Jon Stewart on Trump’s 3rd Term Plans & Signalgate Lack of Accountability | Oren Cass

You're listening to Comedy Central.

From the most trusted journalist at Comedy Center.

Is America's only sources for news. This is the Daily too, with your.

Home show up.

A Hi, Nice to.

See everybody night.

It is job shill hold. Anyhow, we got a great joe for tonight. Ladies and gentlemen.

You're gonna be most pleased with this one. Our guest tonight economist or in cast is gonna be here later to discuss tariffs. Uh, you're gonna have a constrvative economist, bucking Les, a fair freak.

Just watch it.

But first we're gonna check in with our good friend Democracy. You gonna give him the old turn your head and cough. How's democracy doing?

In some of his strongest comments yet, President Trump says he's considering his options to serve a third term in office, a breach of the Constitution's two term limit for presidents.

I'm sorry, considering the option? What are you trying to order off menu from the Constitution? Oh yeah, so you gotta have what do you got two terms? Here? But can I get it animal style? What are you gonna do with a third terminal? How does that work? Exactly?

In a phone call with NBC, Trump saying, quote, there are methods which you could do it, including possibly urging his Vice President jd Vance to run and then seed power back to Trump. The President saying that's one method, but that there are others too.

Yes, there are other methods that you tried one a few years ago. There are other methods for staying in power beyond when you are legally allowed to be there. Historically, some of them involve catapults, although maybe Trump has something more creative in mind with the dvanced thing. Have you guys heard of the movie Face Off. Yeah, so here's how it's gonna work. Trump will watch that movie as the military seeses his power. I'm sure witch Ford, Chuck Schumer will say I will allow it.

Because in the third term, we think is popularity will go down to the thirty.

So aside for the president saying I'm not leaving, is there any other image of the shambalic state of our democracy? Perhaps something that looks like what you might get if you fed the destruction of democracy into an ai meme generator. All right, Elon musk Okay, the richest and most fertile man in the world, went to Wisconsin, where he came out in a cheese hat before giving million dollar checks to voters in an effort to influence the Supreme Court

Their people.

Do not appropriate their dairy chapeause you can really get a sense of defraying of our democracy by tracing the arc of its symbolic headwear. It's still a tri corner, but it's not the same. Meanwhile, the process of streamlining our beautiful democracy continues apace, and a couple of months into Trump's second of his let's say four to seven terms, he continues to live up to his vaunted apprentice catchphrase, Ye faia.

More than thirteen hundred workers now fired at the Department of Education.

The IRS beginning to lay off more than six thousand employees.

The Social Security Administration will cut seven thousand jobs.

In the US Postal Service will Triman's workforce by ten thousand.

HHS will be dropping around twenty thousand workers.

The Department of Veterans Affairs looking to cut eighty thousand jobs.

In the administration's defense, those veterans shouldn't have been having affairs in the first time. That's that's on them, And by the way, do we need a department for that? The layoffs have been harsh, unpredictable, and needless to say, the mainstream media has been outraged.

So what's the endgame here?

Killing American jobs? They're risking hurting those hardworking Americans.

That bothers me.

You're playing with real people's money, real people's jobs, and real people's lives.

Rooting for Americans to lose jobs. I'm sorry, that's empathy for Tesla workers, apparently, Fox those are the only hard working Americans whose jobs matter. But the question is, with hundreds of thousands of civil servants being often haphazardly fired, is there any corner, no matter how small, of our current government that is safe from Musk's chainsaw of efficiency?

It's important to remember why this powerful action took place in the first place, because of Joe Biden's incompetence.

A complete opposite approach from the fecklessness of the Biden administration.

And contrast to Joe Biden.

Did something that the Biden administration did not do.

Did the job that Joe Biden wouldn't do. We take out people that the Biden team never could get it. What did you do this week at work?

Number one?

I repaired the damage done.

By Joe Biden. How could I.

Be up now at my job considering got bad Joe Biden up before? It's not possible. You need to be in your job to repair his damage. You were at the Hooters because Joe Biden wouldn't or couldn't rage eat that many wins. All right now, you might be thinking, these Dose guys are slicker than that. They're not just gonna fall for blaming Biden. That's why we hired you. You're sharp. It's not your only move.

If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was at Hillary Clinton's home that she was trying to bleach bit.

Hillary Clinton's bit bleaching Who amongst us hasn't tried to bleach our own bits? I think obviously I'm referring to Anus's. So what are we talking about? Biden doesn't work? Throw a slash, he'll oh, all right, Number one, that's why you fill in. Blame Biden gets you eighty percent home. Hillary drives you the rest of the way in the trunk of her car shouting Benghazi. All right now. I know that's a bit of a big swing for your

I've understood from media reports, the Secretary of Defense has said the information was not classified.

Boom. By the way, nothing like the director of the CIA going read in the paper. The Secretary of Defense was the guy to blame. I don't get reports. I just read the New York Guys. I've never done yet. He's blaming the Secretary of Defense. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseeth, what do you say.

I'm wondering if you feel, as the leader of the Defense Department, you have any level of responsibility.

Thank you for the question. I'm responsible for ensuring that our department is prepared and ready to deter and defeat our enemies.

My biggest weakness. I'm glad you asked. I think it's that I rule too hard. I may be too awesome. Director of National Intelligence Telthy Gabbert, maybe you should have known if this was classified or who was on the text chain.

I defer to the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council.

Oh, the National Security Council has entered the chat. That's you, Mike Waltz. Do we have our say a blame census Jadie Vance.

Members of the administration, including my dear friend Mike, have taken responsibility for it.

That is the coldest my dear friend, Mike, I have ever heard anyway. Brutus you were saying about your your dear friend Caesar. Now President Trump, do you want to join the pylon? Mike Walls, I guess he said. He claimed responsibility. I would imagine had nothing to do with anyone else. It was Mike. I guess I don't know. I always thought it was Michael. Why asking me? I'm just an innocent passion by. I didn't see the accident, officer, but I got to tell you, it looks like classic

You know, Laura, I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

Normally that's a disqualifying position for this administration.

The go on.

But of all the people out there, somehow this guy who has lied about the president, and he's the one that somehow gets on somebody's contact and then gets sucked into this group.

It's not somebody's contact with your contact, and he wasn't sucked in by unseen gravitational forces. You added him to the fucking chat, which brings us to number two, number two on your dog list. What did you do this week?

I did a ton of stuff.

All of it was right until it was tricked by the lamestream media. Can I tell you something, It's very hard to write backwards. All right, you might save your job if you're a low level staffer, But what if you're in the department head and dog wants to know the five things that you did? How are you going to keep your job when it's your name on the bombs? Well, it's step three, confidently and definitively admit nothing. Thank you all for coming.

I've heard it was characterized nobody was texting war plans, and that's.

All I have to say about that.

Nobody's texting war plans because I know exactly what I'm doing and exactly what we're directing, And that's all I have to say about this. I noticed this morning, how came something that doesn't look like war plans? And as a matter of.

Fact, they even changed the title to attack.

Plans because they know it's not war plans.

Yet it We didn't endanger troops in a war plan. We endangered them in an attack plan. Who's the asshole that you know? He must be so upset that every time he lands, everywhere he goes the reporters keep finding him at every stop. He's probably like, shit, did I mistakenly add you guys to my travel group chat number three? What did I do? I would tell you, but your pride you're stupid to understand.

But it was awesome.

I'm awesome.

That's number pot. So now.

We got two more to go, right, four and five, sixty percent of your work reach is done. We're past hump day and cruising the TGIF and that sweet government cheese continues to roll in. Maybe by day four it's time you stop justifying your actions to DOGE and start celebrating your actions.

And at the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success.

What we should be talking about is it was a very a successful mission.

The real story here is the overwhelming success of President Trump's decisive military action against houthy terrorists.

The last place I would want to be right now is a Houthi in Yemen.

Not to be that grammar guy, but a Houthi is not a place you can't. But the point is, for number four on the list, if they're not buying one through three, what did you do this week at the Department of Agriculture? I bomb the shit out of the houthis that's now. Obviously these strategies may lead to some of your superiors saying things like, so, just bombing the hoo thie stops the whole problem, because I think we've been bombing Yemen for decades. Do we have a follow

We're bringing honor and integrity and accountability back throughout our government.

We're going to bring transparency and accountability back to our government.

You know the old statement the bucksteps here, right, famous statement. Well, I can say the same thing, the bucksteps here. Boom, that old Harry Truman chestnut. This is President Trump living those accountability values. Here he is. When he was first asked about the signal chat incident, I know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what I'm sorry, there's a buck now? What sounds just starting with the accountability and

You have to speak to the lawyers.

Or how about the Justice Department's bizarre decision to pause its case against Eric Adams if you promise to cooperate on immigration I.

Know nothing about it.

Well, okay, but those are just his central policies. Surely the buck literally stops with Trump. With the launch of Trump's own crypto coin, I don't know much about it other than I launched it. I don't know much about it other than I launched it President of the United States. I don't know much about it except I launched it. Crypto coin, nuclear missiles, I don't know much about it. I just launched them. Hey, mister President, did you take this? Yeah? What should I do with it?

You launch it?

You start to wonder does the buck stop anywhere with this? Dude?

I don't know when it was signed because I didn't sign and other people handled it.

But I don't know. You'll have to ask them. I don't know what it is though. I don't know what it is. I heard about it at the same time. Maybe you heard about it. I don't know anything about it. Uh, I don't know the situation. I know nothing about Wiki leaks.

It's not my thing. I don't know her. I never met her.

I have no idea who she is. No, I don't take a responsibility at all.

I had nothing to do with that.

January six January sixth is like your whole brand. I mean, like the hawk to a girl going actually, I only do hand stuff. Now, you're grossed out so many things that Trump seemingly has no involvement in. Is it possible he's been severed? Is that what all the choreography and merriment is about. Now, Maybe you're saying, hey man, it's pushing eighty. Maybe it's not a matter of trying to shark responsibility. Maybe he legitimately cannot remember any of this shit.

Now, I have a good memory and all that stuff, like a great memory.

Can I have a great memory?

One of the great memories of all time?

Oh?

Well, then the only other thought here is that the I don't know, I don't remember is a cynical strategy to avoid the buck stopping anywhere near you and evading accountability at all costs. If only there was one clip that answered that question definitively.

Did I say have a great memory or one of the best of the world.

One of the best of the worlds. What the report, I don't remember that.

When we come back on past, don't go away? What about the shop?

Yes tonight.

He is the chief economist an American Compass. It's an economic policy think that. He writes the newsletter Understanding America. He's the author of the fourth company book, The New Conservatives. Please not go to the program or in caste marks shollow them around.

Thank you for joining us, Thank you for having me.

I wanted to have you on. I want to tell you I really do enjoy your writing. I follow the I don't know what they're called now, substack, blog, substack, and I read your books. I always find them. I don't necessarily maybe agree with all of it, but I always find it really interesting in really good faith. This is this idea of the new right on the economy. Can you explain what's the deviation from previous orthanoxy and sort of what that entails.

Sure, I think the best way to understand it is that, you know, we went through a period of thirty or forty years where conservatives just had way too much faith in market. Just trust that you get out of the way and you're going to get great outcomes, and markets can give you great outcomes, but they don't guarantee great outcomes. And so conservatives have been seeing it, especially over the last decade, a lot of the things we care about,

Now when you say this at the meeting with the other conservative economists, did they go.

Leave us like?

It? Really seems like that is fundamental heresy on You know, I've listened for years. The reason we can't do sort of social engineering or social policy or redistribution of wealth is the government's not in the business of picking winners and losers. That is now off. The new right is saying, actually we do.

Yeah, I think that's right.

The new Writer's saying, actually, there are some things we really want to see when and that's what politics is. What would politics be if you just pretended you sort of didn't care about anything. You'd sort of have a lot of the very uninspiring Republican politics of the last few decades.

I would say, Now.

You started, though, you worked with Mitt Romney, who was considered the avatar of that. Was he open to this idea? Where did it start to find traction for you, that a more activist government, this sort of idea of economic policy as kind of social engineering. When did it start to gain traction?

I mean, for me, it actually started working with then Governor Romney. Like you said, he was conventional in a lot of ways. One of the issues I was responsible for with him was trade policy, and we brought him the very typical here's what Republicans say about trade briefing said, well, that's fine, but what are we gonna do about China?

And to your point about all the other.

Conservative economists in the room, they were, what are you talking about? We don't do anything about China. If China wants to send us cheap stuff, we say thank you very much.

In the meeting, what does it sound like when the monocles fall out of the eyes? It does it? Does it clink? It just feels like one of those like like there is great, the gas.

The gaps are can be disturbing. Yes, there's to your point, there's a lot of religious fervor, frankly on what I would call the old right about some of these ideas.

And when someone says something very common sense like.

Well, wait a minute, maybe you know an authoritarian communist government that's trying to hollow out American manufacturing, Like maybe that's not really free market, right, I was saying. I was like, wow, that's that's a really important point. And I was the one to sign to sign and go off and try to figure it out. And what I discovered was that on the right of center, really going back to the mid nineteen eighties, there had just been no thinking about this.

There had been a protecting that manufacturing base or our industrial center. And then I think in COVID you saw everyone kind of paused and went, oh, we don't have supply lines to make paper masks, like we don't have anything. Was that where you saw it really get a foothold.

I think, you know, I think on the right of center it was the China problem was active even before COVID, because I think, you know, one thing, and it's important to say, this is a fairly recent conservative phenomenon if you go back in the history of conservatism, even if you look at Ronald Reagan himself, Reagan was a trade protectionist. He basically started a trade war with Japan because he did care about these things.

This was in the days of Japanese car makers were making cars that were cheap or people were preferring him. They were dominating the market in America.

And Reagan negotiated in an outright quota that Japan not even a terrify. Japan will not increase the number of cars it sends into America. And that's why we now have the American auto industry in the South. Honda and Toyota make American cars. Essentially because somebody like Reagan was willing to recognize trade is good if it's if it's fair and balanced.

But I've amazing things about whether or not that five years later, it actually gave too much leverage to these Japanese countries and they got to drive very hard bargains for American labor in the South. For instance, they didn't build them in Michigan, they didn't build them where union labor was. They built them. They undercut union labor in some respects.

They did choose to go to states with non union labor. The way that the unions were behaving at the time was one of the reasons that US automakers were falling behind. That level of inflexibility was a real challenge, and that's also something that you saw Reagan really take on in confront So, you know, I don't think there are a lot of people in the American South today who would say, boo, we you.

Know, we wish the anout of sure to come.

It was an enormous gain and the investments have led to much higher productivity over time. So I think that's that's the story of what we want to see more of and.

Bringing that back and giving the country a resilience that losing that base actually cost us. And this brings us to Liberation Day, which is April second April second April, second market down, Liberation Day. The Trump tariffs, we don't know what they are, but we know they'll work and that we will live on Mars and what eight weeks. I don't know what's going to happen. Do you know what's going to happen on Liberation Day?

I don't know what's going to happen.

And I think that there has, you know, rightly been at this point a lot of criticism that the way that the Trump administration has been rolling a lot of this out is just leaving too many questions that if you want to do this right, you need certainty and predictability, clear communication, all.

Core values of Trump administer fair, fair point.

One of the interesting things about the Trump administration is that the team he has around him this time on the economics side. So Secretary of State Rubios said to the Treasury Scott Besson, his chief economic advisor, the US Trade Representative, He's really surrounded himself, I think with a quite strong team that thinks consistently about this. And so you know, that's something that that.

Does he ever like ask them or that is.

A fair question.

And that's what I think everybody's waiting to see is can we sort of get this moving in the right direction, because it is important to say that that the direction is important here that right. You know, really for twenty five years, going back to when we let China to the WTO, we have pursued this model that says more free trade always regardless of what happens to American workers, regardless of what happens to American industry. We just want the cheap stuff, and that has been really damaging.

You know, in some respects though we regard I think we're putting a certain motive on China when in fact, like these were corporations seeking the lowest water of wages and what they could pay people. And certainly labor can't travel the way that capital does. So you know, I guess the idea is we levy these tariffs and then these corporations that had been seeking this will all go, oh Okay, it's not worth our while anymore, and they'll

Yes, The idea is that corporations are going to respond to incentives, and you go, you know, all the way back to Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations and the idea of capitalism. You want people pursuing profit to do that in a way that is also good for the society. Where I think a lot of economists and this is left end, right of center, got it wrong was to think.

That's just always the case.

As long as they're pursuing profit, it's going to be good, and it's only going to be good if it's within certain constraints, if the things that are most profitable actually are things that are good for.

The country, and the government decides sort of what those constraints are, so they put guardrails around them. I guess the question I have is tariffs feel somewhat I don't want to say whimsical in the sense of oh, he you know, dances downstairs into two two and says twenty five percent on whiskey, like. But they are executive actions, and if you're a business making a I assume their

I think that's a very fair concern, and ideally it would be done through legislation. I think one of the things that's very encouraging is to see that we are increasingly now seeing a new bipartisan consensus that we do want to change.

I'm sorry, I don't know that phrase was it started.

When it started when President Joe Biden essentially kept all of Trump's trade actions, everything that Trump did on China, Biden kept and then even extended some But wouldn't like.

The Chips Act, Right, wouldn't that be another way of incentivizing without setting up barriers that might be more unpredictable or might be flimsy or depending on the whim of an executive. Why don't they embrace that in the same way. Doesn't that add to getting the outcome you want, incentivizing bringing those jobs back. Why is that unpopular on the right.

Well, it's only unpopular with some on the right. And I think it goes to where we started, which is this historical concern with the idea of sort of picking winners and losers at all, and a lot of concern that, you know, what's going to happen if government actually gets involved in giving particular benefits to particular companies. That being said, the Chips Act was bipartisan. I think there were maybe

Would you rather see it through that kind of industrial posit or through or is it a real balancing of all those various levers.

I think you have to do both, because if you only do the CHIPSAC kind of thing, chips acs is great if you've got one thing that's really important.

Almost everyone agrees you know.

Steel and you know well, so this becomes question, now, right, do we really want Congress now going through and saying, oh, well, now we need one for steel, Well, do we know them from aluminum?

Maybe? Well, do we need one for cars? Do we need one for airplanes?

On?

You know, that's both cumbersome and something that's very difficult to do well politically, Whereas one of what I think actually the benefits of tariffs is that they are quite blunt. Right, the tariff is sort of, if done well, a much

Then did it surprise you Because we talk about China as being sort of this ascended economic power, And by the way, it's not just the manufacturing base of America that has been heard by that all the countries near China can't compete, you know, all around there Indonesia, you know they're struggling with a very similar thing. But then why go after Canada? Like what do you know what I mean? Like it just it all seems so weirdly vindictive. And then you're like, and then we're going to take

I guess it's a fair concern.

I think there's some truth to it that's not all bad when you talk about this new world order idea, which is that the United States has been sort of championing this liberal world order where we have essentially taken it upon ourselves to frankly absorb a lot of costs from other people. So in the trade world, it's not just China, it's also Germany and Japan and Korea. We are absorbing their production. They get the job done.

You think we're buying influence, I would say so. The Trump view is they're abusing US and using US. I think the view I have is America wants to tell them what to do, and so by leveraging our military, might we have sway.

But do we what do we? What have we successfully told Japan or Germany to do?

Uh? I mean in general? Yeah, in the later Hosen, I think they've got down on it.

It's it's it's no, no, no, no. This is this is a serious point. I appreciate the joke.

But but but this is I guess.

But there's a reason you couldn't answer the question, and this is.

I don't know what we'd want them to do because I feel like.

We don't want them to do anything. Then what are we maintaining the leverage.

For, because well, the leverage is on when we want to go into a rock. I guess what I'm saying is what we want them to do? That was great, Listen, I'm not saying it was right. But you have a guy like Jade Vance goes to Greenland and shits on Denmark, like Denmark lost as many people per capita in those wars as we did. Like they talk about you know, Denmark's not defending Greenland enough like and and we'll do it but aren't we doing it already like they're in NATO.

Frankly, I don't put a lot of creaties.

I don't.

By the way, it's also in No, No.

No, I would pick up.

The fun applause line that like, oh, the Germans will just become Nazis again, Like that's a weird racist critique of Germans.

I don't see any reason to believe that.

Let's let's be honest, it is let's look at the actual Germany seats. On what basis are you saying this is like something about Germany that we can't I think.

It's there is an element within their society that they've deemed this is not me saying Germans will do that. This is Germany. This is I didn't say they'll become that. The leaders of Germany are fearful that they have this.

I don't think they are.

I think leaders of Germany really enjoy spending virtually nothing on their military, while the United States spends roughly four percent of GDP on ours, as we have been doing for decades with other countries.

You think they're they're like freeloading on our on our military.

There's no question they're freeloading on our military.

You can say you like that they're freeloading on our military, but I don't think there's any dispute that that's what they're doing.

I guess I don't understand the idea that they're freeloading and we want each nation state to build up their military to the point because to me, that makes it more likely if you build something like that, it's more likely you'll use it. Now that seems to be backed by general history. When people re arm, they tend to do it and use it. But I think the idea that Europe needs to like I guess what I'm saying is this is a fine adjustment that's being made with a sledgehammer, if that makes sense.

I think that's a very fair point. I think where we started.

On I was dying of will.

I will all concede that one to you.

Just yes, my five year old gets one point pain on every.

See, I'll take that.

Look.

The new world order point that we started with, I think is very important here because with the Trump administration, and I think this is certainly Trump's view.

JD.

Fans has spoken about this, Marco Rubio has spoken about this. Their view is that this world order we try to establish in which the US does take on these burdens, and in your view, we benefit from taking on those burdens.

I think it's a mixed bag. I would not say it's it's purely benefit. I think what we do spend on defense is kind of insane, and to have eight hundred and fifty military basis to project power across the world, I wholeheartedly agree with that. I think unleashing those forces through vindictiveness and like blaming them for victimizing US is not the methodology. Like everything else, like Doge's I always

Oh I was doing.

When I let me tell you some when I come on your studio show, I realized that's difficult to hang. That's it's not so fair. I didn't.

Yeah, you know what I mean them and everything.

Yeah, but but talk about that a little bit.

Yeah.

So, first of all, I think you're absolutely right that the US did construct this system, and I think if that doesn't mean that the US should not learn lessons, that doesn't mean that conditions don't change. But I do think it absolutely creates an obligation for us to be thoughtful in how we proceed, and I think it's a fair critique if we're not being thoughtful in how we proceed.

That felt like a very different answer than Germany and Japan freeload on us.

And you know that's also true, all right?

Would you you know, do you think what do you think is going to happen? Or do you worry about the instability of not easing this transition? But is this a and look, I've read the whole like mar A Lago accord, and I don't know if that's a conspiracy. Is the idea that there's some master plan of we create this chaos, we cause all this thing to draw people to marrow Lago where they renegotiate our nation's debt. Is that something that you think is plausible? Or is

So let me say two things about it.

The first is, I think a lot of the critiques of how it's being done are very fair, and I think it's important to distinguish that from the discussion of the principles, because I think the principles are important and we should want to have the right set of principles and not throw them out. If just because they're not

Them to be.

What I think we should want, and what, like I said, folks in the administration like a Marco Rubio or a Scott Bessen, who I think do write and speak thoughtfully about it, have pointed toward is the idea that we absolutely want a strong economic and security alliance. It's not going to be the whole world, because China is going to have its own sphere as well. But what we want to have within our sphere is a few things that in the past the US didn't necessarily ask for.

No NATO, no alliance like that.

No, no, you can absolutely have an alliance like that, but the alliance is premised on if you are Germany, you are on the front lines of what the concerns in Europe are. If you are Japan, you are on the front lines of the concerns with China. It's not a matter of everyone simply turning and asking the US what

And so if you want to.

Yet, from where we are today to that kind of system, you are asking things of allies that they haven't been asked before. And so the question is, how do you make that a credible ask? Because I think it's fair. I don't think that those are unreasonable things to ask, but you are going to have to be willing to back that up and say, the old world, the old version is gone. Let's talk about what the new version could look like.

And I think do you think they prematurely blew up the old version or you just you really felt like it just wasn't it wasn't functioning in that way anymore.

I think the old version has I think the old version has been gone for a while at this point. That in the economic sphere, the idea of that sort of era of cheap goods, the air of cheap goods, the era of the US being able to simply sort of exert its military will on the world, the air of the US economy is being so much stronger than others that we could afford to absorb everybody else's production.

Think, no question. And this is where so it sometimes gets listened. People have differing viewpoints and it can get confusing and trying to But here's where I think there can be great agreement working people making living wages. And I think that would be very surprising for someone on the center right to sort of agree with maybe the more progressive wing of the Democrats. But that is absolutely

Well, I think we're moving in that direction, right, you know. I think it is a process of transition when a party reorients, term realignment gets used a lot. We're increasingly seeing working people coming into the Republican Party. We're seeing Republican leaders, folks like Marco Rubio jd Vance increasingly I think, speak credibly and seriously to some of their concerns. We're

You're talking about the junior senators, Mitch.

Mitch McConnell is unlikely to you know, suddenly adopt all of this.

But if you look at count them out, I'm going to go one hundred and ten, he's going to be ready.

You have more faith than I do.

When you look at younger Republicans, both folks coming into the Senate. So I mentioned Rubio, advanced folks like Jim Banks from Indiana, Bernie Moreno from Ohio, all of them are more focused.

On these kinds of issues.

And then when you look behind that at the sorts of people I work with, the policy wonks, researchers, writers, journalists, lawyers, folks sort of forty and under, are overwhelmingly oriented in

So socialism essentially, So I appreciate it. One final question and then I'll let you go because I know the final question is this. Are you concerned if they realign the trade? Look, corporations are as you said, they're profits seeking and that's how they go. Are you afraid that the globalization movement where they saw the lowest form of

I'm not too concerned about that because that has always been a feature of American political economy. We've always had that sort of competition.

We can handle that disagreement, we can and.

I think that's the best way to think about more protection of the American market. There's been this idea for so long that free trade and free markets are sort of synonymous. If you like free markets, you want more free trade. But free trade with China does not advance free markets. It takes everything authoritarian and communist in China and imports it. Now your companies have to compete with that. And then now you need more safety net programs to

So many people, like so many of the people that use those subsidies are actually working people. They're not. This isn't one of those like lazy people sitting on the couch coasting on the government. I'm like working people with one, sometimes two jobs that still have to subsidize it because they're just not paid enough. And it's it's very very sitting up. But this is listen, the book, the one the ones in Future Worker. This is your old book. What's the new one called.

It's called the New Conservatives.

It's a summary of what we've been doing at the last for the last five years at American Compass, developing this the Conserved Economics of the New Right, and it will be out at the beginning of and when you go.

Back to them and you tell them, how was it, You'll say, like Stewart was right about at least one.

I'm gonna tell because I called John Stewart a racist, I'm not sure that I was smart.

It's all good, the new Conservatives, and I'm a substabs or anything.

You've already the act. We'll about this that want I got something the mic and tell the go I'm gonna check it with.

Your hooks for the rest of the week. Michael Cotton and Michael, what do you got for.

John?

You know, these Trump tariffs could tank the market this week, which is why you and you all need to diversify your portfolios. Okay, for example, I have bitcoin, but I also have NFTs crypto and meme coin. I am the pinnacle of diversity financially speaking, chump.

So again, I think those are all digital. I think everything you mentioned was digital. Do you have you know, like a stocks and bonds and savings and it's not the nineties?

Okay, cash all that garbage out and put it into crypto. Your money needs to be in safe assets like Sheiba, Bucks, Snaggle, jazz loin coin, growin coin, Tickle, Nichols and John the often overlooked logan Paul presents.

I can't believe it's not money, trust me, John.

If your life savings aren't in jizz pump, you're gonna feel pretty silly.

Thank you. Michael Costa put it on in jis pump. Michael Costa, Ladies, what's something that people wouldn't know about the President? You're pretty close to him now, you spend a lot of time with them. What's something that people wouldn't know? I think the President is a good man.

I think he is an honest man, and I've yet to see him do anything mean or anything that is wrong that I would say Marley wrong, not even once.

Explore more shows from the Daily Show podcast universe by searching.

The Daily Show wherever you get your podcasts. Watch The Daily Show week nights at eleven.

Ten Central on Comedy Central, and streamful episodes any time.

I'm on Paramount plus Paramount Podcasts mm HM