Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics, where we discussed the top political headlines with some of today's best minds. And the White House has deleted the COVID resource website and replaced it with a lab Leak promotion page, which makes Fox News look like the New Yorker. We have such a great show for you today. MSNBC's own Ellie Vitelli stops by to talk about democratic politics.
Then we'll talk to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel about how democratic ags are fighting back against the Trump administration. But first the news.
So May yesterday, it was quite shocking to see Senator Chris van Holland from the great state of Maryland go down to El Salvador and meet with Kilmar Abrigo Garcia.
So all people want, all they want is for their electeds to stand up and fight for them. And what's really cool is that Maryland Senator Chris van Holland did that. He got on a plane, he flew down to El Salvador, he met with the Vice president. The vice president told him no, and then he sort of fought with him, and then he got to sit down and make sure that Garcia was okay, And look, here's the thing. You don't have to like Garcia. You don't have to believe
in him. You don't have to believe that he's a good guy. You don't have to believe in any of that. You just have to believe that he is entitled to do process, just like the Supreme Court, the wildly leftist Supreme Court, who said nine zero that Garcia is entitled to do process, that even though you know, he's not a United States citizen, he's still entitled to due process. And by the way, that's like what our democracy has founded on. Good for him. I think Republicans see what
a loser this issue is for Trump. By the way, the fact that they're like, you know, they said they were going to deport like one hundred million people. Ten million people right there, barely can deport as many people as Biden did, so that which is sort of popular. Deporting people. I don't know why it's popular, because I think it's gross. And by the way, we need those people to work because we have a very tight labor market.
But even that is not popular. It is popular. Trump world can't figure out how to do it because they're super incomfident Trump World thinks they're going to win on Van Holland going down to meet with this guy to make sure he's okay. And you know what, they're wrong. People hate this. People don't like you know, they don't like America sending whoever to El Salvadoran prisons. This is a loser for them, and they think the optics of
it make them look good. They're wrong. I think they're really wrong on this, and I'm glad they're wrong on this because it's horrifying.
I think one of the funniest things is that, you know, for years we were told, you know, nine thousand dollars hammers in the government could easily find all these things to cut. You could easily find all these immigrants. And I don't even doubt that that's true, but they say it can't seem to do it.
No.
And also it's why we don't put a ton of people at GIMO. It's really expensive, Like it's cheaper to put them in private prisons in America. I mean, like the reason they're doing this is because they think that it's like good for the brand or whatever. But like you're flying people, tell Salvador, you're putting them in Seacott. You're being built by the El Salvadorian government. I mean it's just very expensive. It's also just crazy and stupid and a huge I mean waste of money, waste of time,
waste of everything. Just to sort of like make a point that they think will be good. On Fox News sixty Minutes report, they write, the administration hates sixty minutes because Donald Trump like lives in nineteen ninety seven, so he's like obsessed with sixty. I also sixty, right, I mean, like there are nine people watching sixty minutes, of one of them is Donald Trump. I mean that's not true. A lot of people watch sixty minutes, but ultimately all
traditional media is in decline. A sixty Minutes report found most of the two hundred and thirty at Venezuelan and sent to Seacott on several planes last month and no apparent criminal record. So you're sending people to jail who may not have even done crimes, some of whom were protected by the federal government until Donald Trump became president. So I don't know how you square this circle. Stration has defended its use of the law arguing gang violence, because why wouldn't they.
So Bally in reaction to Trump defying the Supreme Court and thinking that just because they ship people to Salvador, they don't have to listen to our courts. We've started to see some calls for impeachment and.
Fucking impeach the guy. I mean, come on, he's you know, he's ignoring the Supreme Court, he's ignoring the courts. We are like beyond constitutional crisis. Now. Look, you know, the Republicans in Congress have been unbelievably cowardly and craven. And in fact, one of the things so we saw this week was Lisa Murkowski saying what all of us knew but we hadn't heard any Republicans say, which is the
Republicans are scared. And I think that was really important because that's how we got here, is these people, Republicans Democrats, all scared of Trump, scared of the administration, scared of the mean phone calls, the mean tweets. So they're just rolling over and I'm glad to see Democrats doing this. By the way, public polling is with the Democrats. People
don't like this. This is We've been a democracy for a long time, and people don't Autocracy is actually just not that popular, and it's happening so quickly, and that is also a big problem. So we got Boseberg saying again, I just want to point out one last thing. In order to impeach Trump, you need to have the House. Democrats don't have the House yet. There is the three vote majority of Republicans have. There are some Democrats who
are old and sick. There are two who died. Their seats are not being allowed to be filled because they're in red states, and the red state governors are doing things that are pretty craven on lawless. Now that said pretty sure, Kathy Hogel did the same thing, you know, made sure that that other seat wasn't filled either. So we're really sort of in an impass here. And until Democrats win the House, I think it's going to be hard to impeach Trump. But they should try, like they
should put pressure. And by the way, keep calling your representatives, call your congressman, call your senators, Blue states, red states, remind them that you don't like any of those.
So my David Hogg, previous guest of this podcast, was elected vice chair of the DNC and he has really pissed off the establishment dons here yeh.
Yes, actually such an interesting story. So David from David from David Hogg, not to be confused with David from We Love You. David from David Hogg is a vice chair of the Democratic National Committe, got this job this year. They're a couple of vice chairs. It was pretty contentious, these plans to spend twenty million dollars to primary older Democratic incumbents. This is something that a lot of us
think is probably the right thing. We have people in leadership, and not just in leadership, just you know, we have people in the Democratic Party, the Republican Party too, but you know, there's nothing we can do there who are in their eighties or some of them are in their high seventies, and they rank for another six year term
which will get them somewhere in their eighties. It is probably the moment, especially right now, when so much is on the table, and like what I just said about these two Democrats who died in office, it really is a sense that is the right time for this. That said Democrats are passed. So since they were pissed, and since they're so brave, they all spoke anonymously, because why wouldn't they a smear campaign against me to destroy my Repi Tach and forced me to stop doing this. They're
just not happy. Axios did not receive a response. So leaders we deserve is this group. There's some infighting here and a lot of good Anonymous angry octagenarians complaining about David probably a good sign for.
David my In more disturbing news, Trump has revamped Schedule Left, making it easier to cut federal workers, which we knew was going to happen because we've read Project twenty twenty five.
Yeah, we read it. We did a video series on it, and then Americans just decided to go for them anyway because they like the sneakers and the NFTs. So Schedule app will make it easier to cut federal workers. We knew this was coming. The idea here is stripping civil protections from about fifty thousand people, two percent of the federal workforce. This will make it easier to fire people. A nonpartisan role is traditionally that you know, they're not political,
but Trump wants to replace them with loyalists. Of course, this is what he wants to do because remember Trump felt that he was not able to enact his craziest stuff because he felt the deep state was against him. So now he'll be able to cut people who are working on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Some of them will be working on whatever the coding or the you know, things that are not partisan one way or the other. But he'll replace them with people where he can fire
them or do whatever he wants. And it's going to be totally It's just exactly what we knew was coming, and it's very annoying and also super upset. Ali is an NBC News correspondent and the author of Electable, Why America hasn't put a woman in the White House yet. Welcome to Fast Politics, Ali.
Vitally real to be back, Molly John Fass.
You and I are in the salt mines mining the content. Can we just talk about the Congress and what the fuck they're doing right now? Because like, we have a wrongly deported guy. We have Senator Chris van Holland he's wrongly deported. The Supreme Court said nine to zero, you have to bring him back. Okay, we don't know anything except you have to bring him back. Right, It's pretty big deal.
Despite the White House wanting to will fully misread that decision, in part the Supreme Court gave them some loopholes, right right.
No, No, it's a Supreme court. They suck. I mean, you don't have to say they suck. I'll say they suck because I'm on the opinion side. But they were like, you need to bring him back. Okay, So Chris van Holland goes to see him, make sure he's not dead because he's been in elcot So there's a real chance, you know, I mean, it's not impossible. This is not a prison known for it's you know, it's not known for the.
Spa luffy pillows.
Yeah, so explain to me what Congress is doing. They're out, they're out for two weeks.
Ago, they're out for two weeks. But recess is just another it's it's a different now to lose. There's two pieces of this that I think are really important. There's the way that Senator Van Holland is going to check on his constituent, which I've seen competing ideas on whether or not this was a good idea about idea like the basis clamoring for fight nothing, he says, fight, but getting on a plane going to El Salvador and being like knock knock, I'm here, let me see my guy.
The other pieces of this is the way that it's percolating among voters, and I think that there is a nuance to this that is intant. Right, Like, I spend a lot of time in Iowa because I'm sick and I love campaigns, and so every three years I spend of Iowa exactly in Des Moines. I love this place. As a New Yorker, those are words I never thought I would say.
But you live in DC, so the bar is pretty low. Go on, yes, that's true.
The veteran senior Republican Senator Chuck Grassley is hearing from his elderly more older constituents. You see it in that video. Why can't you bring this guy back? It's not the job of commerce. Okay, that's true. There's no like congressional right to bring back a deported person. And that's fine. It's not an impoundment, which they do have rights on, right.
Right, right, I mean, god forbid, though didn't want to use them, but yes, didn't want to make trumpt.
Correct, right.
But the fact that you're being asked about it there in Iowa, in a red state, really struck me as notable, and I think that the White House was struck by that too, Maybe not the Iowa specifically of it, but broadly because we've forged to go on offense this week, showing the work that we've all been asking them to show, why do you debort this guy in the first place, and then also trying to shift the narrative not to the central question here of due process, the constitution, and
how we do legal justice in this country, but instead shifting it to unrelated though tragic conflicts and tragedies between migrants, undocumented migrants, and American citizens. In this case, they're pointing to a Maryland case with Rachel Morin, but they're trying to shift the narrative, and I think that it's a sign from them that they're not going to back down. They want to have this fight, but they needed to do more, and we watched them change this week.
I think one of the big problems we saw with the trade stuff was that it's very hard for an administration that is makes George W. Bush look like Lincoln. A good example of trade wars. You can't have a trade war with China when you're also having a trade war with everyone else.
Discuss well, I've been covering Trump for a really long time, right. I started covering him during the twenty fifteen campaign. I think I got their two week's post escalator, and every single time you were eleven, I was eleven years old, very eager to get started, right exactly. But every time from that moment all the way through now, when he finds himself in hot water on anything, he pivots hard
back into immigration. And that is why I think you're right to tie tariffs and the way that polling shows he's losing steam on confidence from Americans in his economic handling to pivot back to something where the polling actually shows that this is probably where the bulk of his power lies, not just with MAGA, because I think that's more integrated with cultural issues and everything else, including immigration, but with Independence and others who voted for him in
twenty twenty four. Immigration is where they feel like they can really flex their muscle and maybe distract from the tariff news, which is hard for even Republicans on Capitol Hill to stomach, who seem to have a bottomless amount of goodwill towards the president, or at least fear of stepping out of line from him, so I think you're right to tie those.
We had Lisa Murkowski yesterday. I say people are scared to speak at against him, something we had known. But to have Lisa Murkowski say it, and even not to have Susan Collins say it, who is up for reelection in twenty six, I think is meaningful. You tell me why you think it's meaningful.
The dynamics are different between Alaska and Maine, but we talk about both of these women a lot because they are the consistent Republicans that are willing to stand up and say, actually I disagree, which should not be notable. But is I think two fold right. The fact that Murkowski is willing to just say politically in my party right now, I am afraid in a safety sense. Not
afraid politically, though that's swirling too. I'm afraid in a safety sense for what it might look like to speak out against the president who I have policy disagreements with. I think that is just such a stunning commentary on where our politics are right now. And I always check in with the Capitol Police on where the numbers are.
Threat levels towards members of Congress have only been rising since the start of the first Trump administration, and I think Murkowski saying that is really an important sign post to us that it's not just political disagreement anymore. There are really tangible, scary threats attached to this for lawmakers and their family. Tom Tillis is another one. His office has sent to us examples of the kinds of calls
and threats that he and his office are getting. He's someone who's even just toyed with stepping out of line with the administration, and he's in and on year. He's a twenty twenty six guy. It's scary. It's a scary commentary on our politics.
So let's talk for a minute about what the landscape looks like here. I talked to Anne Applebaum yesterday. Anne Applebaum said, there is nothing more important than this next election. The democracy literally hinges on this next election in twenty six. So Democrats need to win back the House. That is pretty likely. I think, talk me through why you think it might not be likely.
I don't know.
I mean I covered ceaselessly the prior to years of a Republican controlled Congress, and it was absolute dysfunctional cast. And when I say dysfunctional, I mean it was not functioning for like literally weeks because they ousted their own speaker, and all the Democrats to do is stand back and watch. And I remember the conversations I had the sources then saying, if you don't flip the House in twenty twenty four, I mean, I don't know what we're doing here, and
obviously you know they didn't. And you can make a redistricting argument for that, losing three seats in North Carolina. The three seat margin is what you've got right now. Fine, I hear that as an argument, but no one really cares when you're arguing technicalities. They just care about what the actual circumstances. And you have a Republican majority now, however, thin it is.
Right, So okay, So Democrats need to win the House, and then the senatemap is really hard. So I mean, the House is hard, but the setamap is really fucking hard. So let's talk about this Senate map. In twenty six we have Maine, tell mey, Maine, North Carolina, we have maybe Nebraska, we have New Hampshire which is already blue. For Democrats to do this, they have to run the fucking tables.
Yes, And I also think I brought up New Hampshire and I brought up Georgia, which are currently blue, but they are also in cycle. And I think those are actually going to be stories of candidate recruitment on the Republican side, because perhaps the strongest person who could have flipped the New Hampshire seat would have been the former governor Chris Nunu, and he said no, thank you, even after trump pit said I would back him, which was
definitely a brush off of Tim Scott at the NRSC. Also, if they don't get Brian Kemp to run in Georgia, that's also going to be a really tough slog for Republicans, but those were their two seats for expansion. Then you start getting into places like Maine and Nebraska. Nebraska, the guy is running as an independent. It's the same guy who challenged deb Fisher, and so yeah, like.
I fucking rules, So I mean he is amazing.
We'll see, right, and then we're starting to see the field take shape up in Maine at this early point. But Democrats threw tens of millions of dollars at that race the last time that Susan Collins was up with Sarah Gideon, and it didn't ultimately work out. I mean, the thing that people have to remember is it's really hard to take on incumbents, and there is such a muscle memory for voters who might not see it as partisan ly and that could be in this world here.
There are other seats that seem less likely, but for example, if you were to have share a Brown run in Ohio, that could work.
Yeah.
I mean, I am also someone I've covered all of Shared Brown's re elections, and I think that he was the tough recipient this cycle of how much sway Trump has, but he regularly outperforms Democrats in the Obama years. This was true, So there's a potential there, especially that there's no presidential when he would go back up in cycle. He is a singular figure I think in democratic Ohio politics.
That's really fascinating. Tim Ryan, I think, is also similarly situated and would be interesting there, but has seemingly resisted those calls, at least for now. I think he's got his eye on something else that he's also run for in the past.
Potentially president president.
Tim Ryan is going to run for president.
I don't know that.
I'm just looking at the landscape and I think that anyone who saw a fertile ground in twenty twenty and thought, sure, let me join the pack. That's the Seth Multon's, the Eric Swalwells, the Tim Ryans. Right, there is way more of a case to be made for running on the twenty twenty eight fertile soil of there is literally no
leader of this party right now. I couldn't tell you who the front runner would be, Like why wouldn't you make a second go of it, especially now that your national profile in your donor base is that much bigger. But I mean, I don't capital ka know that. But if I'm musing and putting together the loose list of presidentials that I always put together, like, yeah, he'd be on it.
Somebody has me this at breakfast today. Who is the leader of the Democratic part It's like the worst thing ever When people ask you that at a cocktail party, You're like, fuck you, I.
Need to go to a different party. That's the question of the cocco.
So who is the leader of the Democratic perkat.
Oh, there's like the technical answer that I actually give at cocktail parties, which is like you've got Senator Schumer and you've got leader Jeffreys, and those are your two Democratic leaders.
That gets people really mad, right, I know it does.
Yeah, And I ask this actually to every Democratic elected that I interview, and all of them sort of pivot to that answer too. But I think that the more honest answer and the less technical one is like there is not one, and like that's just the reality of the situation. I think that it leaves governors, though, in a very interesting position to try to figure out what it looks like to lead in this environment. Is it Gavin Newsom trying to understand and make sense of the
MAGA movement while trying to preserve progressive credentials? I don't know with the podcast. Is it Gretchen Whitmer, who's trying to get stuff done for her state because she's in a very purple state. Maybe yeah?
Is it?
You know Andy Basheer is trying to do some mix of those two things in Kentucky. I think governors have a real opportunity because they're not tied to the mess of Washington. They are their own executives, and so I think any name is a good name to throw out there right now, and that's probably why the field is going to be absolutely massive.
I want you to talk about Gretchen Whitmer because I talked to another smart analyst who is in our business, who's a friend of ours, and she was like, Whitmer did the right thing. And I was like, Whitmer was hiding behind a fucking envelope. Like, if your life gets you to a place where you're hiding behind an envelope, something has gone horribly wrong.
Discuss there are so many moments I've wanted to hide behind an aye, Like, honestly, I felt.
That who we even knew that was available.
I did not know that was available, but I felt I felt that when I saw those pictures of her.
Look.
I mean, on the one hand, you've got to expect that if you're going to the White House to meet with Trump as she has done, and I get why she's trying to do that.
I think I get it.
Typically for her job. She is doing the right thing for Michigan when they needed FEMA funds, they needed emergency relief. She has a lot of red coalitions in her state, Like this makes sense from a Michigan perspective, And I think we can't expect people to do their current jobs while looking ahead to potentially maybe one day wanting to run for present. I don't think we can ask people to do that, But I think you also have to go in with a plan expecting that the president who
loves to pull one over on Democrats and anyone else. Frankly, Democrats are Republicans, Like, you got to go in with a plan for that, and the plan is not a Manilla folder.
Well was blue?
Oh?
Sure. The thing that is interesting though is I have seen people and I want to talk about this, Like, for example, a really great example is the mayor of Washington, d C, Mariyo Baussar. She has had very good success. Washington DC was in this terrible situation where they were about to lose all their money and end up as like a principal of you know nothing, I'm.
A DC resident, I was walking closely.
Yeah, and she ended up being able to manipulate Trump into doing what she wanted. Now, there is a thin line between manipulating Trump and just going along with him. Maybe many an institution has cratered on the thought that they were manipulating Trump when really Trump was just running all over them. So explain to me what the difference here is.
I think Pelosi is a good case study in this from the first term. Right understood her leverage her power the ways that she could as someone who have at least some understanding of a relationship with Trump before right, you can gain wins and notch wins. I just think that this version of the administration is so different because he is unencumbered it used to be in the last administration.
You have competing views there, and that's why Democrats like Pelosi or even Schumer could make inroads in some of the those meetings. I remember, you know them sitting around and seeing them be able to pull leverage points. I think those days are gone though, because this administration is so into the red meat. They're like died in the wool. Everyone in there is marching to the same beat in
the same direction. You're not having dissension in the ranks this time, and I think it leaves very little room and input for Democrats except in the rare instances like what we've talked about. I mean, Whitmer had a targeted goal. She went in there. She wants to make inroads on tariffs because autos in Detroit are going to be heavily hit by that. You've got the same thing from Maria Bowser. You can't have the entire district of Columbia decimated because
of conservative budget priorities taking precedence. I mean, like that can't work, But I think the opportunities are limited, and Democrats are now really stuck between their base, absolutely hating any idea of going to Trump for anything, even though the reality sometimes demands that where are you going to get the FEMA funding from? If it's not from the federal government and you're a governor whose state just got hit.
I mean politics has to be put aside there, even though I know Trump never does that like other people have to.
So this is a real thing. You can't be seen with him, but you desperately need him.
To the extent that anyone needs a president.
Yeah right, I mean they control the whole federal government. When people say they need to do something, Democrats need to do something, what's available for them to do?
This is like the central question, and I fully feel the visceral angst at all of these town halls. I've been to several of them for Democrats who are like, please, Dear God, just do something, And I ask voters, what do you think they should do?
What are your ideas.
I mean, what would you tell your lawmaker if they said, I'll do whatever you want me to do, just tell me what it is. And many of them don't know. They just want to see the fight, and so actually to bring it back to where we started, like someone like Chris van Holland physically going like it shows an out of the box way of trying to show that something is being done, when the reality of at least Congress is that if you're in the minority, you're just
not afforded a lot of room to flex muscle. You can gum up nominations. Brian Schatz is doing that, Reuben Gaego is doing that, some others are trying to do that. Okay, that's an option, but there's really not much that you can do other than voting no and viscerally explaining why this would be bad for the American public. And they're trying to do that. There's competing views on like should it just be on the economy, should it just be
on the constitution. Like there's so much debate inside the party right now about what the fertile ground is to fight on that it does waste time and it muddles the message. But like every Republican strategist that I talk to says that if Democrats can actually get their act together with a cohesive economic message and the tariff driven economy that we're seeing right now remains, which is to say, skittish, erratic all over the place, then Republicans are worried about
what that would look like in the midterms. But there's just such a long time to sustain between today April eighteenth, nineteenth twentieth and twenty twenty six November. It's just an eternity.
Ali Vitally, thank you.
I don't know that I brought humor, but I tried to bring joy. I brought diet coke, so I definitely brought joy for myself.
You spark to joy. Dana Nssel is the Attorney General of the Great State of Michigan. Welcome to Fast Context. Dana Nassel, thank you so much for having me. So you are the Attorney General of the State of Michigan. What is going on?
I mean, how many days do we have for this podcast?
How are you doing this? And also how hard is it? And also what is the federal government doing? Well, that's a lot.
I will say this, you know, I've taken the position since not just this term enough, but when I first frand profits in twenty eighteen that it was really important to hold the federal government accountable for trespasses of the people of our respective states. As attorneys general, that is, in fact our jobs. And you know, we did that. Then the Democratic Ags formed a coalition and we filed you know, dozens and dozens of laws suits, and I look back on it now. We were very successful. We won,
you know, well over eighty percent of our cases. And sometimes I think maybe we were too successful. Yeah, I often think that so many of the worst policies of the Trump first Trump administration never went into effect because of the work that the Democratic Ages did and a lot of other partner you know, organizations, nonprofits and law
firms who you know, who took on the administration. But I think people didn't remember how bad it was in the first administration because so many of these policies didn't take effect only because of our lawsuits. But it just emboldened him to be even more aggressive the second time around. And I will say this, I was thinking about it
this morning. Everybody you know of a certain generation remembers where they are when JFK was murdered or my generation, we all remember we were for nine to eleven, you
know what we were doing. But for me personally, I remember what I was doing when the Trump immunity decision came down from the United States Supreme Court, because I said, this is going to change America forever if we have a president who not just has inclinations to be completely lawless and disregard federal law and disregard to Constitution and disregard people's civil rights, but he now has the legal authority to do it, as granted to him by the
highest court in the land. And I think so we've seen that happen repeatedly since day one that he's been in office this term.
Yeah, so where are you right now? Would led to what's happening?
Well, when you say with legislation, I mean you know that's.
I mean with I'm sorry, with litigation, I mean litigation and not legislation. God forbid, nobody's legislating, just litigating.
No, we only have two branches of office government right now. Yeah, Congress has given up yeah, right, the executive and the courts the end. So Michigan at this point, and I have to look at like what day of the week it is to know this. We have either initiated litigation or jointed litigation in ten separate cases, and we have filed a meeky briefs and well over that in supporting other parties who have brought suit.
But you know, I will say.
That generally speaking, our litigation has been pretty successful in many different fornts, and it especially has been the case when you have the federal government just flagrantly violating their contracts with the States to fund all sorts of things, and whether it's our most major and important programs like Medicaid and Headstart and meals on reels, I mean snap programs.
The list goes on and on, whether it has to do with NIH funding medical experiments and treatments, whether it has to do with you know, public education grants or grants that were to our public health departments. I mean, the list goes on and on and on. We have been pretty successful in getting courts to say you have to reinitiate the funding for this money that was promised to the states and promised to the grantees from the States.
And of course we've had other cases like you know, birthright citizenship, which is now on its way to the Supreme Court in a variety of other cases.
But you know, it's been a lot, so you keep winning, right, and that's what we're seeing in the courts, like none of this is legal. All of this is not. So Harvard's a great example, Like Harvard didn't agree to go into receivership because why would they and also because they have enough people there to know that it's completely not legal. So explain to me why anyone does things this administration wants when we know so much of it is not legal.
I'm really glad that you asked this question because I've been talking to so many different stakeholders and I will tell you this and candidly, I was just on the phone before, you know, our conversation with somebody from my alma mater, the University of Michigan, which I used to have great pride in leaders in best But to me, they have largely capitulated to the administration and many different things.
But to what end?
Because the next day you find out that more of your grants have been terminated there. And if we've learned anything from for instance, whether it's what's happened at Columbia, whether it's what's happened with many of the law firms that struck agreements with Trump and the administration, it's never enough. And the very next day, whatever agreement you think you have, you don't really have an agreement, because Trump is not
a good faith actor. He does not keep his word, and it doesn't matter what sort of agreement you believe you have, it will never be enough for him. And that's why I have been so dead set against those who have sought to appease the president. And of course, you know there's that old Churchill quote. An appeuser is one who feeds the alligator hoping that he will be eaten.
Lath and I might have paraphrased that it might be a crocodile and not an alligator, right, And they won't be Eventually, they're going to get eat it's just how long will it take to get to them? Right? So, to me, the only way that we can truly have any level of six is to have as many stakeholders as possible, all joining together and saying this is not right,
this is not okay. We are not going to just accept whether it's the flagrant racism and sexism, and xenophobia, or the openly violation of court orders over and over again, or kidnapping legal asylum seekers or student visa holders off the streets, and all the rest of it. But we all come together and push back and say this is
not okay. We're going to join forces their strength in numbers, and we're not going to look back in this period of time and say we could have done more to save our democracy and to save the reputation and the sanctity of the United States of America.
We just chose not too. We took another route. So let's talk about that. Because there's so many people in this country who desperately want their electeds to stand up for democracy, and there are so few Democrats who are actually doing it. Why is that?
You know? I can't speak for anybody else, but I will say to those Democrats that have not stood up more strongly, I think we're going to have a limited
period of time where we can still do this. And at some point we're going to see the insurrection actor invoked, which I think is probably going to happen sooner rather than later, and we're going to see armed military personnel and National Guards troops in the streets, and we are going to see the complete erosion of the federal government, whether it's you know, the Security Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, you know, the list goes on or on.
What do you do?
Then, Well, what I think is is this, and this is what I've been promoting, is that the only real way I think that we have a chance at salvaging the country that we've all grown up to know and love is to be as bold as possible in fighting back. To let us let our neighbors, our friends, you know, our co workers, our families understand exactly how bad these
policies are and to not be shy about it. And for those of us who have some supporters in their family to really take the time instead of just avoiding the Papa ball together, take the time to make them understand what it means when we lose social security, what it means when the CDC shuts down, and now it's impossible to fight the next to bola or bird flu, these erratic tariffs, and what that's going to mean for our savings and our ability to afford basic necessities of life.
To have those conversations, but to make people understand why we are out there peacefully and lawfully protesting the government, and candidly for people to talk to their family members and their friends that they know who are in active military service or who do serve in our state's national guards, and so that when we are out in the streets, and studys have shown it only takes three point five percent of a nation's population to peacefully fight back in
order to stop a country that is sliding very quickly from a democracy into an autocratic regime. You know, on April fifth, we got like five and a half million people out there to do it. It only take maybe twelve million people in the United States to come out till I think we'll see maybe Congress will finally start to take back their authority, understanding that they have the legal right and opportunity, and I would argue the obligation to actually start taking back their power, and they would
win in the courts if they challenged it. And there needs to be the threats by Congress against a president that you will face impeachment if you don't work with us. And here's the thing that I find to be so insane about it is, if you look at all the most important pieces of legislation that have had long time
impact on our country. And whether it's the you know, the ACA under Obama, or the Civil Rights Act or Voting Rights Actor or LBJ or even more recently, you know, the Inflation Reduction Actor and the Infrastructure Act by Biden. Could you imagine if any of them tried to do that by executive fiat, by signing an executive order instead
of negotiating with Congress. So Congress, take back your power that again Article one, the very first article of the Constitution that was provided to you, and make sure the president knows that if he does not abide by that, then Congress is going to go to the courts for the certain when on a number of different issues that you know, the state ags have had to file on
in many other parties. But for civilians, in terms of what they can do, they can go out to these rallies and again not be violent, not be aggressive, not just quite law enforcement, because law enforcement they need to understand this too. Many of them are going to lose their job. And for members of the military, they need to look at how this administration has treated veterans and say, you know, don't shoot your grandma in the face. For this guy. I mean, it's not worth it.
Yeah, yeah, don't treat your grandma in the face for this guy. That's pretty disturbing. So you think we're going to need to get to this trades.
I think it's going to be one of the most important things that we can do, if for no other reason, to send the message to Congress that we're not okay with this and that as as Americans, we are going to fight again, lawfully and peacefully for all the rights that we cherish in this country and where we are not okay with becoming an oligarchy or a regime that is anything other than a democracy.
It is good news. So and you tell me if you think this is true that the tariffs have really had an effect. People understand that the Emperor has no clothes, true or falls?
Yes, and no, I would say, I think because Trump keeps rolling things back so quickly. You know, it's always on the cusp of doing something, and now there's a nine a day repriet and now there's an exemption you know for this product or that product or the others. So I think it's left for people really confused, and some of the things that I think would be most
hard hitting. It's not clear that it's making an impact yet, but I do think that people see the mass chaos and disorganization is being bad, and certainly the stock market has suggested that. So a lot of people have lost their fur. One ks are a substantial portion of it. But then again that everybody has a qoro one k. So I think there are still a lot of Trump supporters out there that haven't been fully impacted by it, but they will. It's only a matter of time.
But you don't need all the Trump supporters, you just need some, right there are some Trumpers who will never ever ever leave him. You know.
If I could use this as an example, I've been going all around the state of Michigan and talking to different stakeholders. And I went to southwest Michigan last week and I talked to a group of farmers out there, and many of them had their grants or their contracts with the federal government terminated. Some of them were USAID contracts, some of them were suppliers to the food banks, some of them were with USDA, and there were many others. And so I said to them, I go, what are
you going to do? I mean, you planted crops, you purchase supplies, you hired workers, all in anticipation that the government would keep their end of the deal. Because at the end of the day, a lot of this is just basic contract law. Like if this was a vendor. If this was you know, a company that you did business with and they just all of a sudden ghosted you one day, it'd be pretty mad and you wouldn't do business with them again, and you would probably sue them in court.
But I had this farmer say to me.
He's like, well, yeah, this has been paused, but what's to say that's not going to start up again? I said, how did you How did you find out about it? I go, did the Trump administration or somebody from us DA? Did they call you? No?
Did they email you?
No? Was there any form of communication at all before you went to the bank and you saw that you didn't get paid? Like, did they even tell you about it?
And he said no.
I go, well, does that sound like a good fad actor that's probably eventually going to start paying you again, or does it seem like somebody who doesn't care at all about the fact that you were literally on the cusp of losing your seventh generation family farm and he got kind of quiet after that. And you know, I think it's coming to terms with the fact that somebody that you supported, maybe you went to rallies to support him, maybe you invested in a you know, make America Great
Again hat that was made in China. Now you get to deal with the fact that this guy's not who you thought he was. And I think it's hard for some people to come to grips with that. But my hope is that enough of those folks will say, yeah, you know, this isn't what we signed up for. This is not him keeping his end of the deal for me, for my family, from my community, from my state, for my country.
Dana Nassau, thank you, thank you, thank you for joining us. Thank you for having.
Me no moment perfectly Jesse Cannon, Somali. Despite Trump's attempts to fire many, many, many, many federal workers, along with thoss A, judges blocked them from laying off ninety percent of the CFPB.
This keeps happening, right, Trump keeps losing in court. You know why, because they're trying to do leave legal stuff. That is why he keeps losing in court. If you are Harvard or Columbia or any of those places. You can see that this doesn't work, So just ignore them. Just keep going fighting in court. Like I think about Maine, right, the governor in Maine, Janet Miles. You'll remember she was
the one who was like, I'll see you in court. Well, that governor, you know, she keeps winning in court too, right, So don't fucking let this administration bully you. They keep losing. It just keeps working out that way. None of this is legal, or much of it is not legal. Just keep fighting back. Do not let them do this stuff. It's not legal and they won't get away with it. So a little bit of what they're doing to the federal government, these state governments can do back. That's it
for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday to hear the best minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going. Thanks for listening.