. And that is a very equalizing concept. And it's important, I think, to maintain that because otherwise we're going to have tiers of citizens.

You know, we're going to have the people who can trace their ancestry back many generations and then they are the real Americans and then everybody else is something else. You know, that is antithetical to my perception of what this country is about. Amen.

You know, we're going to have the people who can trace their ancestry back many generations and then they are the real Americans and then everybody else is something else. You know, that is antithetical to my perception of what this country is about. Amen.

Okay, so Tulsi, I would put at the top that she is the most dangerous because The one thing you want above everything else is good judgment in a post like that, where you are in charge of our secrets. And she has shown appalling judgment in her sidling up to a vicious murderer like Hafez Assad, in her defense of Edward Snowden, in her willingness to be a mouthpiece for Putin.

Okay, so Tulsi, I would put at the top that she is the most dangerous because The one thing you want above everything else is good judgment in a post like that, where you are in charge of our secrets. And she has shown appalling judgment in her sidling up to a vicious murderer like Hafez Assad, in her defense of Edward Snowden, in her willingness to be a mouthpiece for Putin.

So yeah, so far we've had two and I think it's, it's going well.

So yeah, so far we've had two and I think it's, it's going well.

Such that the TV people on RT call her our girlfriend.

Such that the TV people on RT call her our girlfriend.

Russia Today. That is who Trump thinks should be entrusted with our secrets. It is like something out of the onion. It is so beyond belief. But because we live in the world, we do. We've had members on the Hill sort of quietly say, well, I have my hesitations, I have doubts, rather than saying, this is a goddamn outrage. Under no circumstances will she be whatever.

Russia Today. That is who Trump thinks should be entrusted with our secrets. It is like something out of the onion. It is so beyond belief. But because we live in the world, we do. We've had members on the Hill sort of quietly say, well, I have my hesitations, I have doubts, rather than saying, this is a goddamn outrage. Under no circumstances will she be whatever.

But look, I guess we have to take what we can get. We've heard Even Trump total patsies like Lindsey Graham express reservations. So let's see what happens.

But look, I guess we have to take what we can get. We've heard Even Trump total patsies like Lindsey Graham express reservations. So let's see what happens.

Yeah. Who doesn't believe in pasteurization? We might as well just go back to the 18th century, I guess.

Yeah. Who doesn't believe in pasteurization? We might as well just go back to the 18th century, I guess.

Can I see a chart? Exactly. Again, it is mind boggling RFK. And then the other point, and this was a point that was actually made by the Wall Street Journal, which deserves opprobrium for having not opposed Trump's election. But they are saying appropriately that the other angle that you have to pay attention to on RFK is the money angle.

Can I see a chart? Exactly. Again, it is mind boggling RFK. And then the other point, and this was a point that was actually made by the Wall Street Journal, which deserves opprobrium for having not opposed Trump's election. But they are saying appropriately that the other angle that you have to pay attention to on RFK is the money angle.

that he has been raising all of these conspiracy theories about vaccines, for example, as a way to personally profit because then he sues the manufacturers and they settle with him. And he's made millions this way. And his cousin, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, gave an impassioned statement.

that he has been raising all of these conspiracy theories about vaccines, for example, as a way to personally profit because then he sues the manufacturers and they settle with him. And he's made millions this way. And his cousin, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, gave an impassioned statement.

Amazing.

Amazing.

I thought it would be useful to just go into, like, what is the source of the president's authority? He has authority under Article 2 as commander in chief, for example, and he's supposed to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, which is actually a limitation on his power. rather than an elaboration of it. But he also has power through legislation.

I thought it would be useful to just go into, like, what is the source of the president's authority? He has authority under Article 2 as commander in chief, for example, and he's supposed to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, which is actually a limitation on his power. rather than an elaboration of it. But he also has power through legislation.

And also she points out that while he encourages other people not to vaccinate their kids, he vaccinated all of his own kids.

And also she points out that while he encourages other people not to vaccinate their kids, he vaccinated all of his own kids.

I give you the times. The times we're living in. It's driven me to this.

I give you the times. The times we're living in. It's driven me to this.

Yeah. And by the way, the bulwark gave a lot of coverage to what happened in Samoa, but people should familiarize themselves with that because he has blood on his hands already. He encouraged this conspiracy about the vaccines being unsafe in Samoa and hundreds, I think, or at least scores of babies died of measles in that outbreak. And it's down to him.

Yeah. And by the way, the bulwark gave a lot of coverage to what happened in Samoa, but people should familiarize themselves with that because he has blood on his hands already. He encouraged this conspiracy about the vaccines being unsafe in Samoa and hundreds, I think, or at least scores of babies died of measles in that outbreak. And it's down to him.

I mean, yeah, that's a great, thank you, Mr. Trump. That's a great idea for who should be in charge of our health care agencies. Thank you.

I mean, yeah, that's a great, thank you, Mr. Trump. That's a great idea for who should be in charge of our health care agencies. Thank you.

So does the jungle primary system basically amount to the same thing as like Alaska where they have rank choice voting?

So does the jungle primary system basically amount to the same thing as like Alaska where they have rank choice voting?

But it means that he doesn't necessarily have to be beholden to the MAGA base, right?

But it means that he doesn't necessarily have to be beholden to the MAGA base, right?

Trump made a statement about Putin and Ukraine that surprised people because it was kind of tough sounding, whereas he's never sounded like that toward Putin before. And it's just such a window into Trump's soul because, remember, Trump admires Putin. There's aggression and wickedness, honestly.

Trump made a statement about Putin and Ukraine that surprised people because it was kind of tough sounding, whereas he's never sounded like that toward Putin before. And it's just such a window into Trump's soul because, remember, Trump admires Putin. There's aggression and wickedness, honestly.

When Putin rolled his tanks into Ukraine, let's not forget, Trump was giddy with excitement over this act of naked aggression. And he called it genius. And he said, wow, you know, this is great. And only later did he sort of try to clean it up. That's who he is. And I just feel that if the war were going better for Putin right now than it is, that Trump would not have sounded the note that he did.

When Putin rolled his tanks into Ukraine, let's not forget, Trump was giddy with excitement over this act of naked aggression. And he called it genius. And he said, wow, you know, this is great. And only later did he sort of try to clean it up. That's who he is. And I just feel that if the war were going better for Putin right now than it is, that Trump would not have sounded the note that he did.

And unfortunately, as Steve and I talked about, the Congress has been shoveling power out the door now for decades. They have been creating agencies, creating laws that give all of the discretion about how things should be done to executive agencies. Okay, so that is a huge problem because if you get an irresponsible president, he has already been given vast discretion.

And unfortunately, as Steve and I talked about, the Congress has been shoveling power out the door now for decades. They have been creating agencies, creating laws that give all of the discretion about how things should be done to executive agencies. Okay, so that is a huge problem because if you get an irresponsible president, he has already been given vast discretion.

But what he is now feeling is disappointment in Putin for not having won.

But what he is now feeling is disappointment in Putin for not having won.

We'll see. That's another area of the contradictions of Trumpism, because, you know, on the one hand, he claims no more wars, no. But then he also wants to credibly threaten other countries. Right.

We'll see. That's another area of the contradictions of Trumpism, because, you know, on the one hand, he claims no more wars, no. But then he also wants to credibly threaten other countries. Right.

And you can't have it both ways. Right. You can't credibly threaten if you say I will never engage in war. So there we are.

And you can't have it both ways. Right. You can't credibly threaten if you say I will never engage in war. So there we are.

Good to be with you.

Good to be with you.

So, for example, on tariffs, all he has to do is say, well, it's a national emergency or it's a matter of national security, and therefore I have to impose steel tariffs on Canada. Like, you know, that dangerous country to our north, our severe enemy. With their beady little eyes. Exactly. So there's that. There's the fact that they have given him all of this power.

So, for example, on tariffs, all he has to do is say, well, it's a national emergency or it's a matter of national security, and therefore I have to impose steel tariffs on Canada. Like, you know, that dangerous country to our north, our severe enemy. With their beady little eyes. Exactly. So there's that. There's the fact that they have given him all of this power.

But now, Tim, we are in a totally new world where not only is he being incredibly aggressive about the powers that he definitely has, but he is being unbelievably transgressive in seizing powers that he definitely does not have, at least he didn't under our system. And we're at a moment of truth, honestly, getting right to the nub of it because we're

But now, Tim, we are in a totally new world where not only is he being incredibly aggressive about the powers that he definitely has, but he is being unbelievably transgressive in seizing powers that he definitely does not have, at least he didn't under our system. And we're at a moment of truth, honestly, getting right to the nub of it because we're

If there is no resistance in the courts and in public opinion to his attempts to simply rewrite laws unilaterally, decide how to spend federal funds on his own say-so, even though Congress has already passed and appropriated funds for a particular purpose, then our republic... is, let us say, it's transformed. I don't want to say it's over, but it's pretty damn serious.

If there is no resistance in the courts and in public opinion to his attempts to simply rewrite laws unilaterally, decide how to spend federal funds on his own say-so, even though Congress has already passed and appropriated funds for a particular purpose, then our republic... is, let us say, it's transformed. I don't want to say it's over, but it's pretty damn serious.

So there are two aspects of this. First is, what will the Supreme Court do regarding these assertions of presidential power? Will they become creative and expand presidential scope as they did with the immunity decision? Or will they put their feet down, their collective 18 feet, and say, no, no, I mean, you know, we do, after all, have other branches of government and you can't just trample

So there are two aspects of this. First is, what will the Supreme Court do regarding these assertions of presidential power? Will they become creative and expand presidential scope as they did with the immunity decision? Or will they put their feet down, their collective 18 feet, and say, no, no, I mean, you know, we do, after all, have other branches of government and you can't just trample

What they've done. So that's the first question. And Steve Vladeck was more bullish than some people that are in our orbit about the chances there. He also, along with David French, thinks, look, you know, the court did push back a lot on Trump in the first Trump term. Yeah. And he does think that there's some, you know, some spine, some steely determination there.

What they've done. So that's the first question. And Steve Vladeck was more bullish than some people that are in our orbit about the chances there. He also, along with David French, thinks, look, you know, the court did push back a lot on Trump in the first Trump term. Yeah. And he does think that there's some, you know, some spine, some steely determination there.

I think it's not too much to say. That's his view. I told him, look, I would have said that before the immunity decision, but now my confidence in their fealty to the Constitution has been really badly shaken. That's the first piece. We'll see. Will they actually assert the primacy of the constitutional system? And then the second question, which is maybe as big or bigger, is will Trump obey?

I think it's not too much to say. That's his view. I told him, look, I would have said that before the immunity decision, but now my confidence in their fealty to the Constitution has been really badly shaken. That's the first piece. We'll see. Will they actually assert the primacy of the constitutional system? And then the second question, which is maybe as big or bigger, is will Trump obey?

He did in the first term. He obeyed the court's orders perfectly. If he doesn't, this time around, if he, in obedience to what J.D. Vance recommended, right? J.D. Vance said he should just say to the court, you've made your decision, now enforce it, a la President Jackson, who probably never said that, but that's never mind.

He did in the first term. He obeyed the court's orders perfectly. If he doesn't, this time around, if he, in obedience to what J.D. Vance recommended, right? J.D. Vance said he should just say to the court, you've made your decision, now enforce it, a la President Jackson, who probably never said that, but that's never mind.

But Andrew Jackson reputed to have said the Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it. J.D. Vance said that that's exactly what Trump should do. And Tim... I don't know what would happen in this country if Trump did that. I don't know. I don't have the sense that people would rise up on their hind legs and say, no, no, no, no, no, no. Now you've gone too far. I don't know.

But Andrew Jackson reputed to have said the Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it. J.D. Vance said that that's exactly what Trump should do. And Tim... I don't know what would happen in this country if Trump did that. I don't know. I don't have the sense that people would rise up on their hind legs and say, no, no, no, no, no, no. Now you've gone too far. I don't know.

What do you think?

What do you think?

Okay, let me try something out on you. Okay, great. One of the reasons that Biden was a failure is that people wanted him to restore normalcy, and they didn't get normalcy, they felt.

Okay, let me try something out on you. Okay, great. One of the reasons that Biden was a failure is that people wanted him to restore normalcy, and they didn't get normalcy, they felt.

Trump was reelected to bring prices down and get things under control on the border. But the fact is that the overwhelming—

Trump was reelected to bring prices down and get things under control on the border. But the fact is that the overwhelming—

Yes. Okay. You know, the overwhelming majority of what the federal government does, it doesn't do through federal bureaucrats. It does through contractors, because actually over the years, like Congress has wanted to hide how much the federal government does. So they mostly do things by doing grants and stuff to private contractors who actually carry out the work of the federal government.

Yes. Okay. You know, the overwhelming majority of what the federal government does, it doesn't do through federal bureaucrats. It does through contractors, because actually over the years, like Congress has wanted to hide how much the federal government does. So they mostly do things by doing grants and stuff to private contractors who actually carry out the work of the federal government.

Well, when you look down the list of things that are going to be affected by this freeze, this is going to piss off a lot of people. First of all, 20% of Americans get their health care or their services in retirement homes paid for by Medicaid. That's not excluded from this freeze, right? They only excluded Medicare and Social Security.

Well, when you look down the list of things that are going to be affected by this freeze, this is going to piss off a lot of people. First of all, 20% of Americans get their health care or their services in retirement homes paid for by Medicaid. That's not excluded from this freeze, right? They only excluded Medicare and Social Security.

But Medicaid, 20% of the country, every Meals on Wheels program, every Head Start program, there are a million things that actually will touch people's lives. Now, we don't know how long this freeze is going to go on, but it could be that all of this disruption is going to be perceived as not, you know, the dawn of a golden age, but chaos.

But Medicaid, 20% of the country, every Meals on Wheels program, every Head Start program, there are a million things that actually will touch people's lives. Now, we don't know how long this freeze is going to go on, but it could be that all of this disruption is going to be perceived as not, you know, the dawn of a golden age, but chaos.

The only thing that makes it bearable is that we have each other.

The only thing that makes it bearable is that we have each other.

So, you know, remember in the first term we all talked about how Trump had picked a lock in a sense about American politics. He said, you know, what needs to happen to the Republican Party is it needs to stop all this talk about cutting government. People love their government services. Right. And Trump's great insight was, I'm not going to cut anything.

So, you know, remember in the first term we all talked about how Trump had picked a lock in a sense about American politics. He said, you know, what needs to happen to the Republican Party is it needs to stop all this talk about cutting government. People love their government services. Right. And Trump's great insight was, I'm not going to cut anything.

You know, you can vote for me and you won't have to worry about that. I'm not interested in the budget deficit or cutting spending. And sure enough, you know, during the first Trump term, he didn't cut anything and he ballooned the deficit. But now he's brought in these, you know, Project 2025 crew and Russ Bott and all of this, and they are fanatics who want to drastically cut government.

You know, you can vote for me and you won't have to worry about that. I'm not interested in the budget deficit or cutting spending. And sure enough, you know, during the first Trump term, he didn't cut anything and he ballooned the deficit. But now he's brought in these, you know, Project 2025 crew and Russ Bott and all of this, and they are fanatics who want to drastically cut government.

And so there is, I think, going to be a little bit of a, you know, a little bit of a contradiction going on here. You know, the communists used to say we have to maximize the contradictions of capitalism. Well, we're going to see them maximizing the contradictions within Trumpism because part of Trumpism is you'll never have to feel any pain. I will never cut anything you like.

And so there is, I think, going to be a little bit of a, you know, a little bit of a contradiction going on here. You know, the communists used to say we have to maximize the contradictions of capitalism. Well, we're going to see them maximizing the contradictions within Trumpism because part of Trumpism is you'll never have to feel any pain. I will never cut anything you like.

That is coming hard up against this new sweeping, you know, let's go in there and just set the whole thing on fire.

That is coming hard up against this new sweeping, you know, let's go in there and just set the whole thing on fire.

Yeah, 100%. And I would just add that, you know, it is sort of a staple of right wing commentary, you know, to dunk on, you know, bureaucrats. And I mean, even this goes back decades.

I mean, Reagan used to make jokes about federal bureaucrats, and some of them were pretty funny, you know, like they were saying, there's so many bureaucrats, like a guy is crying at his desk at the Department of Agriculture, and somebody says, what's the matter? And he says, my farmer died. So that was 40 years ago or more.

There is something in the bulwark water because JVL also got a cat like in the last few weeks.

But the fact is, the truth, the dirty little secret of how we do things in our federal government is we actually don't have more bureaucrats now than we had like 40 years ago. We don't have a huge amount of bureaucrats. We do it through private contractors. And maybe some of them are not efficient. I'm sure they're not.

Government is never as efficient as a private business by its very nature, and it never will be, no matter how many Elon Musks you try to bring in, because the incentives are different. But the fact is, you can't just say, I'm going to fire 20% of the federal workforce, and then it'll all be leaner and meaner. No, it's just not going to work.

100%. Not that part in particular because, I don't know, it's very much of a sledgehammer and you would need to know in particular cases whether these particular workers need to be in the office. I don't know. But I'll tell you, I do not like DEI stuff. I think it is destructive. I think it's a really, really bad idea to encourage people to think in racial terms.

both to encourage minorities to think of themselves as oppressed and to encourage majorities to think of themselves as guilty. I mean, I don't think that's healthy for society. If I had a magic wand, yeah, I'd get rid of all DEI programs. That doesn't mean I'd get rid of affirmative action. That's different. But DEI is a particular thing.

By the way, it also encourages anti-Semitism in many instances. It's a mess. Okay, but there is a difference between saying, I like this particular outcome, or I agree that DEI is very problematic, and doing something in a completely high-handed, lawless way. If Congress has mandated... programs, then you can't just change it. You have to ask Congress to rescind it.

By the way, last time I checked, he has control of both houses, right? Right. I mean, hello. Just do it.

So the podcast is, I mean, I was reluctant to part with Beg to Differ, which I loved doing. We did that for five years, my great colleagues. That's crazy. It was five years? It was five years. Amazing, right? I know. I know. We've been living in this reality for such a long time.

That's absolutely right.

You know what I mean? Yes, Tim, 100% true. And also, let's recall that the part of the government that they are focusing on is such a small part of the federal budget. I mean, if they were actually serious about cutting spending, and we do seriously have a debt problem, hello, then they would be grownups and say, okay, you know, we got to talk about reforming Social Security and Medicare.

But as we said earlier, they're not doing that. They won't do that. And, you know, all of this other stuff is just nibbling around the edges, honestly, if it's a matter of cost savings. I mean, on the matter of policy, it is significant.

But anyway, so, but I felt like with the, with the election and the new era that we're living in, I felt a strong desire to have a podcast where I can go deeper on some of these issues and, and talk to the experts and, and devote one podcast per subject matter, or at least per guest and let the guest have a little bit more opportunity.

What I was trying to say is that, well, first of all, throat clearing. There's the whole problem of it being completely unconstitutional to try to change this via executive order. It's in the Constitution.

I didn't see it.

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Okay. So first of all, it's completely bogus. And so said a Reagan appointed federal judge. I said this was laughable. But the other part of it, though, is a matter of the meaning of America. And that is exactly what the executive order was labeling, the meaning of American citizenship. They said they were upholding.

Actually, they are destroying it because birthright citizenship is tied up with the fact that we are a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of people who came here and became Americans. We were something else before everybody except Native Americans came here. And this is not a country of blood and soil. It's not that we all have the same ethnicity or ancestry or language or color or any of that.

It's that we have chosen to be part of this great experiment. And every person who is born here is. is as legitimate and perfect and pure and American as any descendant of the Mayflower. And that is a very equalizing concept. And it's important, I think, to maintain that because otherwise we're going to have tiers of citizens.

You know, we're going to have the people who can trace their ancestry back many generations and then they are the real Americans and then everybody else is something else. You know, that is antithetical to my perception of what this country is about. Amen.

Okay, so Tulsi, I would put at the top that she is the most dangerous because The one thing you want above everything else is good judgment in a post like that, where you are in charge of our secrets. And she has shown appalling judgment in her sidling up to a vicious murderer like Hafez Assad, in her defense of Edward Snowden, in her willingness to be a mouthpiece for Putin.

So yeah, so far we've had two and I think it's, it's going well.

Such that the TV people on RT call her our girlfriend.

Russia Today. That is who Trump thinks should be entrusted with our secrets. It is like something out of the onion. It is so beyond belief. But because we live in the world, we do. We've had members on the Hill sort of quietly say, well, I have my hesitations, I have doubts, rather than saying, this is a goddamn outrage. Under no circumstances will she be whatever.

But look, I guess we have to take what we can get. We've heard Even Trump total patsies like Lindsey Graham express reservations. So let's see what happens.

Yeah. Who doesn't believe in pasteurization? We might as well just go back to the 18th century, I guess.

Can I see a chart? Exactly. Again, it is mind boggling RFK. And then the other point, and this was a point that was actually made by the Wall Street Journal, which deserves opprobrium for having not opposed Trump's election. But they are saying appropriately that the other angle that you have to pay attention to on RFK is the money angle.

that he has been raising all of these conspiracy theories about vaccines, for example, as a way to personally profit because then he sues the manufacturers and they settle with him. And he's made millions this way. And his cousin, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, gave an impassioned statement.

Amazing.

I thought it would be useful to just go into, like, what is the source of the president's authority? He has authority under Article 2 as commander in chief, for example, and he's supposed to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, which is actually a limitation on his power. rather than an elaboration of it. But he also has power through legislation.

And also she points out that while he encourages other people not to vaccinate their kids, he vaccinated all of his own kids.

I give you the times. The times we're living in. It's driven me to this.

Yeah. And by the way, the bulwark gave a lot of coverage to what happened in Samoa, but people should familiarize themselves with that because he has blood on his hands already. He encouraged this conspiracy about the vaccines being unsafe in Samoa and hundreds, I think, or at least scores of babies died of measles in that outbreak. And it's down to him.

I mean, yeah, that's a great, thank you, Mr. Trump. That's a great idea for who should be in charge of our health care agencies. Thank you.

So does the jungle primary system basically amount to the same thing as like Alaska where they have rank choice voting?

But it means that he doesn't necessarily have to be beholden to the MAGA base, right?

Trump made a statement about Putin and Ukraine that surprised people because it was kind of tough sounding, whereas he's never sounded like that toward Putin before. And it's just such a window into Trump's soul because, remember, Trump admires Putin. There's aggression and wickedness, honestly.

When Putin rolled his tanks into Ukraine, let's not forget, Trump was giddy with excitement over this act of naked aggression. And he called it genius. And he said, wow, you know, this is great. And only later did he sort of try to clean it up. That's who he is. And I just feel that if the war were going better for Putin right now than it is, that Trump would not have sounded the note that he did.

And unfortunately, as Steve and I talked about, the Congress has been shoveling power out the door now for decades. They have been creating agencies, creating laws that give all of the discretion about how things should be done to executive agencies. Okay, so that is a huge problem because if you get an irresponsible president, he has already been given vast discretion.

But what he is now feeling is disappointment in Putin for not having won.

We'll see. That's another area of the contradictions of Trumpism, because, you know, on the one hand, he claims no more wars, no. But then he also wants to credibly threaten other countries. Right.

And you can't have it both ways. Right. You can't credibly threaten if you say I will never engage in war. So there we are.

Good to be with you.

So, for example, on tariffs, all he has to do is say, well, it's a national emergency or it's a matter of national security, and therefore I have to impose steel tariffs on Canada. Like, you know, that dangerous country to our north, our severe enemy. With their beady little eyes. Exactly. So there's that. There's the fact that they have given him all of this power.

But now, Tim, we are in a totally new world where not only is he being incredibly aggressive about the powers that he definitely has, but he is being unbelievably transgressive in seizing powers that he definitely does not have, at least he didn't under our system. And we're at a moment of truth, honestly, getting right to the nub of it because we're

If there is no resistance in the courts and in public opinion to his attempts to simply rewrite laws unilaterally, decide how to spend federal funds on his own say-so, even though Congress has already passed and appropriated funds for a particular purpose, then our republic... is, let us say, it's transformed. I don't want to say it's over, but it's pretty damn serious.

So there are two aspects of this. First is, what will the Supreme Court do regarding these assertions of presidential power? Will they become creative and expand presidential scope as they did with the immunity decision? Or will they put their feet down, their collective 18 feet, and say, no, no, I mean, you know, we do, after all, have other branches of government and you can't just trample

What they've done. So that's the first question. And Steve Vladeck was more bullish than some people that are in our orbit about the chances there. He also, along with David French, thinks, look, you know, the court did push back a lot on Trump in the first Trump term. Yeah. And he does think that there's some, you know, some spine, some steely determination there.

I think it's not too much to say. That's his view. I told him, look, I would have said that before the immunity decision, but now my confidence in their fealty to the Constitution has been really badly shaken. That's the first piece. We'll see. Will they actually assert the primacy of the constitutional system? And then the second question, which is maybe as big or bigger, is will Trump obey?

He did in the first term. He obeyed the court's orders perfectly. If he doesn't, this time around, if he, in obedience to what J.D. Vance recommended, right? J.D. Vance said he should just say to the court, you've made your decision, now enforce it, a la President Jackson, who probably never said that, but that's never mind.

But Andrew Jackson reputed to have said the Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it. J.D. Vance said that that's exactly what Trump should do. And Tim... I don't know what would happen in this country if Trump did that. I don't know. I don't have the sense that people would rise up on their hind legs and say, no, no, no, no, no, no. Now you've gone too far. I don't know.

What do you think?

Okay, let me try something out on you. Okay, great. One of the reasons that Biden was a failure is that people wanted him to restore normalcy, and they didn't get normalcy, they felt.

Trump was reelected to bring prices down and get things under control on the border. But the fact is that the overwhelming—

Yes. Okay. You know, the overwhelming majority of what the federal government does, it doesn't do through federal bureaucrats. It does through contractors, because actually over the years, like Congress has wanted to hide how much the federal government does. So they mostly do things by doing grants and stuff to private contractors who actually carry out the work of the federal government.

Well, when you look down the list of things that are going to be affected by this freeze, this is going to piss off a lot of people. First of all, 20% of Americans get their health care or their services in retirement homes paid for by Medicaid. That's not excluded from this freeze, right? They only excluded Medicare and Social Security.

But Medicaid, 20% of the country, every Meals on Wheels program, every Head Start program, there are a million things that actually will touch people's lives. Now, we don't know how long this freeze is going to go on, but it could be that all of this disruption is going to be perceived as not, you know, the dawn of a golden age, but chaos.

The only thing that makes it bearable is that we have each other.

So, you know, remember in the first term we all talked about how Trump had picked a lock in a sense about American politics. He said, you know, what needs to happen to the Republican Party is it needs to stop all this talk about cutting government. People love their government services. Right. And Trump's great insight was, I'm not going to cut anything.

You know, you can vote for me and you won't have to worry about that. I'm not interested in the budget deficit or cutting spending. And sure enough, you know, during the first Trump term, he didn't cut anything and he ballooned the deficit. But now he's brought in these, you know, Project 2025 crew and Russ Bott and all of this, and they are fanatics who want to drastically cut government.

And so there is, I think, going to be a little bit of a, you know, a little bit of a contradiction going on here. You know, the communists used to say we have to maximize the contradictions of capitalism. Well, we're going to see them maximizing the contradictions within Trumpism because part of Trumpism is you'll never have to feel any pain. I will never cut anything you like.

That is coming hard up against this new sweeping, you know, let's go in there and just set the whole thing on fire.